All right, are we, we're good, good to go? Good morning, everyone. I'm, Tycho Peterson from the life science team, here at Jefferies. Pleased to introduce Bob McMahon from Agilent. Great, thanks- Yeah. Thanks, Tycho. Good to see you. Great to be here, and good to see you in the saddle. Thank you. Two old men wearing glasses. We're getting old. Yeah. Let's talk about 2Q. Yeah. Why, why don't we start there? And just, you know, as you're kind of thinking about things going forward, obviously, a lot of headwinds, NASD, pharma instruments, China. Maybe just kind of talk through each of those dynamics- Yeah and how we should be kind of thinking about the next couple quarters. Yeah, yeah. So, you know, our Q2, we actually met expectations. Revenue was down about 7%, right in the midpoint of our guidance, and actually, had leverage on the bottom line, declined about 4%, exceeding our expectations. And, as you were saying, we did have some headwinds, but, if I look across the group, we delivered what we expected to deliver in Q2, and there were actually some positives coming out of there. And, I'm sure we'll talk about some of the challenges that we see in the back half of the year. But one of the things that was good is, for the third quarter in a row, we did have a positive book to bill, and in first quarter in seven quarters, our orders actually grew. And, now they didn't grow to the extent that we expected, and, that was a reason for the takedown for the second half of the year. But there were some things that did say, "Hey, there is a recovery happening in the market," maybe just not as fast as what we expected. I think, you know, the number one question we got as we were talking to folks after yesterday and the day before was, "Is guidance kitchen sink? Mike's on his way out, right? Yeah. You know, so with a CEO transition, I guess, how did that factor into, you know, the guidance framework and... Yeah. What I would say is, you know, we were we called the guidance down based on what we saw today, and we certainly were not assuming. You know, there are some opportunities that, you know, could play out better, and I'm sure we'll talk about this China stimulus. We haven't built anything into our guidance there. Also, we've talked about pharma, which is the biggest cut. We have not seen budgets being cut, just a slower release than what we expected, and that would that could suggest a, you know, back half of the year, higher than normal budget flush. We haven't built that into our numbers. And what I would say is, you know, we are we certainly appreciate the magnitude of the cut. No one's more disappointed than we are. We also don't want to have a series of cuts. Yeah. I'll leave it that way. There we go. You don't quantify order growth. It's been a while since you did that, but any, you know, qualitative comments, you know, you can give us on, you know, how we should think about it? Yeah. I, I- would say, you know, all three of the groups I would say orders grew very strong if you include NASD. If you take NASD out, we actually grew low single digits. We were expecting a little more than that. All three of our groups had positive book to bills. And when you look at our LSAG business, which is probably the one that's most relevant in terms of orders, all regions for our instrumentation grew, with the exception of China, which was, again, a positive. And while China was down, it was actually down less than revenue. I guess as we kind of think about maybe just a little bit longer term, you know, you guys have benefited from double-digit growth in China, you know, in the past couple of years. You had a 100 basis point tailwind from NASD. I mean, has the kind of long-term view of your growth profile changed at all? Yeah, that's a really great question, and the short answer is no. We do believe that the algorithm of 5%-7%, you know, a few points ahead of market growth, is still appropriate for Agilent. And, you know, I think right now there's a lot of focus on those two areas. We're still very optimistic about the future for NASD. When you think about NASD as an example, right? While it's down, you know, mid-teens this year, the number of clinical programs that we have is the highest it's ever been. And actually, our clinical volume, and when you look at it, is gonna be growing in excess of 50% year-on-year. So that actually speaks to the future opportunity there. China certainly is a headwind for the market, but, you know, we're looking at opportunities to get that back to kind of mid-single-digit growth versus double-digit, what you said. And then what we've seen, looking forward, which we haven't had near as much in the past, is two things. One is our services business is a much bigger contributor to growth, and then you've got some applied drivers, and I'm sure we'll talk about on things like PFAS, semicon, batteries. Those things are just getting started really, and the opportunity's there, and that's where we, you know, we have an undisputed leadership. Just, to clarify, 5-7 for you guys, you're still assuming 3%-5% market growth? Yes, that's right. Cool. So China, you know, if you kind of normalize for some one-timers, $15 million or so on one-timers- Yeah ... the math is about $20 million in terms of how it got worse. Can you maybe just, you know, touch on what you saw sequentially there, you know, where the pressure points were? And then obviously, everyone's thinking about stimulus. Yeah. You know, what are some signs we can look for that that's gonna start to flow through? Yeah, so it's a great question, and I think that is an important way to look at it. 'Cause when you look at just the absolute numbers, it would say, "Hey, we were down sequentially $50 million," but we talked about that $50 million or $15 million dollar pull forward, so $20 million is the right way to look at it. I would say it did expand a little beyond pharma in terms of some of the softness, primarily in the applied markets of food and environmental. Chemical and advanced materials was actually strong. It's actually. It It grew year-on-year in China despite very strong comparisons, so you can still see activity there. And so that $20 million was really on the... There was a little in pharma, but the rest was in primarily food and in environmental and in academia, which was going up against tough comps. If we look forward on the stimulus, what we actually saw in Q2 was increased bid activity, but we actually feel like there was a bit of a freeze in the market. It's almost like 2019- Yeah ... with the 4+7, if, for those who may have remembered that, where there was a, you know, some concern out there, market stopped for a couple of quarters and then accelerated. This, we saw that here, I think, in the order perspective, trying to understand, you know, our customers trying to understand what the stimulus is. What we know about the stimulus right now is it's much larger than the one that happened last year, which was primarily focused on academia and government. This actually has both a pharma component but also industrial component. And, like I said, our, we've seen bid activity increase, but we haven't seen the funds release. And so what we've done is not assumed anything in the back half of the year, for an incremental benefit of stimulus, but we know it's gonna happen. It's—it may happen in 2025, or the tail end of 2024, but we're being, I would say, prudent from the standpoint of not trying to time it, because we haven't seen the details yet. Maybe just touch on where you might see it in the portfolio. You mentioned, obviously, pharma, but and industrial, so maybe just talk a little bit. It's a broader, you know, program this time. So some of the areas? Yeah, it's it is a much broader program than the last one, which was focused on high-end research and primarily in the academia area. And so we would expect this to go across multiple end markets. So, you know, the interesting thing is the ones that we were. We saw the biggest weakness were the areas I think you'll actually see incremental. So I do think you'll see it in academia and government, but you'll see it across the board. If you think about what China's trying to do right now, they're trying to build up their infrastructure. And so you're seeing a significant investments in semicon for their own indigenous factory. You actually see semicon being a benefit on both sides of China and ex-China. We expect it to be in environmental and forensics as well as, you know, ensuring that the pharma and particularly biopharma is healthy in China because they want to ensure that they have access to the latest and greatest drugs. Speaking of biopharma, so, you know, a big factor in the guide cut went from flat to kind of down load up. Just talk a little bit about, you know, the selling cycle. What's constrained? Is it more LC? Is it more mass spec? Is it both? Yeah. Right? I think people have picked up on the fact that, you know, LC trends in general are about 1%. That's a 7%-8% growth market, right? So there's clearly pent-up demand on our- Yeah replacement cycle. So how do you think about, you know, that? Yeah, it's a great question, and you know, what I would say is we have seen it. Let's take China to the side, 'cause I do think that that's probably got some different dynamics than we just talked about. But we did see, you know, we're seeing recovery in both Europe and the U.S. Very you know, strong performance in Southeast Asia, I think as part of some of that redistribution of some of the API out of China into Asia. But it was, it was more broad-based. Importantly, when I look at our LC and LC-MS business, again, we're seeing those signs of recovery. So the order performance was much better than the revenue performance. So to your point, what we're seeing is we're not hearing anyone outside of a few notable exceptions of budget cuts in pharma. You're actually seeing more and more funding coming into biopharma, which is a very good thing. About this time last year, it had totally dried up. We're just not seeing that money released yet, but the budgets have been set, and everything that we've seen is they're not being cut. And so there is pent-up demand. The other thing I would say is, you look at our age of our equipment. We've got a great insight into our installed base through our CrossLab business. And our age of our equipment is above the median, which is kind of where it was in 2019. If you think about fast-forwarding, you know, to the end of this year, it'll continue to creep up towards the, towards that higher end, which would say that there's pent-up demand. What I'd ask you guys to look at is, we've seen it across both small and large molecule. Particularly in large, in small molecule, what I would say is there's only so much time where you can continue to extend the life of these instruments. There's nothing that's changed in the instruments in the last couple of years that would say something structurally changed in terms of how they use the instruments. If you look at pill count, pill count continues to go up. Our ACG and consumables business outside of China grew mid to high single digits, so there's activity happening. So there will be a refresh of the installed base. The question is when? And we're saying we think it's probably gonna be... You'll start to see it in 2024, but probably more in 2025. We've been through a lot of these instrument cycles over the years. I mean, what, what do you think is the key driver here? Is it IRA? You know, we've seen reprioritization of trials. Is it high interest rates? Is it all of them? Yeah, it's a little of both. And particularly on the large molecule, I do think it is some of the IRA. We've seen that certainly in our NASD business, where clinical trials, the indications have been shuffled around, so that they are ensuring that they've got the biggest clinical indications being started first. If you think about kind of what some of these drugs were or companies were doing, they were going fast track designation, get the product on market, and then build indications from there. Now, what you're seeing is the concern about when the clock starts for these products being on market is the first indication, irrespective of new indications, and so they wanna make sure that they have the biggest indication going first. So that actually speaks well, I think, for long-term volume, particularly in NASD, but it has required a shuffling of the protocols or the clinical trials, and then also patient recruitment, which takes some time. And so that's pushed some things out into 2024 and 2025. I think on the small molecule side, I do think that higher interest rates have had an impact. I mean, but these companies are not struggling for cash. They have a lot of cash. You're starting to see actually some M&A activity there, but I think they're being more prudent with inventories as well as their CapEx, but it will get replaced. ... You know, I, I guess budget flush is another question that comes up a lot, Yeah. Right, as we kind of think about heading into year-end. I mean, how do you think about that dynamic, you know, vis-a-vis the replacement cycle? You know, are they correlated? Do you think the replacement cycle could come earlier, later? Yeah, I do think they are related. If you think about what's happened here, you know, we had very strong growth in the first half of last year in 2023, but it was, I think, the entire—you know, the entire market was kind of living off of elevated backlogs and as supply chain issues had subsided and so forth. So we're into 18 to, you know, at the back half of this year, it'll be 24 months, which will be the long end of a normal replacement cycle. And so again, as we look at budgets, I do think they could be correlated. Again, we're not building that into our forecast. You know, it could be a very late rush, which would be November, December, which would actually be our our... You know, just based on the way our forecast fiscal year ends, it could be our Q1 of 2025. We would start seeing increased activity, and we're starting to see that in our in our order book. Order funnels are growing, low single digits. This would be longer term, beyond six months. And so there is some reason to be optimistic, just when does that turn? We were assuming it was happening in the second half of the year, and we're probably saying it's probably closer to first half of 2025. Got it. But in terms of the actual budget flush at year-end, do you think it could be bigger this year than kind of prior years? Yes. Yeah, yeah. If nothing changes and there isn't a pullback. You know, what we saw last year was a pullback in the second half of the year from our customers and just reducing spending. If the budgets continue to stay, given the, I would say, muted impact last year of a budget flush, it would be bigger this year, yes. Let's, I guess, touch on NASD, obviously. So your kind of guidance, the cut implies about $140 million in the back half, so down kind of mid-teens%, relative to the back half of last year. Can you just talk a little bit about some of the factors there? Yeah. How concentrated are the issues? Is it one customer? Is it five customers? Yeah. What are the factors driving it? Yeah, I would say there's two main factors. I hit on this a little at the very beginning in terms of if we look at the reasons to believe, the number of clinical trial programs are much greater than we've ever had, and so that's actually very positive. But we have seen commercial volume going down relative to what we saw last year. I would say you probably know who those folks are. We have had... There's nothing, I would say, no issue in terms of the efficacy of the programs. They just haven't ramped as expected. So that's the big piece on the commercial side. On the... And I want to be clear, you know, we're not seeing insourcing or product being diverted from our manufacturing sites. It's really, I think, managing inventory, and then on the commercial side. And then on the clinical side, what you see is we have seen some of that IRA impact push things into 2025 a bit. That's much more broad-based, I would say. And what we're seeing actually is probably Q3 is an air pocket. That's probably our lowest, and then we're actually seeing an increase to what we're seeing in the first half of the year, kind of run rate in Q4. We have all the product, all the orders in hand. Our production plan is locked and loaded for the second half of this year, and we're taking orders for 2025 already. And just maybe just touch on the commercial side. Are these competitive issues, you know, with the companies you're partnered with? Are they end market demand issues? You know, like, what's really kind of driving that, that we- Yeah, I think you probably need to talk to them more than us. I would say, you know, what we can say is there's not an issue with the product, and the efficacy of the products that we provide, and I'll just leave it at that. You know, I know you had some questions on the call about capacity. I mean, just- Yeah ... a little, talk a little bit about kind of the long-term investment in that business. Are you still 100% committed? How do you think about it? Yeah, we're still committed. You know, one of the things that we have here, you know, we've built out Train B, which is the existing train, and we're building out Train C and D. You do lose some efficiency with more clinical trial just because of the number of... They've got smaller batch sizes, and you still have the same level of lot changeovers and so forth, but I think this speaks to long-term viability. The other thing that's really important is when you look at the number of clinical trials, but also what the clinical indications are. So the batch sizes and the requirements that we're seeing from customers are larger batch sizes, which would speak to larger customer volume. So, we're in very close conversations with customers. You know, the important piece also is that some people may think that NASD is really focused on small biotech. The customers that we're building these activities for are large, large, and midcap biotech. So they're well-funded companies that are. Now, it's not pay to play, so we're doing it on our own dime. They're not doing investment, but we feel pretty good about the breadth and depth. So it's still full steam ahead. I would say if you went and talked to experts, the development services that we provide, the fact that we've been able to go through the scrutiny of a regulatory approval, we are still the gold standard in the market, and oligos are not going away. It's still a fairly concentrated customer base you have, right? It is. Yeah. So how do you think about, I guess, diversifying and- We are. Yeah, yeah. So that's the beauty of the clinical trial base, you know. And we have, you know, the pioneers of this or the Alnylams of the world and so forth, but you're starting to see oligos expand beyond that, and so not only compounds within existing customers, but also new customers. And so we have significant... I mentioned the clinical volume going up, but also the number of customers has gone up as well. So it's not just the same customers with the same programs or different indications. ... Maybe we can just touch on capital deployment. Obviously, there's the CapEx side, but you know, you did a $750 million repo. Yep. You've got, you know, a CEO transition. How do we think about M&A? Is that on the table at all, or you know? Yeah, it is. You know, I think we, you know, our balance sheet is extremely strong. We wanted to, you know, on the, on the share repo, we had been doing anti-dilutive for, for a couple of quarters, and, we recognized that, you know, there's probably gonna be some, some pressure on the stock. So we're gonna be opportunistic and put our money where our mouth is, and, bet on the, the future of Agilent. And, I think that's gonna be a good investment, but it won't preclude us from doing M&A. And, I would say our framework hasn't isn't gonna radically change. We're still less than one turn levered. You know, I think now there's more opportunities to look for M&A activity in the next 6-12 months, and I would say our funnel is very active. Good. Just on that pacing of the repo, should we assume, you know, fairly kinda standard? You wouldn't do an ASR, I guess, is kinda the, the- Yeah, we're not gonna do an ASR, or we've already announced that. We are having it more weighted into Q3 than Q4. But if our assumption is right, you know, we're not the only ones that are expecting a, you know, a change in the market. So we think that there will be opportunities also in, you know, throughout Q3, but into Q4 as well. Okay. And then, just focus areas for M&A, DGG, or I mean, just talk a little bit about where, Yeah, I think, Funnel is. You know, one of the things that Padraig McDonnell, our new CEO, has talked about is actually identifying new growth vectors or new growth opportunities within adjacencies of our company. And so, you know, biopharma continues to be an area of focus for us. So things like cell analysis, we've had a very successful growth strategy there for cell analysis. I think we would continue to look for opportunities to build out not only instrumentation, but content there. In other areas of biopharma as well, in select areas of DGG, we talk about NASD. I actually think that there may be some opportunities to look both upstream and downstream to add more value-added services to our customers. So I would say there's a number of vectors that we could look at. Yeah. Let's maybe just touch on margins, 'cause I think that kinda got lost in the- Yeah ... noise of the guidance cut. But, you know, a $100 million, you know, run rate cost save, you know, you're taking out a decent chunk in the next couple quarters. Just talk a little bit about, you know, margin initiatives and drivers. Yeah. One of the things that we're I think very confident about is our ability to continue to drive margins. It's much harder, obviously, when the revenue is not there. But you know, we were able to take $100 million out. Actually, more than that, it would roughly $150 million, and we're taking $50 million and reinvesting in demand generation, things like digital, that will also continue to drive some synergies. And so one of the things that we're looking at is how to actually become more nimble, you know, operate even better. I think we are, you know, a very good operating company, but I think there's still opportunities for margin improvement. So, this notion of 5-7 on the top line and 50-100 basis points on the bottom line is still intact. You touched on some newer markets earlier, you know, PFAS- Yeah ... batteries, semis. Maybe just talk a little bit about, you know, investments in these markets. Some of these markets are kinda growing 30%-40%. Yeah. I mean, they're real opportunities, so... Yeah, yeah. So I mean, we're super excited about, those and, you know, we've been talking about PFAS, for the last, I'd say, couple of years now, and I think everyone else has kinda caught onto that train. And, we continue to make very, strong investments in PFAS, and one of the things we saw that with first starting in water, and to kinda frame it, it's roughly a $250 million business, or opportunity today, growing double digits. Started in water, and starting to see its way into food, and, there's even some FDA regulations that are requiring, PFAS-free, you know, product that will go into patients and things like that. So you're starting to see it expand even beyond the initial indications, which is great opportunities for us. So this is an area where we're continuing to develop workflows, you know, kinda standard ways for companies to be able to test here. The other one is semicon. I mentioned this before. You're actually seeing it in both China building up their native semiconductor investment or industry, as well as you know, investments by governments in Europe and in the U.S. That's a $300 million market. We are, by far and away, the market leader. We have greater than 50% share there, and I think the important piece here is you not only get the fab. So what we do is provide QA/QC for incoming and outgoing product and material. You actually get the entire ecosystem. So it's not just the fab incoming materials, but they actually tell the protocol for all their suppliers to do the same testing, so you get the same results because of the requirements there. And so that's a very exciting opportunity for us, like I said, $300 million. And then batteries, about $200 million market opportunity, and you're seeing that in cars. The investments continue to be made in terms of the research around how do you extend, how do you reduce weight? And you know, I think that that will continue to grow as well. And so these are areas that, you know, we continue to focus on. You know, in fact, we just made some launches at ASMS, GC/MS that's kinda focused on PFAS and some of these other activities to continue our leadership. I know we're about at time. Yeah. Just last one, speaking of big markets, GLPs, you know, your- Yep ... direct competitor in LC has talked about that market. I'm just curious whether you guys have- Yeah, it's a good market. Yeah. We play in that market as well, in both the largest players there, and looking for ways to continue to expand that. We think it's a big market opportunity as well. Great. Good to see you. Thank you. Yep.