Great. Thanks for joining us, everybody. I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's U.S. biopharma analyst. I'm very pleased to be hosting AbbVie this morning. Joining us from the company, we have the company CEO, Rob Michael. We have Jeff Stewart, the company's Chief Commercial Officer, and Roopal Thakkar, the company's Chief Scientific Officer. Thank you all so much for being here today. I'm really looking forward to it. Thanks, Terence. Absolutely. Just before we get started, for important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley Research Disclosure website at www.morganstanley.com/research-disclosures. If you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales rep. Thanks so much, gentlemen, for being here. Really, really appreciate it. Rob, I thought we'd start high level. We've been asking every company this, which is maybe an unanswerable question, but would love your perspective on the policy dynamic. Obviously, you guys are very plugged in. You're having a lot of discussions across the industry right now. Maybe just level set us, kind of your perspective on where we stand. I think the other question is just time frame to resolution, if that's possible at all to speculate on, because I think that's what a lot of investors are looking for here. Are we getting close to resolution? Yeah. Obviously, actively engaged in the administration. Obviously, our focus has always been on ways to improve access and affordability while also maintaining the healthy innovation ecosystem we have in this country. As we look at the various policies that are being pursued, we're certainly very encouraged by the focus on global reloading. We've been working with the U.S. Trade Representative on providing information, ideas to address that. Clearly, we've highlighted in the past that this disparity between the innovation spend in the U.S. and what we're spending actually on innovative medicines as a percent of GDP, around 0.8%. When you look at Europe, it's half that. We look at some of the unfair practices in Europe in terms of the timing for reimbursement decisions. There's an EU directive of six months. It's taking much longer than that in reality, so much longer in terms of reimbursement. When you look at things like clawbacks, in the U.K., for example, it's 20%. It's way too high and doesn't recognize the innovation that we're bringing to the market. You have the hospital payback system in Italy. You have new indications coming to a market and getting price cuts. There's a lot of opportunities, I think, to really work with the administration because we need the administration's help to address this through trade negotiations. We're encouraged that that's an area of focus. I think as an industry, we are actively engaged in trying to address that. We have today a direct-to-patient program with Synthroid. I know that's another area that as an industry, we are looking for opportunities to pursue that. We have that Synthroid Delivers program. It's around a $25 copay. As we study that, I think it's very much dependent on your portfolio. We do have a good understanding of at about a $75 level, you start to see prescription abandonment at the pharmacy. You need to have an offering where you're in that sweet spot if you think about insulins and the $35 copay. To the extent that there's products in your portfolio that can fit that. There are exceptions, and obesity is like an exception where there's a greater willingness to pay today. That's something you can pursue, but it isn't across the entire portfolio. It is specific to certain products depending on the out-of-pocket at the pharmacy. That's another area. The other one I'd say we're very much focused on is reform in 340B. I mean, that's clearly an example of a program that was intended to help patients. Patients are not getting the benefit. The abuse we're seeing in 340B is we're actually seeing patients pay more in many cases than they should be. Also, if you think about it, you're just essentially taking away from funding a future innovation. I mean, you think about the R&D dollars that are not available to us because you have this abuse in 340B. Working with the administration on addressing that as well. I'd say, you know, all of us are actively engaged in different ways, but we will continue to stay very committed to working towards a resolution. It's difficult for me to tell you, Terence, on the timing of that, but I can just tell you that we are all actively engaged in trying to reach a point of, I'd say, supporting patients with their affordability, but also making sure that we preserve the American leadership in innovation. There was the cabinet meeting a couple of weeks ago where it appeared that they were linking tariffs and MFN. Any perspective on that? As a result, is this all going to get bundled together? Is it two separate parallel processes? Any thoughts? We don't have enough information to know how that would work. I can tell you as it relates to tariffs, we await the 232 investigation results. We've articulated that we have a very significant U.S. footprint. We have 11 sites currently. We've committed to investing $10 billion of capital over the next decade. That includes adding four new sites to our network. We recently announced a new API plant that will be constructed in North Chicago, Illinois. That's part of the capital commitment that will help expand our U.S. presence. We've also said that in 2025, any impact that we feel we are fairly insulated from at this juncture. The way to think about the impact for AbbVie in 2026 and beyond is we would not expect it to be outsized relative to peers. We have a significant U.S. footprint. I've mentioned before that Skyrizi is made in the U.S. for the domestic market. I think we're fairly well positioned, but we'll have to see what the outcomes are of the 232 investigation. Okay. One more is just, you know, Lilly has raised price on Manjaro in the U.K., and I know you mentioned this global freeloading concept. How do you approach that from a portfolio perspective? I know it's different for every company, and obviously you have some products that are already launched across the globe, but then you have new product launches coming up strategically. How are you guys approaching that through this MFN lens? Yeah, Terence, I think particularly we're focused on the new global launches. I would say as you look at our portfolio, that's where we can look across the territories. Now, there's different rules by different countries, but there is flexibility. Many of our peers in AbbVie are thinking about this concept of a global launch price, or how do you really think about a global list price? I think that's important. We look at products in our future here, like SKYRIZI, which we recently launched in the U.S., as we think about establishing that for lung cancer around the world. That's a big consideration. We don't know exactly how the MFN is going to play out. It's in motion now, but there's no doubt that that's in our consideration set as we think about particularly our new launches. I would add to that as well, as we think about Clark and Simpson. There are opportunities as we think about new products coming forward. How do you address that equalization approach on global list prices? Do you think, I know it's probably a country-by-country basis, but are some of the EU governments amenable to this effort? Have they been engaged, or is this going to be very difficult because of some of the historical precedents that we're going off? That's why I've said we need to have the support from the administration. Clearly, the pharma companies alone cannot get it done, and we do need partnership with the administration through trade negotiations to address these unfair practices. There are tools that are available to the president. Section 301 is certainly something that can be employed to address these unfair practices. Clearly, I think you saw a reaction coming out with tariffs and the concern in Europe around investment flight. I think what we've seen, frankly, in the course of this year is a greater level of engagement with EU leadership in general versus what I have seen historically. I think that did help at least bring the conversation forward. We will not be able to accomplish, I think, real progress without the support of the administration. Just to add to Rob's point, we see from our market access teams around the world that the governments are being sensitized to this issue. There's no question about it. They're paying attention. They're watching very carefully. They understand. They have their own rules, but there is some significant flexibility around most of the world. The other thing is that the industry has really pooled together. Rob mentioned in his opening remarks the U.K. clawback system, which is probably the most extreme in the industry, a 20% tax on the revenue. The American companies in particular, with the help of the U.S. Trade Representative, are in a pretty intense negotiation right now to close the books on the NHS funding. The governments are increasingly sensitized that this is a real global issue. Okay. Maybe last one on the policy side before we get to the business. You know, Linzess and VRAYLAR are on the next round of IRA negotiation list. Just wondering if you can provide any high-level thoughts on that. I know last year you guys went through this process. This year, it's a frequent question on everyone's minds just because of the new administration. Not sure how much you're going to comment here, but figured I'd ask it because you guys are on the list this year. Yeah, look, I mean, when you're going through private negotiations, public comments are not helpful. We're going through the process now. The prices will be public in the November timeframe. At that time, we will speak more publicly about the negotiations. I don't think it makes a lot of sense for us as we're going through private negotiations to be speaking publicly on the details. Can you tell us, are the personnel the same generally, or are these different people other than the people at the top or the people you interacted with last time? It's different. Okay. All right. We'll stay tuned. On the business, I think you guys have had two of the most successful recent launches in the industry with SKYRIZI and RINVOQ. Obviously, multiple upgrades to consensus estimates and continue to deliver against your long-term guidance. As we think about the forward from here, what do you think are kind of the key drivers that we should be focused on? Is there anything that's still underappreciated? Is it maybe depth in IBD? Is it some of these new indications for RINVOQ? As you guys look at where things stand in the forward drivers, what should we all be focused on? Yeah, it's an important question. We're very excited about the performance. This year, just this year, we've raised the guidance by $1.5 billion between both of the assets. The momentum is significant. The total company raised $1.5 billion, including that, but that's more than just SKYRIZI. Right. Overall, super, super impressed. Now, if you think about where the tailwinds are, largely the performance is based on share and also market growth. If you think about share, you know, we see significant capture rate. I've given some of these facts and data before. If you look at IBD, which is one of our more recent launches, you know, we're capturing one out of every two newer switching patients between RINVOQ and SKYRIZI. As that momentum builds up in the capture rates and we start to see the persistency curve on very well-tolerated medication, you just start to build your TRX share. The share capture should continue significantly based on how we're performing in the market. The other dynamic is the markets are quite robust. We see these markets grow at different rates. Certainly, atopic dermatitis grows in the mid-teens. Most of the other ones grow in the high single digits. RA drugs grow maybe the mid to lower single digits, but still very, very robust. What we see, Terence, is that the first is what drives the frontline markets in these markets where we do play in many cases is just the biopenetration rate. There are just many more people that can be treated with advanced therapy. The other dynamic in second-line plus, we see that there's significant opportunities to upgrade or make sure people are getting long-term sort of care. We actually see in some of these markets that the second-line plus market is now growing faster than the frontline market. Overall, in terms of the market dynamics, very, very favorable. I would say the other piece that's quite significant is for RINVOQ. We've talked before, and you mentioned in your question, we're now starting to see the emergence of sort of what we've called that next wave of RINVOQ indications. We have GCA approved in the rheumatology area, and we've recently seen some really transformational data in alopecia areata, really very, very distinctive data. When we stack all of that up, so GCA, alopecia, vitiligo, lupus, HS, those big indications we think are going to add more than $2 billion at peak revenue to the top line. Overall, significant tailwinds, very strong performance, and more indications to come that'll help fuel those big products. Okay, great. I'm assuming you're in the midst of formulary discussions now for 2026. Any kind of early read on anything as we think about 2026 dynamics from a pricing standpoint on the immunology franchise? Yeah, we're right in the midst of those negotiations, and we see that things will look, we believe, quite good for 2026. I mean, they're obviously not all complete, but a very stable access situation for these assets, again, given their market position, given their indications, given the historical formulary positions we've had. We don't believe that there's going to be any significant surprises. Our position has been that when we look at pricing, I mean, this category is a volume-based category. There's no question about that. We see sort of low single-digit continued concessions in terms of maintaining those formulary positions, and that's still very good guidance. Okay. As we look at this business, the strategy we always had is to essentially bring innovation forward that elevates the standard of care. We've essentially brought that forward with SKYRIZI and RINVOQ, really driving differentiation. That ultimately is what's driving these discussions, why we continue to make good progress. It is also why we have similar strong performance outside the U.S. as well. I think pursuing that strategy, as we think about long-term, really insulates you against any of those types of pressures. That's what we're driving. We're very pleased with the outcomes of the discussions we've had in the U.S., clearly, even outside the U.S. for SKYRIZI and RINVOQ in terms of access. It's been several years now where we've become fairly predictable in terms of being able to call the price dynamics in this space. I think we've made tremendous progress there. Market appreciates visibility. Maybe just one on the competitive landscape for you that some of the pipeline on immunology. J&J has TREMFYA now in IBD, but also an oral IL-23 product for psoriasis. As you guys look at the competitive position of SKYRIZI, maybe just remind us why you're confident in maintaining an entrenched position here. Is this more about growing the overall, you know, pie here, or is this more about continuing to grow share? How should we think about that as we look ahead to the next couple of years here? Yeah, very good. I think the answer in a nutshell is it's going to be both. We're very confident in the position of SKYRIZI in the marketplace. Some of that is what Rob mentioned, the data set that we have, the strength of the data set, whether it's head-to-head trials against multiple mechanisms, and just sort of the core understanding and perceptions of our physicians is extremely strong. We have a very, very good competitive position. Now, having said that, TREMFYA is entering into the IBD space. We've competed with them for seven years in the psoriasis space, and we understand the profile of that medication. We understand the emerging profile of the oral, and we still feel quite strong. TREMFYA will take some share from SKYRIZI in terms of in-play share. Terence, to your point, that is going to be, we believe, more than offset on how fast that IL-23 category is going to grow. To give the investors perspective, right now in the IBD space, in terms of patient share, the IL-23 class is about 10%. Just hit low double digits. In psoriatic disease, it's 60%. These are very special medications. Our ability to both grow share, compete effectively, and basically take advantage of the tailwinds of the category are quite significant. In terms of the new potential oral, we've seen how the orals play out in particularly psoriasis over many, many years. We've got two head-to-head trials against the existing orals, and while Aiko looks to be the best of the breed in terms of the oral, it still doesn't stack up to what you see with SKYRIZI. If you look at the guidelines in psoriasis, it says moderate-severe, use the best drug that's going to get it under control and keep it under control long term. We do think we have a strong competitive position there as well when that product comes in. We'll probably see it take a significant amount of share of the oral category, but we do believe SKYRIZI will be quite resilient in the face of that product as well. Yep. I know you guys did a head-to-head versus TREMFYA. Is that something you could consider for oral IL-23 head-to-head on the table? We have done the Otezla head-to-head. It's all re-read out. SoTech2 is ongoing. I think with those two, you'll see a clear establishment of the efficacy that Jeff is referencing on how high it is. That comes with quarterly dosing, which in some of these studies, we ask the patients, what's your preference? Against the orals and the outcomes, they actually prefer quarterly dosing to the oral. You don't have a food effect. SKYRIZI will have psoriatic arthritis, very strong data on PSA. 30% of patients with psoriasis will move on to joint. You already have that confidence built into SKYRIZI and the really nice dosing regimen. Given the couple that we have already done, it's not really clear to us if there's a need to do a third given what's already known and what Jeff's teams and our medical teams have already been able to promote already. Would it drive greater market growth if you have patients starting on oral and transitioning to injectable? Would it actually be a tailwind for the whole category as you think about another oral? You know, we haven't really seen that. We have seen a little bit of expansion, let's say the mild to early moderate when Otezla and Ducravacitinib came in. Although, you know, Sotyktu is sort of caught in the middle. It's got HUMIRA-like efficacy and Kineret safety. I think you have to really think about, you know, there is a feature in a product that is an oral route of administration, but you've really got to look at the whole picture, what the offering is, particularly when you see that standard of care is so high in psoriasis with SKYRIZI. Okay. Probably a couple for Roopal here. Amgen and Sanofi have OX40 antibodies in atopic derm. You guys have a very strong position here with RINVOQ in the second-line setting. As you look at those emerging profiles, what does that do from a competitive standpoint for RINVOQ here? Yeah, it's great to have novel mechanisms entering. We don't see them differentiating at all with the IL-13 class and maybe even negatively differentiating from an efficacy standpoint. There may be some advantages to the convenience and dosing. However, similar to psoriasis, you want to treat these patients and get their disease under control that have atopic dermatitis. In particular, the skin clearance, and even more relevant than in psoriasis, is this itch, which really affects their daily lives. I would say RINVOQ still is clearly apart from the biologics, I would say, in its own class. Existing strength, I would say, in second line. New class coming, maybe slightly better dosing, but we don't see the differentiation on efficacy. I would say a question mark, it would be around itch. Okay. You guys have talked a lot about your kind of, you know, medium to longer-term strategy in immunology and pursuing some of these novel combination approaches. Maybe just, Roopal, you could give us an update on kind of where you guys stand on that front and how this fits into lifecycle management strategy for that whole franchise. Obviously, you guys have a long history here, a really important franchise for the company. Yeah, we still see some levels of unmet need, as Rob was talking about our overarching strategy and where we can continue to differentiate. IBD in particular is a good example where we do see great benefit afforded by SKYRIZI and RINVOQ. However, the majority of the patients still don't achieve remission in the long term. When you have an asset like a SKYRIZI, which has very strong efficacy and a very favorable safety profile, that creates a nice opportunity for us to potentially combine with that. In IBD, we are doing combinations with our own Alpha-4, Beta-7. We have Lutikizumab, which is currently in phase three for hidradenitis suppurativa that's being combined. Following those, we'll have a TL1A that will combine and even a TREM1. Multiple shots on goal in a very large, still underserved market. Those data will start to read out next year and give us an idea of what we'd want to move on to, either dose optimization or phase three. We're also in the clinic for combinations in psoriatic arthritis with Lutikizumab and SKYRIZI, and then Lutikizumab and our own CD40 in rheumatoid arthritis. There's a variety of areas where we can do combinations. As we think to the future of development, we recently talked about the Capstan deal, looking at B-cell depletion. We have a variety of other assets in addition to CAR-Ts that could also play in B-cell depletion. This would be across potentially immunology. Prototype diseases are lupus, but we'd also be looking in larger indications like rheumatoid arthritis. It's a very robust pipeline in immunology to follow on to the strength that we see with SKYRIZI and RINVOQ, but to raise that bar that's been set. Yep. Any thought, like biomarkers always seem to be elusive here in immunology? I'm assuming for a lot of these combinations, that's something you're looking at as well. Just any progress in terms of kind of predicting people's responsiveness with various agents? Absolutely. For all of these studies, we have a precision medicine focus that includes immunology, neuroscience, oncology, all of the indications. We will be doing tissue collection, biomarker collection, and anywhere we see a particular combination that is the best fit, that is something that we would really want to pressure test. If it looks valid, that's something we would want to take forward because if you see even a step up in efficacy, even higher in a biomarker-selected group like we observe in oncology, that does simplify decisions that a clinician would make. Even down the road, later stages of development, when you have a lot of biosimilars, it could even enable frontline utilization if you have a biomarker approach. To your point, it has been elusive in immunology, but you certainly have the tools to potentially unlock that if there's something there. Okay, great. I want to just touch quickly on aesthetics because I think it does give some insight in just terms of the broader macro here. As you guys think about looking at the back half of the year, maybe just tell us kind of current state of what you're seeing in the U.S., rest of the world, and how you're thinking about that franchise. I know one of the growth drivers you talked about is the short-acting toxins. How does that fit into the strategy here in terms of the longer-term growth? Yeah, what we see, Terence, as you mentioned, the consumer is still under pressure. As we go forward in the second half of the year, we're not forecasting a big surge or a lift or anything like that. We still like the market. It's still very underpenetrated. We know that when that market will turn and come back, which we can help lead, I'll talk about that, we'll be in a very good spot. If you look overall, maybe I'll talk to two of our big markets, the U.S. and China. In the second quarter, the toxin market was flattish, and it grew. It's more robust in China, like mid-single digits, say, 7%, 8%. If you look at the filler market, that's where we've seen the big pressure. The HA filler market in both markets is down about 20% year over year. We see the same pattern around the world. Brazil's a little more resilient. That's one of our smaller markets. If you take a look at that, you do have that macro pressure on the consumer. We see particularly in the U.S., consumers with under $150,000 of income are the ones that are in some cases deferring treatment, skipping some treatments, etc. We do think that our share position is still very, very strong. What are we thinking about doing as a leader? Certainly in the U.S., we know the toxin market's very critical, and we're investing in front of that Bonty launch or short-acting toxin launch. We had a significant spend in the back part of the year on a new consumer campaign to keep them as active as possible as we exit the year. The other thing is that being the leading share position in the big markets with the HA filler, we see a sentiment pressure. In other words, the consumer might feel, am I going to get overfilled? Can I get a good natural look? Absolutely, the consumer can. We're engaging with a new campaign, and it's global, called Naturally You, with all of our big clinics around the world to make sure that communication is clear to both existing and new patients on the look they can get with the HA fillers and the leading Juvederm line. We've also invested in major centers, particularly around the U.S., our AMI centers. We've opened them in Irvine, Atlanta, early next year in Austin to basically continue the training, our scientific communication, etc. All of that, I think, signifies our belief that this is a nice position for us as a cash pay market where we can continue to lead. As you mentioned, we are excited about the short-acting toxin, which we think can stimulate the market, bring in new consumers, build the share for BOTOX, which is the leading share position in the category. As you know, we have filed that, and we're going to start preparing for that launch, particularly first in the U.S. by the middle of next year. Okay, great. Maybe just in the interest of time, another new launch product for you is the SubQ Levodopa product. It's a very, very strong launch. I think it surprised a lot of people. Maybe just remind us how to think about the opportunities that are there, the cadence of that launch, U.S., rest of the world as we head into the balance of the year. Maybe to zoom out a little bit too, I'm glad you brought up the question, Terence, because as we think about neuroscience, our second-largest therapeutic area growing very nicely, we expect to be the leaders in neuroscience next year. We'll pass Roche. When I look at that business and I see, you know, we think of it really in four segments with, you know, psychiatry, migraine. We cover the full spectrum of the disease and migraine. With Violev now, we had Duopa before, and then with tavapadon in the pipeline, you know, a very strong position in Parkinson's. Investing in neurodegeneration, the Aliada deal last year that brought us a next-generation A-beta antibody in Alzheimer's with the brain shuttle platform really gives us a very strong footing in neuroscience. We're investing heavily. You saw us recently acquire Gilgamesh. As we think about next generation in psychiatry, very active there. I'm glad you asked the question. We don't get enough questions on neuroscience, and we're very pleased with the performance there. I'll let Jeff speak to what we're seeing currently with Violev, which is a transformative innovation for patients. Rob, you brought that up, just the opportunity set out there, because I think some companies have kind of pulled back from neuro. You guys obviously are leaning in. You see a significant opportunity set on the BD side in neuro now because maybe there's less competition from some of your peers? I think you've seen more peers enter the space recently. You've seen us, if you think about over the last several years, we've been investing across immunology, oncology, neuroscience, but we see opportunities. We think about the large market, high unmet need. We've obviously been investing here. I actually think there's more, if you can look at some of the other acquisitions in this space, there's been a greater interest as we think about the opportunity set in neuro. It really does span across, really, you think about the four areas. We're still all pursuing a treatment for Alzheimer's. There's still a great degree of interest in the industry there. We're hoping somebody actually solves that. For Violev, this is our subcutaneous, you know, small pump for advanced Parkinson's. It's been a very special surprise, very positive surprise. When we look at our 2025 exit at over $400 million, that's largely just the international markets. This product is ramping significantly faster than we originally thought. We're seeing now the Medicare patients come online at the end of the year. That really bodes well for that. Why is this so special? The big thing is that it's a 24-hour continuous infusion of levodopa-carbidopa. Essentially what that does is it allows these patients to get under control very quickly in the clinics, and then they're able to basically stay under control all night. That's been almost impossible with any other technology. The sleeping, the waking, the control over the motor disorders, and the other issues around the disease has been remarkable. The feedback from the physicians and the movement disorder specialists is just outstanding. We're going to see that drug ramp very nicely over the next few years. We're going to add into that global footprint around the world the new product, tavapadon. It will come first, and that's a very novel oral from the Cerevel acquisition. Really, frankly, again, a surprise over the strength and the balance of the safety, the tolerability, and once a day, again, to control those symptoms. We're really building a nice Parkinson's franchise on top of a relatively small product, which was Duopa. We're going to have a very significant presence there now. Okay, great. Maybe just to round it out here on the strategic side, you know, Rob, you mentioned your four therapeutic areas and some of the activity on the business development side, but maybe just help us think about like, you know, what else are you focused on here in terms of building out that portfolio? It seems like to me more early mid-stage, just given you don't have any major LOEs through the end of the decade here. As you think about the opportunity set, what are you most focused on here over the next 12-18 months? Yeah, we have a clear line of sight to growth for at least the next eight years. What I've been trying to do is position the company, right, to drive growth beyond that. Really thinking about investing in new assets, new technologies that can drive growth in the next decade and beyond. Roopal mentioned Capstan. We also acquired Nimble that gave us oral peptide capability in immunology. You've seen us very recently. We didn't get a chance to really talk about the excitement we have around the oncology pipeline. A lot of really, I think, very nice developments there, but we've been investing. If you think about it with the Tansin and the multiple myeloma, we've also now invested in two tri-specific opportunities, one with Sincere, one with IGI, to give us depth in multiple myeloma, to establish a leadership position there for a very long period of time. We continue to invest in oncology. I mentioned neuroscience. We talked about Gilgamesh as an example, Aliada as another example. We also entered into the obesity space with the Gubra deal, which we expect to continue to build around. We do see obesity as an area with high unmet need. It's a large market, an opportunity to really be a good growth driver in the next decade and beyond. We have now entered that space with that opportunity. We'll look for other opportunities as well to build around it. The reason we're pursuing these, I call them early-stage deals, is because what the company needs is to continue to bolster the pipeline, have a replacement strategy for the current anchors in the next decade and beyond. We're very well positioned, as you mentioned, really no significant LOEs in this decade. With a very clear line of sight to growth, for us, we have the flexibility, and we could certainly pursue near-term opportunities, but we don't really need to. It's really about continuing to add depth to the pipeline to ensure we can drive long-term growth and essentially repeat what we've done with SKYRIZI and RINVOQ as they've replaced Humira. As I think about beyond SKYRIZI and RINVOQ, how do we drive growth? We're making those investments today for things that will transpire in nine to ten years from now. Thank you so much, guys. Really appreciate the time today. Thanks.