Morning, Darryl. Hey, Mike. How are you? I'm well. How are you? Very good. Thanks for joining us, Darryl. Maybe just to start with just sort of your high-level sort of outlook on some of the macroeconomic headwinds, and it seems that it's been a very volatile period for all the banks, and how are you feeling right now in terms of your outlook? Yeah, on the macro overall? Yeah. Look, I think we're at a really interesting place on the macro, Mike. And I've spent time with some shareholders and one-on-ones having this conversation this morning. And I think I probably have one of the unique positions to do a little bit of a juxtaposition for you. And 40% of our banks in the United States and 50% or so is here in Canada. And I think that, yeah, there have been headwinds in both places. But I talked about this a little bit on the call that we had last week. I actually think my uncertainty meter, as I've come to call it, is actually improving in a pretty meaningful way in the United States. If you think about it, setting aside the 24/7 news cycle, if you actually just kind of get down to the facts and you consider where we were six or eight months ago and the number of uncertainties, including all the trade balls that were in the air, and while I accept the fact that we haven't caught all those balls yet, we have a better idea than we did then where they're landing. If you look at the tax policy in particular under the big, beautiful bill, there was a lot of uncertainty as to whether it was going to pass, and even if it did pass, what was going to be in it? Well, now we know all that. If you're one of our clients in the United States, you know what your tax rate is, you know what your accelerated depreciation is, and you have a better idea of where trade balls are falling, and so you kind of get on with things, and you kind of get on with life, so we're seeing a bit of a resurgence in the U.S. and the pickup. In Canada, I think there's a lag in Canada in the sense that if you use, again, that uncertainty meter, I think we have less uncertainty than we did if I go back that far six or eight months ago. We didn't know who our government was going to be, and if it was going to be a Liberal government, we didn't even know who the leader was going to be, and so we do know those things now. We have some indication of the policy direction. But we don't have a full understanding yet as to whether we're going to preserve USMCA. I think the probability is that we do. But I can't put a high probability on that because you don't know. And it depends on a lot of things. And that's really, really important to do. And then on fiscal policy, supporting business growth investments, supporting, most important of all, attracting international and domestic investment in the Canadian economy to take advantage of this moment. Lots of good narrative. But we haven't yet seen the term sheet in order to get the action. I think what we're seeing in Canada as a consequence of that is just a little bit of a pause, which is a natural thing to do. You might think interest rates are coming down, so I'll wait to buy the house. Or you might think I'm running a portfolio as a corporate treasurer who I got to think about whether today is the day to push go on the capital formation button or whether I just wait another quarter or so. I think as those uncertainties clear up in Canada, we'll then see the pickup that we're now seeing in the U.S. But I think there's a bit of a lag. Okay, thank you for that. So it sort of dovetails into the ROE question. Obviously, the PCL environment was challenging for BMO and the industry more broadly. It tends to be volatile from quarter to quarter. Things have gotten a lot better there. Your outlook seems to be better than it was a quarter ago, which I'm guessing gives you more confidence in your ROE trajectory at the all-bank level. Maybe just remind investors the pathway of getting to that 15% level. And obviously, there's still more room to go. But you've made some strides. Yeah, I'll tell you why I have a lot of confidence, Mike. And in order to do that, you kind of have to go back to the end of the fourth quarter last year, which was a bit of a seminal moment for us when we looked at our full-year performance and we said the credit outcome isn't what we wanted it to be and a couple of other smaller things. But in general, it all laddered up to an ROE for the year, which was 9.8%. We called it out. We said it's unacceptable. The target is going to be 15%. We reiterated that target. But we also came forward and said it's the number one imperative in the bank. And we know exactly how we're going to hold ourselves accountable against four key metrics. I think the best way to answer your question is actually just give you an update on where we are on the four key metrics so you can understand why we've got confidence, and so number one was the U.S. P&C business improvement, number two was the credit that you referred to at the total bank level, number three was the operating leverage that we have to drive and committed to drive at the total bank, and number four was capital allocation, so my update for shareholders after three quarters is that on U.S. P&C, we've seen really nice returns and a pickup in that business. We've got 6% PPPT growth in U.S. P&C year to date. We've got 3.2% operating leverage in the ROE, which in that business on that day when I pinned it and called the shot, we were below 7% on the ROE. In the quarter we showed you last week, we're at 8.7%. We've made quite a bit of progress on lever 1. Lever 2, when we look at total bank credit, we were at 66 basis points on the impaired credit. We told the world that we thought that was the high point. And we walked down from 66 to 50 to 46 to 45. And we're sitting at 45 today on the impaired credit. That's real value between 66 and 45, by the way. That's $ 300 million of P&L in quarter. And so that's really important on lever number 2. Lever number 3, all bank operating leverage, we're at 4.7% year to date relative to the peer set. That's relatively distinguished. Teams are doing a really good job. Positive PPPT growth across all lines of business. And then number 4 on capital allocation, you've seen some decisions that we've made. We exited a card portfolio that was single serve and low value on the ROE in the U.S. We had a normal course issuer bid, which executed 16 million shares bought back. We announced last week and were approved last night on a new program for another 30 million shares that would bring it to 46 million by this time last year this time next year, pardon me. And so that capital allocation work is going on off of a 13.5% CET1 ratio. So tons of capital to execute as we go forward. So we've done that. We're nowhere near end of job. But point to point, 9.8% ROE for 2024 was 12% in our quarter announced last week. So that's 220 basis points of improvement in only three quarters with 300 basis points to go. But the momentum we've got there doesn't consider some of the other changes that we've made, including reorganization and business strategy. I'm pretty encouraged that we'll get there. And we called our shot. And we tend to make it when we call it. Got it. Maybe on the credit, you might hate this question. I know sometimes you've gotten this question before on the calls. Given the headwinds that you saw on the credit side, did it change how you operate? Oh, I don't hate this question. You don't hate this question? OK, perfect. No, I don't hate this question. Maybe it's an opportunity to sort of remind investors why nothing changes, that it was, in fact, a blip. It's in the past. And it doesn't really impact either your ability to grow the commercial loan book, particularly in the U.S. That's where the question usually emanates from. And why you're still excited about your long-term growth. Yeah, sure. So if you look at our credit, we've talked for decades, actually, about superior credit management. If you look at our track record, there's a slide in our investor deck that showed you literally decades of superior credit performance. There's only two exceptions to that. One was in the global financial crisis, and one was last year. I think we've got a pretty good track record that over the course of time, it's very, very infrequent that our credit is anything but outperforming, and last year, we spent a lot of time with investors on this. We've got tens of thousands of commercial wholesale credits, both in Canada and the U.S., and we had a very small number of them that ended up being regretful underwritings that we did three or four or five years prior to that. A lot of work was done to come to that conclusion. The analytics behind that conclusion were clear. We used that analytic to say at the end of the fourth quarter, we feel very confident that we've got an isolated issue. It's not a forest fire. It's a small brush fire that we contained. And the evidence over the last three quarters is proven. And if you see the deceleration when I talk about 66 down to 45, we've got an even faster deceleration on that curve in our U.S. business in particular. And so the outcomes today are what we thought that it would be when we contained the issue. But we didn't have to make wholesale changes across tens of thousands of credits in order to contain the issue. We feel pretty good about where we are. OK. Thanks for that. Maybe moving on to some of the business lines, starting with the U.S., just with the new leadership, so Aron Levine coming in and running the business. Are there any changes that investors should expect to see? I think, Mike, the most important change investors should focus on is the fact that we made the decision to actually change our go-to-market structure to accelerate the strategy on the ROE rebuild in the U.S. So it's wonderful that we've taken it from sub-7% to 8.7%. But we've got to take it from 8.7% to 12%. And so I want the U.S. business to deliver for you 12% so that the total bank can deliver 15% or more. When you look at the way we had organized the bank for 10 or 15 years, I think right thing, right time, all of the business lines at our bank were organized under the leadership of someone who would have a North American mandate. So if you ran commercial, whether you sat in the U.S. or Canada, you ran North America. If you ran personal, North America, wealth, and so on. And we came to the point of view that that was the right strategy at the time. When you have a smaller bank in the United States, if you have $100 billion of assets, $200 billion of assets, how do you synergize that? You take the synergies where you can get them, in our case, North America. We got a lot of them. And we're going to keep them. TPS, as an example, we run North-South Rails. The lending platform for commercial is the same in Canada as it is in the U.S. Things as you might think mundane. But I can tell you they're strategic. And they keep you in good shape, like the compliance regime and the regulatory regime. We have a North American matrix on that. We preserve that technology on it goes. But what we were missing in the meantime was the strategy as you go to market on the customer and the demand imperative in the U.S. itself. If you imagine those decisions are being made in four silos as opposed to an integrated in-country management system that says, you are a personal banker. You want to do business in this geography. We're not going to do that unless we're doing it with commercial and we're doing it with wealth. We're doing it all together. And early returns are good. I want to caution people that we have this change effect on the 7th of July. So none of the benefits of this are in any of our numbers. But I can also tell you there are early returns. Balance sheet optimization, one client imperative, choice on geography, choice on capital allocation across those lines of business. We're all grown up now. We have a bank in the U.S. that has almost $500 billion of assets in our U.S. segment. And that's top 10 in the country relative to the other banks. This is the way to go to market and to take advantage of not just improving U.S. real estate credit outcomes. This isn't about credit outcomes. This is about taking advantage of your ability to take share and grow the revenue line and the capital allocation more efficiently in country and preserve the synergies that we've got in ourselves so we can get the best of both worlds. That was the reason for the change. You asked about Aron. Aron was the choice of the person. And he's going to work with Darrel Hackett and our management team to operationalize against that imperative across those three lines of business. We're delighted to have him on board. OK, awesome. You sort of touched on my next question, which was around the connectivity, U.S. P&C, wealth, capital markets. How does that sort of all tie in from your perspective? And where do you see opportunities on that client outreach and deeper relationships and doing more for the same client? I think that I ground the answer to this question, Mike, in where is our power alley in the United States? I mean, I think you all understand our various power alleys in Canada for us and the other banks that come up here. In the United States for BMO, for 40 years, we've effectively been building business strategies around business owners. So if you look at our commercial business, for example, which is one of the largest on the continent, the vast, vast, vast majority of those relationships are sole or lead relationships with who? With the business owner, private businesses for the most part. And so you can see under the new structure that I described to you, the connectivity that you're referring to in your question across from the wealth management offering, where our wealth management offering was doing a good job, but probably not integrated enough because of the structural point I made earlier. Yet within it, it's got the full range from mass to affluent to high net worth to ultra high net worth to family office, business owner. Capital markets, there are a whole bunch of those credits in the commercial book that have a need for a foreign exchange or a derivative or maybe some help on advisory. The capital markets can come in. And even consumer, we've got a Bank at Work program that works really well. I think we're, even though we've been talking about it for a long time, I don't think we had the right structure to enable it. I think today we do. And I think therefore, we're just scratching the surface on the opportunity on the connectivity. We wake up to this connectivity every day in Canada. All the banks do because you're in every single community on every street corner. You have to be more deliberate about it when you're competing in the U.S. And that's what we're doing now. And we think we'll be able to lean in. And And we'll be able to show really good growth through that. OK, one more follow-up on the U.S. Just want to talk a little bit about Bank of the West, that deal. Obviously, very big transformational deal for BMO. Now that you look at the U.S. market, has anything changed versus when you purchased Bank of the West? From a competitive perspective, has it become more competitive? I know you were excited about, probably still are excited about the California market, which has a GDP bigger than Canada's. A lot of opportunity there. Maybe talk about the dynamics of the competitive environment. If anything has, in fact, changed post-COVID and pre-COVID? Net net, like a lot of things have changed, but net not much. You know what I mean? Like if you kind of go to after we bought Bank of the West, six weeks later, Silicon Valley Bank happened. And then First Republic happened. And you kind of had that disruption in the marketplace, which short term was disruptive for us. But longer term is good because we've been able to kind of slowly creep in and take market share and adjust pricing well accordingly. You've got movement in terms of G-SIBs who have asset caps, G-SIBs who don't have asset caps. And we get asked these questions all the time. But when you kind of net it all out, it's the biggest economy in the world. If California were its own country, it would be the fourth largest economy in the world. It's bigger than France. It's got 70% more GDP than Canada. That says something about Canada, by the way, because of the same population. The competitive environment has always been such. What you've seen over time in the United States is the top 25 banks over the last 10 years have pretty gradually taken share. They've taken share from about 4,000 banks that aren't in the top 25. You want to start with the premise that it's good to be in that top 25. It's even better to be in the top 10 where we are. Then I layer on the way we're enforcing the strategic decisions that we're making now on a more integrated basis. I like our chances. Things come in, things come out. Super competitive always has been super competitive. Net net, we'll just continue to press ahead against that competitive set. I like our chances today better than I ever have, frankly. OK, and then maybe switching over to Canada and staying on that theme of the competitive landscape, how do you see Canada sort of evolving going forward? It's fair to say it's less competitive than the U.S. You know I don't want to pick on you. You're the host. There isn't a bank that's going to come up on the stage that's not really competitive. They're all really competitive. There are a whole bunch of providers outside the core bank ecosystem that are very competitive. I think we do a hell of a job keeping each other honest. I can speak to our agenda within that. I get asked questions all the time about the reorganization and its implications for the U.S. It also has really positive implications for Canada because I've got now really, really focused business leaders in Canada who have Canada as their strategic imperative and have Canada as their competitive imperative. Competing with all the other players isn't easy. They've done a really good job. If I look at my P&C performance in Canada, it's stacked up really well year to date. I look at the consumer side of the business. We're in net customer acquisition mode. Our benchmarking shows that we're top tier in net acquisition, top tier in net attrition, therefore top tier in net customer growth. We're really focusing on retail operating deposits, mutual funds, home financing. Those we think are our power allies for growth going forward on the consumer side. And then on the commercial side, you guys know our story. I mean, we're the number two commercial lender in that space of the $1 million-$100 million. And we're going to defend that. And we defend that every day. That, again, is our strength in business owners. And that's a really good business for us. If I was on the stage three or four years ago and said to your predecessor, "We've got a position in that business that will defend the number two market share on the lending book." But we had opportunity in the deposit side of that equation given our focus and our strategies. I'll bring that comment forward to you today. Over the last three years, if you look at the CAGR on our deposit growth in Canada and commercial, third-party data shows that we've grown faster than anybody. And so the balancing of that book now is even better. I think that sets us up for some really good returns going forward. And I haven't talked about wealth. Wealth is our highest return business. It's got a higher ROE than many of our competitors. And it's smaller than I'd like it to be because we've got a little bit of an underweight position there. So we're going to invest in wealth in particular. And you saw that through the acquisition we announced for Burgundy, which should close later this year. And we'll continue to think about ways to invest in that business. I may be, for the time being, hopefully a short period of time, Mike, a little less bullish on the macro in Canada. But I'm really bullish on our competitive positioning in Canada. You mentioned the lag with the U.S. So you would expect Canada to sort of catch up at some point. I don't know, six months, something like that. What about the cost side in Canada? We hear banks talk a lot about optimization of the branch network. I'm guessing that you're also actively doing that. You mentioned that. You've talked about that in the past as well. Maybe just remind investors what your priorities are on whether it's branch count or not necessarily the number of branches, but how you're sort of looking to cut costs within your physical infrastructure? In consumer and retail banking? Retail banking. Yeah. So look, I think that the narrative has really changed. We've delivered positive operating leverage in all years, but one over the last six or seven years. We've got six consecutive quarters of operating leverage. That doesn't happen by accident. We've got very clearly defined strategies against revenues and costs. And in the retail banking in Canada, I don't think it's so much how do you think about getting cost out as it is how do you think about the most efficient channel delivery for the customer. And if you look at the digital side, we've had top tier digital acquisition. And we've anchored all that digital acquisition around our value proposition to the customer, which is to make Real Financial Progress. And that's really resonated with customers. So you get this maybe not unique, but rare combination where you can get top tier digital performance and really good branch performance, and these are validated, J.D. Power, all the rest of it. At the same time, the productivity in the branch and the digital acquisition strategies, that's how those flywheels start to turn, so 10 years ago, the knock on us would have been, well, you have the smaller branch network and digital isn't fully operationalized yet, so therefore, you're really disadvantaged in consumer banking in Canada, well, the world's changed, right? The equalizer has actually been the pace of the digital investment, and I think our teams have done it just about as well as anybody, and I'm proud of them for it. OK, awesome. Any comments on the mortgage business? I know that's always topical for investors, not from a direct loss perspective. I think people are comfortable with the risk side. But what about on the growth side? We've seen sales volumes come in relatively weak this entire spring-summer lending season. It hasn't really been the rebound that many were expecting. Yeah, I don't know why many were expecting otherwise because if you think about my comment earlier, we're sort of in this phase of people trying to figure out what their financial outlook is going to look like in three months, six months, nine months on a couple of fronts. Are we going to protect the trade agreement? Is my job safe? And by the way, everybody tells me the interest rate's coming down. So why would I step into the housing market today if I can wait three months or six months? So to me, it's actually a very natural market reaction to where we are on the macro inputs. And we're starting to see, actually, if you look at the very recent data, there's a little bit of a perk up in housing demand in Canada. I think we got a little bit of a ways to go. I think you kind of have to check off some of those uncertainties before people will lag back into the housing market in Canada. But I think that'll happen. I just don't know if it's, as I said before, I don't know if it's three months, six months, nine months. In the meantime, the business is really good. It's just not growing at the pace that you want it to. But you can imagine a day if you lag out further into 2026. I'm not promising this day, but you can imagine a day where we have lower interest rates. We've got an economic development growth plan in Canada that is attracting capital. And the GDP growth rate in Canada is not 1%, but rather 3%. And unemployment is not 7%, but it's 5%. That's pretty interesting, right? That's pretty interesting from a growth perspective for bank P&Ls. But you've got to wait to find out if those boxes are going to be checked by, I would say, end of this year in order to put that in your model for the middle of 2026. OK. Maybe switching over to capital markets. Your pre-tax, pre-provision guidance of $625 million, you sort of crushed that number the last three quarters. I think there is obviously an expectation that trading, which has been a big part of that. Thank you for using the word crush. I hope that shows up on word searches. It's certainly been a very, very good sort of setup for BMO as well as your peers. Just wondering, as that maybe moderates, perhaps volatility comes down in the market, we get a bit less client activity. How do you sort of look at that $625 million? Yeah, I'm not going to guide that number down, Mike. I think that $625 million was a number we set that we want to be consistently above through the cycle. It doesn't mean it's not going to be $ 1 below it in some quarter at some point. But in the main, I think we've invested well in that business. If I look at the Canadian outcomes, most measures we look at, league tables, we are very solidly positioned in the top three in almost every product every day. We have tough conversations when we're not, I can assure you. I ran that business, so I have some idea of what kind of questions to ask. And I am very pleased with the development of the I&CB business in the U.S. You saw a really good quarter from us in I&CB in the U.S. I go back to this positioning in the mid-market across from business owners, and the teams have started to do a really good job there, and the global markets business has been a really steady performer for us. We don't look to shoot the lights out in any particular quarter and take advantage of some aberration because we know nobody will give you anybody credit for that anyway, but if we can have a really consistent delivery above that $625 million level that you highlighted, the ROE in that business for us is 14%, which is as good as any of our peers, and that's a good outcome. I go into 2026, if the markets are constructive through 2026, should actually expect more from us than that, not less. How about on the advisory side in the U.S.? I think it's clear that BMO has been very focused on how it's invested in cap markets in the U.S., very sort of structured, not looking to be all things to everyone. If we do get an M&A rebound in the U.S., how are you sort of positioned for that? Or are you looking into more? We're positioned really well if there's a strong M&A rebound in the mid-market, in the core sectors where we are really, really deep in our knowledge base and our coverage. So think industrials, think food and consumer, think sort of mid-market America. We are really well placed. And it also goes back to that connectivity with the commercial bank as well in capital markets. Don't expect if an M&A boom is all around $25 billion technology mergers that we're going to play a large part in that. I mean, we may peck around the edges, but that's not our game. That's not where we play. But in that sort of mid-market, in those deals of those size, if we see an M&A surge, we're not going to let that market get away. We're going to be in it. What about the cross-border dynamic in terms of transactions? Has that been sort of still being impacted by the geopolitical? I think it is now, right? Given where we are on the uncertainty around USMCA, it's difficult for a business owner or a CEO to make a decision that they're going to double down on their investment one way or the other. You'll see some of that. But I think until we see clarity on USMCA, it would be a natural place for folks to be to say, OK, wait and see what my trade agreement is before I start buying on either side of the border very much. OK, thanks for that. Maybe switching over to capital. Obviously, BMO has been a very acquisitive bank over time, some sizable transactions in the past, and you've got a pretty good track record of making them work over time. Just given that we're now well past the closing of Bank of the West, are you starting to think about that now that your capital level is so strong and you're accreting capital quarter over quarter? Yeah. How do you sort of think about M&A from the perspective of whether it's size, business line, or geography? Any thoughts? Yeah, I guess I would say, Mike, you never turn off. You never turn off. A good management team should never turn off the M&A antenna because you need to know what's going on. You need to know where the flows are, and you need to make your decisions as to where you're going to play, but I did make this point before. I mean, there isn't much that goes on in the market in either country that we don't see. The really important thing is to be disciplined about you don't swing on every pitch, and some of those pitches are in the dirt or they're over the backstop or whatever, but once in a while, they're closer to the plate, and we'll take a hard look. In the meantime, though, while that antenna is always on, I would say to you our priority right now is the organic rebuild on the ROE that we talked about at the beginning of this conversation. The U.S. ROE is a hell of a lot better than it was three quarters ago. It's now pushing up closer to 9% than 7%. The goal is 12%. We'll move along. If we do something on the M&A front on our journey between 9% and 12%, it will only happen if I'm able to say it's not going to interrupt that journey. If it's going to interrupt that journey, we're not going to do it. Otherwise, we'll just continue to push on it organically as we go forward. OK. And then on buybacks, obviously, the NCIB, I think it's about 4% now, gives you a lot of optionality. And maybe in the context of getting to that ultimate destination, CET1, I'm not going to ask you for a timeline. But I know you've been very vocal about 12.5% is a really solid number where BMO could operate at very comfortably. You'd be good with 12.5%. You're about 100 basis points above that right now. Yeah, we're stubbornly 100 basis points above that. And I've been very clear on this. And Tayfun's been really clear on this, that 12.5% is the number. I think it is actually important to shareholders to call it out that that's the destination. I stand by that. That's where we seek to go. And you saw the announcement last week of the share buyback. And it was really smart on behalf of our finance and treasury teams. I said, you don't wait till a buyback expires and then apply for a new one. And then you have a lag where you can't go into the market. Why would we do that? So we just said we bought 16 million shares to date. The mechanic is you terminate that program, you launch a new one. That's 30 million shares. I actually think of it as a continuous program, Mike. It's 46 million shares at the end of the day. And our intent is to kind of keep at it while the capital levels are as high as they are. They're not the highest among our peer group, but they're higher than the average of our peer group. And the first priority, I'll always reiterate this, is where the demand is. If there's good demand business, we're going to put the assets out to clients at the ROE thresholds that we've reestablished. But if it's not there and the loan books aren't growing and there isn't good demand, we'll be in the market buying back those shares until we get to 12.5%. And that's the goal. And we stand by that. OK. As we sort of get to the end here, any key messages you want to convey to investors in the room today? Yeah, first of all, thanks for the opportunity. Thanks for hosting the conference. It's a really good one. You guys do a good job at a good time of year so that people can get tuned in to what we're all thinking and what we're talking about. For us, it's dead simple. If I look at the last three quarters, I think we're having a really good play against everything we said we were going to do in December of last year. I talked earlier about the rebuild of the ROE. 12% is nowhere near good enough, but it's a hell of a lot better than 9.8%, and we're on the trajectory to get to 15%. Good. Inside of that, we've got the operating leverage that I talked about earlier is 4.7% year to date, which is bloody good relative to most. That's good. Inside of that, the credit performance is also normalizing as we thought it would going forward. I think Piyush said on the call we've gone from 66 to 45. We think we probably level out here for a couple of quarters as this Canadian uncertainty settles, and then hopefully we resume actually some trajectory to the positive after that as well. So that's good. And one of the things that probably doesn't get enough play is we like to talk about walking and chewing gum. Everything gets a lot of airplay when you call out a number one imperative around ROE rebuild. We're also growing our earnings. In the quarter, we put up the fastest ROE improvement. But we also had 22% EPS growth year over year, which is the highest among our peer group. So there's a lot of good things going on. And yet we haven't captured the benefit of some of the changes that I talked about earlier either. A s we go forward, we'll do all those things. And if the CET1 ratio is stubbornly high, we'll also be in the market with the share repurchase as well. So it's a pretty good package as I think about the outlook despite the uncertainties. I'm very optimistic. OK, with that, we'll end the conversation. Thank you very much, Darryl, for your insights. Thanks for joining us today. Very, very happy to have you join us. Terrific. Thanks for all the--