Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Affirm Holdings Fiscal Year 2022 second quarter earnings conference call. At this time, all lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. Following the speaker's remarks, we will open the lines for your questions. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded, and a replay of the call will be available on your investor relations website for a reasonable period of time after the call. I'd now like to turn the call over to Ron Clark, Vice President of Investor Relations. Thank you. You may begin. Thanks, operator. Before we begin, I'd like to remind everyone listening that today's call may contain forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including those set forth in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our investor relations website. Actual results may differ materially from any forward-looking statements we make today. These forward-looking statements speak only as of today, and the company does not assume any obligation or intent to update them except as required by law. In addition, today's call may include non-GAAP financial measures. These measures should be considered as a supplement to, but not as a substitute for, GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP measures can be found in today's earnings press release, which is available on our investor relations website. Hosting today's call are Max Levchin, Affirm's Founder and Chief Executive Officer, and Michael Linford, Affirm's Chief Financial Officer. With that, I'd like to turn over the call to Max to begin. Hello, and thank you for joining us on this earnings call. Affirm is just a handful of days away from its tenth anniversary, and this earnings report also marks the first anniversary of our public debut. While the road ahead of us is significantly longer than the one we've traveled so far, the occasion does warrant a moment of reflection on the execution of our strategy during the last 12 months. We feel great about our progress. We remain quite unpivoted and focused on delivering long-term compounding value to all our stakeholders, consumers, merchants, employees, and shareholders. As we introduced ourselves to the public markets a year ago, we talked about several key themes. The first and foremost is our mission, which is to deliver honest financial products to improve lives and to do so while delighting the people we get to serve every day. Because the opportunity embedded in our mission is still so vast and open, consumer growth is very important to Affirm. We've done very well. Indeed, our active consumer growth accelerated, growing by 150% to provide well north of 11 million people with a smarter way to pay. Growth for us is never just about getting the next million consumers. It's also about the impact we can have on the financial well-being of the folks who rely on Affirm. We've also talked about our other all-important constituent, the merchant. Affirm is as much a safe and transparent pay over time option for the buyer as it is the ultimate marketing tool for the seller. We help our partners drive meaningful incremental sales without needing to resort to gimmicks or discounting. The number of active merchants on our platform is another key measure for Affirm, and over the last year, we've significantly expanded our reach. There, too, we accelerated with a more than 20x increase from a year ago and a 64% increase from the rolling 12-month tally we reported just 90 days ago. As a company founded by engineers, we focused early on investing heavily in technology, scalable enough to economically support the smallest of businesses all the way up to the world's largest retailers. We've continued this policy of investment and development in pursuit of technological competitive superiority. The strategy is working and delivering results. In fact, our technology is what has enabled us to work with tech-savvy giants such as Walmart, Shopify, Amazon, and Target. We estimate that this year, Affirm processed 1.6% of all U.S. online transaction volume for the Black Friday, Cyber Monday period. Another triple-digit increase from last year. Simultaneously, a momentous number and a signifier of just how early we are in this market. Even a decade in, the ramp-up to the holiday shopping rush is an intense yet exhilarating exercise in scalability preparedness. Each year's Black Friday weekend brings by far the greatest number of concurrent transactions we've ever experienced. I'm very proud of our engineering teams for delivering another flawlessly executed record-breaking Black Friday weekend, and I'm also grateful to our friends at Shopify Engineering, who had lent some of their technical expertise to us as we prepped in the days before. It is an oft-repeated adage that product innovation slows down as companies go public. I'm pleased to report that we were able to accelerate our product delivery since the IPO. We've rolled out cashback rewards for participating merchants, delivered the unique Adaptive Checkout, launched the Affirm SuperApp and the Affirm Chrome extension, and introduced the beta version of super simple, consumer-friendly crypto savings. You may have noted the announcement of Visa being the launch partner for Debit+, which is now in the initial waitlist rollout. Though I will continue to caution you to not yet get crazy forecasting this product's impact on our PNL at scale, I do have fun insight to share. On average, the number of weekly transactions by a Debit+ consumer, excluding our own employees, is greater than an order of magnitude above that of a regular Affirm user. Of course, these are enthusiastic early adopters, and we fully expect the number to normalize, but it's exciting to see first glimpses of what Affirm as a daily instrument might look like. We remain very excited about the future of this product and expect to talk a lot more about it this year. We had said last year that BNPL is an international phenomenon, and we intend to bring Affirm's unique no late fees, no gotchas, no regrets approach well beyond our home borders. Over the last 12 months, we've solidified our industry leadership with PayBright by Affirm in Canada and launched in Australia, our first non-North American market. The growth of our business continues to accelerate. Affirm had more than 168,000 active merchants on the platform as of the end of calendar 2021, largely thanks to our partnerships with online commerce platforms. In aggregate, Affirm is now present on sites that account for more than half of all U.S. e-commerce, and that number continues to march higher every day. In our second quarter, year-over-year GMV growth accelerated to 115% from 84% in the first fiscal quarter. Moving beyond the testing phase of our collaboration with Amazon before the holidays was a significant driver of this growth. However, if you exclude Amazon, our GMV still doubled year over year. We are highly cognizant of the fact that over 80% of commerce is still conducted offline. Our recently announced partnerships with Verifone and Adyen are just two of the numerous investments we're making with our partners to bring honest financial products to consumers at the physical point of sale. We're also expanding the ability to use Affirm in-store with our own products like Debit+. Our focus on using exceptional technology to drive growth and improve efficiency has been a winning strategy for Affirm, and we never stop finding ways to optimize and deliver even more value. This shows up in our results in a number of ways, from new partnerships to long-standing relationships. For example, iterating over the last three years, our relationship with Walmart has grown as we proved the value of our products. We expect similarly great things from our other major partnerships with time. As we develop with and learn from each customer, we are excited to bring these learnings and the products they engender to all merchants, big and small. The strength of our network is measured in merchant coverage and repeat consumer engagement, both of which are rising rapidly. We grew total transactions by 218% and transactions per active user by 15% year-over-year, even as we added a tremendous number of new consumers. Our momentum is strengthening, our strategy is working, and we are extending our lead. We intend to double down on the three key things that got us here. One, deliver unique and delightful financial products that align fully with our mission. Two, continue to be the partner of choice for merchants that care about intelligent growth, scalability, and reliability. And three, deepen our underwriting advantage. Speaking of underwriting, we manage risk. Though we are an easy-to-understand tool to maximize one's personal capital and the retail marketer's best friend, at our core, Affirm is ultimately a risk managing business. We facilitate the transaction, settle with the merchant soon thereafter, and bill the buyer over a predetermined period of time. Wait, there's more. When we charge interest, which we don't always do, we don't compound it into principal. Moreover, we don't compound interest after it reaches the amount we communicated to the consumer at purchase time. We refund interest when the buyer prepays. We don't even charge late fees. These are all deliberate choices made in the first few days of our company's life. We meant to align ourselves with our consumers in this manner, avoiding the moral hazard of capitalizing on their mistakes for revenue opportunities. These decisions are as missional and moral as they are self-serving. These policies are an important part of why our consumer satisfaction is so high, and we only want it to go up. With these self-imposed guardrails, exceptional underwriting and risk management frameworks are a requirement. That's why we underwrite every transaction before making a credit decision, unlike some of our competitors in the BNPL space who readily admit they do no underwriting at all. It is also important to understand that unlike many players in our industry, we do not treat delinquencies or defaults as an outcome of our business decisions. Indeed, we choose acceptable delinquency rates as an input into our decision-making based on the pricing our products command with our customers, our view of the macroeconomic conditions, and the demand for our loan volume in the capital markets. This distinction may seem subtle, but I think it really helps understand our approach to risk. We spent the last decade building what we believe to be one of the best-in-class credit underwriting ecosystems, data, tools, processes, and teams that deliver underwriting models with some of the very best results in the industry. Today, I'll pull the curtain back a little, and while I will keep it very high level, in part to avoid giving out trade secrets, feel free to tune out for a few minutes while I nerd out. Affirm's underwriting advantage begins before any of our models are interrogated for a decision with our product design. Because Affirm is predominantly offered at the point of sale, we have a natural opportunity to explain our value and transparent approach to the consumer. As a result, we avoid much of the adverse selection that often comes with traditional lending. Coupled with SKU-level data we receive from our partners, our models tend to split the risk far better than those used in traditional consumer loans. Another fundamental structural advantage Affirm has is its total separability of transactions. Unlike providers of lines of credit, we underwrite transactions individually, modeling a consumer's ability to pay us back as well as their propensity to do so. This notion of separability is also recursive, a consequence of our product. Because repayment schedules are highly predictable, our models operate at an individual installment level. This separability is a powerful tool for modeling as well as managing risk. We're able to deliver a reliable forward-looking picture of both consumers and our own cash flow. Our proprietary network of directly integrated merchants, as well as other sources of non-traditional underwriting data, offers us a significant raw data advantage into feature engineering. We maintain a library of over 500 features that we select from as we create new models or update existing ones, while continuously looking for and eliminating any potential for disparate impact in our decisioning, both at individual variable and model levels. We train our models using academically well-understood gradient boosting technique with significant proprietary modifications we've invented that help us improve results. Because from the very beginning, we focused equally on consumer and merchant information, we ended up with a large number of models that are specific to our product and merchants who use them. Moreover, as we launch new products with new and existing partners, we acquire new types of data that we incorporate into the models, and over time, give incremental weight to. Underwriting models decay over time as macroeconomic conditions and consumer behaviors change. Even the very best-performing ones can lose a few percentage points of their area under the curve every few months. Over the years, we've built special-purpose models that track model decay, the machine learning equivalent of a canary in a coal mine. Our proprietary software and processes allow us to rapidly retrain, retest, and redeploy models where the performance has deteriorated in a matter of days. To illustrate this, let's take a side-by-side look at ITACS, one of our longest-serving proprietary models, versus a traditional credit scoring system like FICO. Using ITACS, reducing originations by 10% would eliminate a third of all delinquencies in dollars, while using the traditional credit scoring system would only reduce delinquencies by a mere 13%. Let's take it a step further. If we were to reduce originations by 30% using ITACS, we would remove 70% of all delinquencies, while the traditional score would only catch 36%. Needless to say, this model slopes a lot better than a traditional industry standard. These achievements may sound quite abstract, but they have a very real impact. With our superior underwriting capabilities, Affirm can approve many more college students buying tickets to see family after months of pandemic isolation and young parents picking up their first stroller. Because Affirm's average loan duration at origination by design is very short, at just 5.2 months, the exceptional precision and recall of our credit models give us great confidence that our portfolio, both retained and sold, will continue to perform well in the future. Any use of advanced technology has both advantages and risks associated with it. As we push our model performance further in pursuit of expanding our offerings, we work just as diligently on ensuring that our models are both compliant with all applicable laws and rules, and that our model decisions are both reasonable and are understandable by consumers. We regularly audit our models to avoid correlation with prohibited basis and have them audited externally. We also invest heavily in explainability of model outcomes so that both consumers and regulators can understand our decisions quite easily. None of this, of course, would exist without the extraordinary team of people that make it all possible. I am truly fortunate to have been able to start this company with a group of brilliant minds who in turn attracted more and more talented folks to join our mission and bring their mathematical and other talents to bear. It is this embarrassment of riches among my teammates that makes me so optimistic about the next decade of Affirm. Large as some of these numbers might be, Affirm still accounts for around 1% of U.S. e-commerce, and both consumers and merchants are genuinely excited to get more value from Affirm, and we are excited to deliver it. As usual, I want to thank my team for all their amazing work, and even during some of pretty volatile moments for our stock price, for staying truly focused on the long-term value creation for all our stakeholders and on our mission. Now on to Michael for the numbers. Thanks, Max, and good afternoon, everyone. Our second quarter results demonstrate a massive step change in our network scale, driven by our partnership with the largest enterprises and our technology advantage. Growth accelerated on both sides of our network, as active consumers more than doubled, while active merchants increased more than 20 times. Frequency increased alongside that explosive user growth. Total transactions grew 218%, the fastest rate since our Series D private funding round. We grew GMV 115% and revenue by 77%. In November, we completed the rollout of our initial offering at Amazon in the United States, and even excluding Amazon's contribution, we significantly exceeded our outlook for both GMV and revenue. Unit economics were also strong. Revenue less transaction costs grew faster than revenue at 93% from the prior year. Even as we accelerated network growth, we continued to operate with efficiency, reducing the equity capital we used to fund our loans by 17% versus last year. With the accelerating growth of our business and the early traction with our enterprise partners, we are raising our outlook for fiscal year 2022, which I'll share more about in a moment. Before I do that, let's walk through the second quarter results. Unless stated otherwise, all comparisons refer to our second fiscal quarter of 2022 versus Q2 of fiscal 2021. We had another great quarter for consumer growth. Active consumers increased 150% to 11.2 million and increased 2.5 million sequentially from fiscal Q1. Despite adding users at this aggressive pace, we grew transactions per active consumer by 15% year-over-year and more than tripled the number of transactions. More merchants, platforms and brands are leveraging the power of Affirm to grow their businesses. In the second quarter, active merchants grew to more than 168,000 from just 8,000 last year. Thanks in large part to the scaling of our partnership with Shopify. On a sequential basis, active merchants, which we calculate over a trailing twelve-month time frame, grew 64% from the September ending quarter. Turning to GMV. We grew GMV to $4.5 billion in our second quarter, a $2.4 billion increase from last year. The 115% increase includes the volume from our partnership with Amazon. We completed the launch of our interest-bearing program at Amazon in November ahead of Black Friday. While the program is still in its infancy with a long road map of optimizations to work on, we have seen rapid consumer adoption. We look forward to years of growth from this collaboration. We have strong momentum across our business. Excluding Amazon, GMV doubled with growth across all products and verticals. I would also note that our business with Peloton, our second-largest merchant partner by GMV in the quarter, was up against an unusually strong prior year comp following the launch of a new product slate and boosted by COVID tailwinds. As a testament to the increasing depth and breadth of our network, no single merchant accounted for more than 10% of Q2 GMV. One year ago, we discussed how we would expand into higher frequency purchase areas and diversify our merchant partnerships. A year later, I'm really proud of how our team has delivered on these objectives for our shareholders. Shifting to industry vertical. We had a phenomenal holiday season. We more than doubled our volume from Black Friday, Cyber Monday, and we believe we took significant market share from both traditional incumbents and BNPL pure plays. As Max shared, we estimate that Affirm facilitated 1.6% of total online transaction volume for the Black Friday, Cyber Monday period in the U.S., and we saw particular strength in key holiday categories in Q2. Travel and ticketing increased up 314% from last year, topping last quarter's high mark, even despite the emergence of the Omicron variant. General merchandise grew 368% above last year, driven by our deepening partnership with the industry's leading retailers and the launch of our offering at Amazon in the U.S. Consumer electronics, which grew 209% year-over-year, was another great story, driven by strong demand for TVs, laptops, and gaming consoles. Our results this holiday season highlight our ability to take share and grow in any environment, and importantly, why we're so different from the competition. Outside the U.S., we had another outstanding quarter. Our Canadian business more than tripled in size, thanks to existing and new partnerships, including Apple, which launched in the fall to brisk consumer demand. In the second quarter, we also entered the Australian market with Peloton and look forward to growing our business with them there. This quarter, our interest-bearing program, which includes our initial offering at Amazon, grew significantly, up 124% year-on-year to $1.4 billion. Before I jump into the financials, let me walk through the mechanics of this offering to illustrate the impact on the income statement. On the revenue side, we monetize these loans by either holding them to maturity or selling them to third parties. When we hold the loans, we primarily earn interest income, which we recognize over the duration of the loan. Hence, this quarter's revenue reflects just a portion of the total yield we will ultimately see from the GMV we generated in Q2. We will recognize the balance over the subsequent quarters. As an illustrative data point, we sold 59% of the interest-bearing loans generated in the U.S. this quarter and retained the remainder. On the expense side, we provision for credit losses upfront. For loans we hold, this means that the margin profile is back-end weighted. Our partnerships with key enterprise merchants are unlocking more opportunities for our business every day, and we are investing today to realize the full long-term potential. While we are just in the beginning stages in scaling these partnerships, we are already seeing them drive network expansion, and we expect to deliver strong unit economics when they reach scale. Now turning to the financials. The strong GMV growth also drove strong revenue growth. Net revenue grew 77% to $361 million, well above our outlook. Total network revenue grew 39%, while interest income increased 87%, and gain on loan sale rose four-fold. Revenue as a percentage of GMV contracted 170 basis points to 8%, driven by product mix. Split pay grew over four times year-over-year and accounted for more than 20% of GMV in the second quarter from just 11% last year. In our earnings supplement posted to our investor relations website, you will see that merchant revenue take rates have remained relatively constant for each of our offerings. On the expense side, we continue to grow revenue faster than transaction costs, delivering real leverage. Total transaction costs of $177 million grew 63% year-over-year compared to revenue growth of 77%. Excluding provision for credit losses, transaction costs as a percent of the GMV declined 190 basis points to 2.8%. Given the mix shift from longer duration 0% APR loans, loss on loan purchase commitments declined 4%, while improvements in our capital program helped limit the growth of funding costs to 47%. Provision for credit losses grew from $13 million one year ago to $53 million as a year ago figure included a $39 million release of excess COVID-related loan allowance, while this year's figure reflects the intentional normalization of credit that we've discussed over the past several quarters. Over the first half of the fiscal year, we have managed delinquencies of 30 days or more to remain below the same periods of fiscal 2019 and 2020, even as we have expanded the credit box to a more normalized level compared to the early days of the pandemic. Our strong top line growth and leverage we achieved on transaction costs drove a 93% increase in revenue less transaction costs to $184 million above our outlook range, or 4.1% of GMV. Looking at OpEx beyond transaction costs, we continue to invest in building our team and elevating our brand. We doubled headcount to more than 2,000 Affirmers and increased marketing around the holidays. Our teams have delivered a torrent of exciting new offerings, while our brand campaign drove greater awareness across all age cohorts and helped us reach the highest aided awareness among BNPL providers at 45%. Growing our team resulted in higher personnel costs and stock-based compensation. In Q2, total operating expenses exclusive of transaction costs grew $258 million, of which $158 million was related to D&A, stock-based compensation, warrant expense, and one-time expenses related to our IPO and acquisitions. Excluding these items, non-transactional operating expenses grew 109%. On a GAAP basis, operating loss was $196 million, which compares to a loss of $27 million last year. Adjusted operating loss was $8 million in the quarter compared to $3 million of income in the prior year. Now turning to our balance sheet. We fortified our cash position and delivered accelerating GMV growth while continuing to manage our capital with discipline and efficiency. In November, we issued $1.7 billion in zero coupon senior convertible notes with a five-year maturity, which has significantly increased the capital we have to invest in growth at an extremely attractive long-term borrowing cost while minimizing dilution. Our effective capital markets program and discipline approach helped to reduce equity capital used to fund our business from $277 million last year to $230 million, even as loans on the balance sheet grew by more than $500 million. As a percentage of total platform portfolio, equity capital required declined to 3.6% from 7.5% last year. Total platform portfolio grew 72% from $3.7 billion to $6.3 billion at the end of Q2, and we increased our overall funding capacity in line from $4.7 billion last year to $8.8 billion. Over the past year, we brought on $1.9 billion in new loan buyer commitments from both new and existing capital partners. Our balances held by third-party loan buyers from our forward flow program grew 129% to $3.7 billion, while our securitization program grew 83%. Our warehouse balances declined 24% as we continue to focus on more efficient funding vehicles. Before I move to our outlook, I want to touch on an important topic that has been top of mind for investors, interest rates. While potential interest rate hikes have dominated headlines, we remain confident in our ability to continue to grow rapidly while delivering strong economics as rates rise. Our financial outlook already reflects the roughly 180 basis point increase embedded in a three-month LIBOR forward curve. Our current long-term model, which calls for revenue less transaction cost of 3%-4%, also assumes rate normalization. We have significant advantages to help us mitigate the impact of rising rates, including broad and diverse funding partnerships that allow us to ship funding to less rate-sensitive counterparties, sophisticated underwriting and risk management infrastructure that allows us to manage unit economics with changes to our cost environment, and high turnover short-term assets that make our portfolio inherently nimble and able to react quickly to changing market conditions. At a constant product and funding mix, we estimate that a 100 basis point increase beyond the increase implied by the current yield curve would only result in a 10-20 basis point impact to revenue less transaction costs as a percentage of GMV for the remainder of fiscal year 2022. Looking out to fiscal 2023, we believe that a further 100 basis point rate increase, again, beyond current expectations, would only result in approximately 20 basis point impact to revenue less transaction costs as a percentage of GMV based upon our current funding and GMV mix. That is before we apply any of the numerous offsets we have, including consumer and merchant pricing, funding strategies, and credit optimizations. Looking beyond fiscal year 2023, at our current funding and product mix, we estimate the impact to revenue less transaction costs as a percentage of GMV to be approximately 40 basis points for every 100 basis points of rate movement beyond the current forward curve. Again, that is before applying any cost, credit, and revenue optimizations. Now, turning to the outlook. Our business has never been stronger. As we look to the remainder of our fiscal year, we are raising our financial outlook to reflect the robust second quarter results, accelerating momentum in the business, and we are now including Amazon's expected contribution to the outlook. For fiscal year 2022, we now expect GMV to be between 14.58 billion and 14.78 billion, representing a 76%-78% increase from fiscal year 2021. Given the strong traction we are seeing with Shopify, we now expect our split pay offering to comprise 15%-20% of total GMV for the fiscal year. We expect revenue of $1.29 billion-$1.31 billion, representing year-over-year growth of 48%-50%. We expect transaction costs of $705 million-$715 million, resulting in revenue less transaction costs of $585 million-$595 million. This reflects the continued mix shift we are seeing in the business. We expect an adjusted operating loss as a percentage of total revenue of 12%-14% as we continue to invest in the long-term growth of our business, and weighted average shares of approximately 285 million. Consistent with Max's remarks, our outlook does not assume a material impact from the rollout of Debit+. We expect a very strong fiscal third quarter with GMV of $3.61 billion-$3.71 billion. Total revenue of $325 million-$335 million. Transaction costs of $187 million-$192 million. Revenue less transaction costs of $138 million-$143 million. Adjusted operating loss as a percentage of revenue of 19%-21% and weighted average shares outstanding of 290 million. In closing, we just posted an incredible quarter of growth, and our team is seizing this momentum to continue to deliver on our mission. I'd like to add my thanks to the great work of all Affirmers this quarter. Max and I will now open the line for questions. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, we will be conducting a question-and-answer session. If you'd like to ask a question, you may press star one on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star two if you would like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star key. One moment while we poll for questions. Before we open it up for Q&A, I want to briefly address the earlier than customary issuance of our earnings press release today. Due to human error, a small portion of our Q2 results were inadvertently tweeted from Affirm's official Twitter account earlier today. Because of that, we felt it was appropriate to release our full financial results as promptly as possible thereafter, rather than waiting until after the market closed. With that, I'll turn it over to Doug to begin the Q&A session. Thank you. Our first question comes from the line of James Faucette with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question. Great. Thank you very much. I guess my first question is, obviously, the December quarter was massive for you guys, but the outlook doesn't seem as comparatively strong, especially the March quarter, and particularly if we're now incorporating more split pay from Shopify and Amazon, et cetera. Can you walk us through kind of that dynamic, especially on a sequential basis? I mean, is this seasonality more than expected drag from Peloton impact of revenue timing on Amazon and others? Just kinda help us understand the sequential evolution of the business. Yeah, I'll grab that one then. You know, I think to start off, we're very happy with the pace of scaling in the network. The Q4 results, as you said, were pretty spectacular. Sorry, calendar Q4 results were pretty spectacular. It was indeed a special quarter. We are reiterating our guidance and taking it up. Our outlook continues to improve for the balance of the fiscal year, and we're still well in excess of the hype, you know, growth phase. We're in the hypergrowth phase for the stock. We feel really good about the scaling that we're doing. Yes, there are impacts of seasonality. Calendar Q4 tends to be heavier with holiday shopping. As I shared in my remarks, we had a really strong holiday season, so there's a little bit of sequential impact there. Yes, the growth of interest-bearing will tend to create some back-endedness to both the revenue and margin profile of those originations. Again, I think we're very happy with the pace at which we're scaling. You know, we're certainly not focused on, or concerned with, you know, the next quarter. We're really looking about where this network will be over the next decade. Then, Michael, this is probably also for you, but, you know, I think both of you and Max highlighted that there's been a lot of questions around interest rates, but a lot of the other questions have to do with delinquencies, et cetera. As you said, is that you're kinda close to your target. We noticed that the most recent update, at least in the supplemental, indicated the percentage of 30-day delinquencies started to turn down and away from kind of your 2% target in recent weeks. Is that purely because of the nature of the incremental mix from the likes of Amazon or better consumer repayments, or are you tightening the credit standards? You know, how should we expect that to evolve in coming quarters? Very good question. If you look at the chart that we have in the supplement, you can see the seasonality curve of delinquencies. There's actually quite a bit of seasonality tied to both the shopping seasons and the repayment schedules that happen. We're back to a more normalized seasonality curve with respect to what you see in delinquencies. To reiterate the point, I mean, we're very happy with the credit outcomes we're driving right now. We take a very intentional approach here, and we have intentionally been loosening the credit box over the past year. We're still below 2019 and 2020 numbers, fiscal 2019 and 2020, and feel really good about the level of delinquency in light of the total unit economics that we're driving. The only other thing I'd add is that we really do manage to a total portfolio number here. There's a bit of a misunderstanding, we think, out there with folks looking at not the portfolio delinquencies but looking at one securitization vehicle or one particular slice of our business. We are very thoughtful about portfolio construction that goes into any one of our funding vehicles, and each one has a unique profile based upon market demand and our needs. For example, the split pay content may change. We may pledge loans that have some sort of delinquency, et cetera. No one securitization data set can really represent the portfolio, and we'd really encourage everybody to look at our investor supplement to see a real view of portfolio-wide DQs. That's great, Michael. Thank you very much. Our next question comes from the line of Timothy Chiodo with Credit Suisse. Please proceed with your question. Great. Thanks for taking the question. Michael, you touched on this a little bit in your prepared remarks in terms of slide 13, which has the merchant fee rates. You're right, overall, most of the lines are pretty stable. I wanted to see if we could just touch on a few of them that are moving around a little bit. Specifically, the dark blue, which is the split pay, seems to be ticking up a little bit in terms of the take rate. I was thinking maybe that could be related to Shopify. Also the purple line, which is the core IB, just ticking down a hair, maybe related to Amazon. Then if you could help us maybe elaborate on either of those and also the green, the non-integrated virtual card, I'd really appreciate that context. Yeah. The last we have the least amount of control over. That really is a function of the network interchange that we earn. I think you nailed it. The line that you see on split pay merchant fee rates up versus Q1, we were promotional with Shopify in particular in Q1, but really up even year-over-year back to the fiscal Q2 in 2021. We feel really good about our resiliency with respect to the most competitive space, which is the split pay product set. The IB line that you point out is a function of the growth that we have in our largest enterprises. We would earn less there than we would everywhere else. Part of the reason we're so confident in how we're growing is those two things mix in our favor, where you've got a lot of growth in the split pay offering with really high merchant fees, and you have a lot of user growth that comes along with that, combined with these enterprise-scale offerings that will drive tremendous processing volume, as well as, in the long run, we think, really strong economics. So feel really good about the mix. I really want investors to understand that, you know, when you have this sort of major shifts in the mix in the portfolio, it will shake out differently in the income statement. Thank you. Point well taken there on the various mix dynamics. Appreciate it. Quick follow-up is on processing costs. Fully appreciate that the Shopify revenue share will hit in that line item, which could cause a little bit of upward pressure on that specific expense line. A potential offset could be reduced card mix within the loan repayment. Is there any potential for you to work with someone like a Plaid or a Finicity to help increase the mix of direct bank account repayment? Yes. There is a potential. I was just starting to fall asleep because you guys are asking Michael excellent questions, and he's doing a great job answering them. Sorry. The long and short of it is, it's exactly right. The way I think, and this goes back many years now, the way we look at our transactional economics is across multiple dimensions. One is, of course, lifetime value to consumer, kind of, you know, managing credit side of it. On the ROA basis, you have to look at the charge-offs that you incur, and once you know, we, Michael, touched on this really well, and it's kind of all over my script, but basically, we manage that to a number. We decide what that's going to be, and we drive that to a basis point that we like per product, per merchant, et cetera. After you're done with that, you look at your other costs, and servicing is the one where we're always really hesitant to mess too much because you want the consumer experience to be amazing. You know, obviously, over time, we'll optimize that to a perfect number, but the sort of the high-touch, white-glove service we've created is really, really valuable to us. We're completely ruthless on the rest of it. The repayment cost is something that just screams AP basis points away. You're totally right. There's lots and lots of opportunity. The repayment devices or vehicles are not all created equal. There's some really interesting innovation happening even sort of beyond ACH, which is, you know, currently kind of the most popular, slash, cheapest one. We will absolutely do lots of things there. It is more important, and in this whole story of this quarter we're reporting and going forward, but we're still taking enormous amounts of white space. The growth of the network is what we are grading ourselves on right now. We are paying attention to cost, and at scale, be it real dollars, and we will invest in reduction of these costs as well. You guessed pretty well where opportunities are. Excellent. Thank you, Michael and Max. Our next question comes from the line of Ramsey El-Assal with Barclays. Please proceed with your question. Hi, guys. Thank you so much for taking my question this evening. I wanted to ask about the spread between volumes and revenue less transaction costs and just kind of get your expectations about you know at where those kind of yields should sort of trend and shake out over the next few quarters. Where do they exit the year? You know, what should we think about in terms of next year modeling them out? If you could comment on that, it'd be very helpful. Yeah. We're not ready to give guidance for 2023, so avoid that one. I think the guide that you see in the results we just posted, you know, we talk a lot about the long-term economics of the business being somewhere between 3%-4% on a revenue less transaction cost basis. We're on the higher end of that last quarter and inside the guidance for the back half of the year as well. While you know, I think there it is changing quite quickly with respect to the product-level economics. It you know, if you're taking on a split pay product with 5%-5.5% merchant fees, you're not gonna be making 4 points of margin. You do expect a little bit of compression on a percentage of GMV basis on the split pay business. Yet the opposite is true on our interest-bearing business, where we're able to earn even higher total revenue as transaction costs, but over time. I think as we continue to scale some of our enterprise partnerships, you're going to see some, again, back-endedness to the timing of those things. Our guidance reflects the mix that we expect over the next six months. We'll update everybody with 2023 back when we talk later this year. We're not at all concerned with our long-term guidance of staying in the 3%-4% range, which we believe is still materially better than our competition. Okay. I guess more broadly on profitability, can you kind of give us your updated view on the sort of longer-term multi-year path to profitability? Has ramping up any of these larger, significantly large, you know, larger partners like the Amazons of the world maybe faster than expected, the ramp down of Peloton. Has there been any change to your view or approach or ability to kind of solve for profitability at the same pace over the longer term? No. I mean, Max's line in the setup today is one I'd like to reiterate, which is our strategy hasn't changed. We talked about the financial model and framework in September, and that remains true no matter the macro conditions changing. While we have the opportunity to grow at this pace with what we think are industry-leading unit economics, we're not gonna take our foot off the gas, and we're gonna keep scaling up the network. The path towards profitability, you know, the long-term financial profile of the business remains the same, and it is a function of us achieving scale greater than where we're adding human capital. That human capital is what's driving all of these, we think, fantastic results, and we're still well-prepared to keep investing into what we think is an incredible growth opportunity. Great. I appreciate it. Thanks so much. Just one more way of thinking about it that I guess I utilize. Fundamentally, just from going back to my experience 20-odd years ago, pricing power of a payments network is directly proportionate to the number of active users it has, full stop. Like, ultimately, when you come to market and say, "I have a product, and I would like you to buy my way of delivering tender," the price that product is able to command is inevitably a function of how many people are using that product, prefer it, would like to use that at checkout, you know, whatever way you wanna call it. The reason we are so consumer growth and coverage obsessed isn't for some sort of a vanity number, but the fact that ultimately we intend to come to the market and say, "We are the largest network. We are the most active network. We would like you to pay for that appropriately." This growth is a direct tie to the path to profitability. I see. Great. Not too much has changed since your prior view, despite how the business has evolved. I appreciate it. Thanks for your answers. Our next question comes from the line of Dan Perlin with RBC Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question. Thanks, and good evening, guys. I wanted to ask a question around the kind of frequency of repeat customers versus the first time users. You have a slide on that a little bit. The question is really, you know, the interplay there between your customer acquisition model, and how we should be thinking about, you know, that influencing cost into the second half of the year and maybe even, you know, into next year. Yeah. Hold on. I'm figuring out. Go, go. I'll start, and then Max can add on. I mean, I think, we actually included that slide in the supplement 'cause we're really proud of what's going on underneath the surface. You know, we have a step change in number of users, 150% growth. Increasing frequency when you have that much user growth is actually really challenging. If you look at a chart and look at just the total transactions from repeat users and the growth there alongside the net new user growth, it is, which I feel like a really good spot for the business. There is some impact with respect to the rate of new user growth on unit economics. First time use tends to be slightly less profitable than the lifetime value of the consumer. You do have a little bit of, you know, startup costs associated with that user growth. As Max mentioned before, long-term, that's much more important to us. We're gonna keep adding users at a very aggressive clip. We're gonna stay focused on that. Part of the reason we have so much confidence in the long-term economics is that's happening right alongside tremendous growth in repeat usage on the platform. When we talk about network effects in the business, that's what that means. In the long run, gives us all the confidence in the world around where the economics will ultimately be. Yeah. No, I thought that was a pretty impressive set of numbers as you think about growing the network that quickly to have that level of frequency so quickly. The other question I have, do you have any insight that you could share with us around kinda January trends, in particular around the health of maybe some of the lower income cohorts that might be coming into the portfolio? I know some players out there have some concerns around what that dynamic is looking like. If you could share any of those, that would be great. Thank you. Yeah. I think what you saw in the disclosure around the delinquency trend is similar to how I think you should think about it, which is, to date, our credit outcomes are still a function of the decisions we've taken with respect to approval rates. There's obviously any number of seasonal effects that do require taking a fine-tooth comb over, not seeing the broader weakness that others have seen in our overall credit performance and feel really good about where we're at, and that's what gives us, again, the confidence to give the guide that we have for this quarter. Great. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jason Kupferberg with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question. Hey, thanks, guys. I just wanted to come back to this kind of general topic of, you know, we're adding $1.5 billion of GMV to the full-year guide, but we're basically not changing revenue less transaction expense. I know you're talking about the interest-bearing loans and kind of the revenue recognition dynamics there. I mean, how long is that lag typically? I mean, I think this is a dynamic that's kind of throwing people off a bit, and how much of this sort of dynamic is due to Amazon? Yeah. Amazon's part of it. You know, while the growth rate in Amazon, the addition of Amazon is great for us, as we communicated, we still doubled GMV excluding Amazon. We know there's a lot of growth happening across the whole portfolio, so it's not just limited to Amazon. The interest-bearing portfolio is growing quite quickly, and that does tend to have that effect that you talked about. The other obvious impact with respect to the, you know, revenue less transaction cost as a percentage of GMV is the mix towards split pay, again, as it does run lower. I mean, again, you know, it's a repeated theme with us, but product mix really does shake out with respect to the take rates on both revenue and the revenue less transaction cost. And again, I think the only other thing to repeat is we feel like we're operating at the higher end of the range that we've given folks in that 3%-4% range and have a lot of confidence, again, in our long-term unit economics here and, again, would put ourselves up against anybody in our space with respect to the rates at which we're delivering here. Okay. I guess just for the back half of the year, how should we be thinking about GMV growth excluding Peloton? Like, has your full-year expectation on Peloton changed at all just given some of the challenges that they're having? Yeah. Our current guidance reflects all of our current thinking on where they're at. We had, you know, frankly, a good quarter in Q2, above our internal expectations and feel like they're still delivering an incredible amount of volume for us. You know, we admire their brand, and we admire the loyalty that they have among their consumers, and we'll keep partnering with them. We launched with them in Australia, this past quarter, and we're gonna keep helping them grow their business. Okay. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Andrew Jeffrey with Truist Securities. Please proceed with your question. Hi. Yeah, I appreciate you taking the question. Maybe as it relates to Shopify, I'm still trying to sort of reconcile James' question a little bit too. I think you said it'll be 15%-20% split pay. It will be about 15%-20% of GMV this year. I guess the first question would be where do you think that can go? It's a pretty quick ramp, although not totally out of line with our expectations. The follow-up would be, it kind of implies, based on your guidance, that the rest of the business is growing about 45% volume-wise, which might be a little bit lower than we might have thought. Can you just address those two points? I'll start, and I'll let Michael finish. You know, I don't think we'll break out exactly what percentage of Shop Pay Installments is, but it can, it's obviously grown really well. The merchant adoption has been excellent. You know, there's no shortage of demand. I'm confident it can go up more. I don't think we're breaking that out in our guidance, although Michael can correct me if he's, if I'm wrong here. But there's an enormous amount of road there. Just if you know, take a quick look at the Shop Pay Installments doesn't even support interest-bearing loans today. But that alone as a headline should give you a pretty good idea that the surface has been scratched but not a whole lot more. Yeah. 1 5%-20% is a good number. How big could it be? It could be very big. Just like we haven't launched interest-bearing on Shopify, we haven't launched split pay with either of our two largest enterprise merchants. Have a lot of confidence that that number can continue to go up. I think the only other point with respect to the rest of the portfolio growth is just, you know, we are up against continued elevated levels in our, call it, a long-term zero finance business. We would continue to expect some of that to be a drag on the balance of the portfolio, but not something that we're trying to, again, target a Q3 growth number. We're thinking about how this network scales and then how that those network effects show up with repeat usage across the whole portfolio. Okay. All right. Well, I appreciate it. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Andrew Bauch with SMBC Nikko Securities America. Please proceed with your question. Hey, guys. I wanted to ask a question about the CFPB look at buy now, pay later. From whatever you can share, is there anything you've garnered from those initial discussions that kind of give us a sense of how they're looking at the offering going forward? Sure. You know, first of all, it's obviously not for us to comment on their work there. The thing that's been true for us for the last 10 years is that we have a very, very high moral ground approach to this entire business, to the way we conduct ourselves, to the way we treat consumers, the way we deal with disputes, et cetera, et cetera. All things kept equal, we've been at the forefront of the industry suggesting to the regulators that they should have a look and a set of clear rules and just, you know, a good guidance around the conduct of all the players. In that sense, it's a positive news. That said, you know, the regulatory relationship is both a very, very important thing, a very serious thing. We're interacting with them. There's a fairly detailed request for information. Obviously, we'll reply to that. All things kept equal, I think regulatory attention to the space is great. I was a little bit glib when I pointed out that in a public record of the information demand, there was sort of quite a lot of space dedicated to asking for the information around fees charged, the late fees or deferred interests or all sorts of other things. We filled that out with zeros because we don't charge any of those things to consumers, and you know, took a small amount of pride in that we stuck to our mission and stuck to our approach to treating consumers right. That said, I'm confident over time there will be more regulatory attention, and we will comply with all the necessary rules, and we'll do well there. Too early to tell what the future looks like. It's certainly for them to determine, but we're very happy to engage. I'll help you. Thank you. Like, my follow-up would be, is there any kind of guidepost that you can give us from a macro perspective, what you're embedding in the outlook for be it unemployment, inflation or rates? I appreciate the color on the interest rate moves to the impact of the model. Just kind of thinking about what a baseline number that you're embedding in your assumption would be. Yeah. So again. So I'll- Go ahead. Sorry, I'll this time I get to take the picture last. The last one was yours. I'm sure you'll have macro views as well. The thing that I think people really misunderstand about our products, maybe because it is more popular outside of high finance perhaps. When the interest rates go up, when the prices go up, really, when prices go up, our product is more useful. If you're trying to make ends meet and you're trying to pay for a couch, and your credit card is confusing you, and the rates just went up, and Affirm gives you clarity and a way to pay for things and a clear schedule, and then you're done, and there are no late fees. Half the time, plus or minus, the seller will sponsor it, and you pay no interest. Just here's a basic thought experiment. If the card rate that you paid went up 5%, for example, how do you feel about the 0% rate that a seller at a homeware shop is offering you powered by Affirm? Like it's 5% more compelling. As inflation happens, the product that we provide is actually more powerful, more useful, has significantly better bearings on the sort of consumer demand side of things. On the flip side, of course, the government addresses inflation, raises rates, etc. I'll stop now, and Michael can tell you what we've done about it. All things kept equal at that top line, this is generally a tailwind, not a headwind. Got it. I appreciate it, guys. Yeah. Michael. For the total avoidance of doubt, all of our outlook reflects the forward curve. There's roughly 180 basis points of rate increases. We take that into all of our models when we give guidance. It's consistent with the market expectation of rate movement. We talk about rising rates. That's not a problem for us at all. That's already reflected in the guidance. Appreciate the color. Our next question comes from the line of Bryan Keane with Deutsche Bank. Please proceed with your question. Hi, guys. Thanks for taking the questions. Just two clarifications, I guess, just because it's come up a few times. The implied revenue transaction cost take rate, when you gave guidance for Q2 was almost about 5%. I think one of the surprises was it came in at 4.1. You talked about mix. Was that just that you didn't realize that the Shop Pay business was going to grow that much and it had that much of a factor on it? Just trying to make sure the guidance versus the actual. Yeah, that's right. The mix impact of the business, the growth that we saw, which was obviously well in excess of the guidance that we had given in the quarter, tended to mix towards either lower revenue transaction costs, take rates as a percentage of the total or tend to be a little bit more back-end weighted. Both those two effects caused the percent to go down, despite the fact that we did, of course, beat the guidance on a dollar basis. Got it. The follow-up question we get often is the profitability on those larger contracts like an Amazon or Shop Pay. You know, how do we think about that? Because those terms are obviously with some larger merchants, you know, typically the larger merchants push pricing the hardest. You know, it's really all pricing is made on SMB. Just trying to think about that relationship. Thanks so much. Yeah. If you look at the merchant take rate slide again in the supplement, you'll see that we're doing quite well on the split pay business with respect to our ability to continue to earn good fees. We're not breaking out profitability by partner, but I think a key part of the reason we were able to deliver these exceptional enterprise experiences to the largest merchants is the fact that we're not just reliant on merchant fees. The fact that we do have consumer interest in the economic model does allow us to get to the merchant fee clearing rates that work for largest enterprises while still delivering really strong unit economics. Got it. Thanks for the clarifications. Our next question comes from the line of Dan Dolev with Mizuho. Please proceed with your question. Hey, thank you for taking my questions. I just have a question regarding kind of where you are in terms of GMV and what's implied in the guidance. I'm still trying to get my head around, you know, the massive beat in the quarter, and then you seem to be guiding kind of in terms of a sequential basis, a much lower GMV. I just wanna make sure that this is hopefully a sign of conservatism and that there's the question we're getting a lot from investors this evening is that there's, you know, maybe something else that got weaker. We just wanna reassure ourselves and investors that this is simply being conservative given the strong results, and thank you very much for this. First of all, I think Michael already mentioned this, seasonality is a significant component of this business, and so that's an important piece of the puzzle. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking about in terms of something that may have gotten weaker, not from our point of view. I think we've done fine, not anticipating weakness. We, you know, try to make sure that we promise and deliver as opposed to promise and hold our breath and see what happens. That's probably a philosophical approach to guide what we have there. Got it. Yeah, sorry. I didn't mean to sort of harp on it. You know, if I look at sort of pre-COVID kind of trends on a GMV basis, it doesn't look like at least like you know Q3, Q4 weaker. That's why I asked the question, but you know. In all honesty, the quarter we just exited was just an absolutely monster. You know, no matter what you sort of say for the next one, it'll look like, well, you know, gosh, what happened here? Our transaction volume, I'm going from memory here, so I may be wrong. Michael, correct me. I think we tripled year-on-year on Black Friday, Cyber Monday transaction count. You know, we haven't tripled any metric of that class since we were a Series B or Series C company. The growth of GMV and transactions accelerated quite a lot. We'll digest it and grow some more. Appreciate it. Thank you so much, guys. Appreciate it. Our next question comes from the line of Vincent Caintic with Stephens. Please proceed with your question. Hey, thanks for taking my question. And thanks for all the details on the credit trends, all those slides there. Just wanted to follow up on that. I guess, you know, there's this concern about credit normalization and how it impacts the business, if at all. You know, looking at the slides, the delinquencies, you know, still below 2019, but getting there, the net charge-off as well. Just wondering, you know, as you're thinking if credit is normalizing, you know, how does that impact the business? And if you can describe some of the offsets that you were mentioning earlier, like the optimizations, the merchant pricing and so on, that would be helpful. Thank you. I'll start and let Michael chime in as well. I'll never tire of repeating it, but we choose the delinquency number we post. You know, notwithstanding completely unexpected events. Our job, goal, approach is to drive to a number that we want here. We feel that we were probably retrospectively unnecessarily careful or unnecessarily tight, for lack of a better term. We loosened quite deliberately. As you noted, we've also or someone else actually already noticed that we have now gotten to roughly the range that we like, and we'll continue managing the number. In that sense, there are inevitably ups and downs in consumer behavior as stimulus winding down and all the other various microeconomic events impacting the business. We have an enormous number of transactions as sort of a, you know, think of it as a curve that's differentiable at every point. You know, basically, I'm not sure it's not infinite number of derivatives, but it's a high number of derivatives in terms of ability to differentiate, which means at any given time, we have control both at product level and at the consumer level. Not being a line of credit allows us to differentiate, you know, a specific point of purchase, specific type of transaction. We'll continue driving to the outcomes that we need, we want for our margin and our numbers. The macroeconomic realities, or at least our read of it, is what shapes our willingness to sort of bet into the gray zone. As we read the macroeconomic numbers, we'll become less or more willing to allow a little bit more risk into the system. It's something that is a choice. In that sense, it's almost hard for me to react to what is the macroeconomic or the, you know, what is the wider consumer trend doing? There's a lot more demand for our product than we are approving in many cases because it's just a bad idea for a particular consumer to borrow, certainly borrow from us, given our lots of guardrails, no fees, et cetera. In that sense, the demand for our product significantly outstrips our willingness to take the risk, and we'll continue managing sort of the right products there. Okay, great. Thank you. I mean, I guess following up on that, you know, so it's you have credit, the credit variables as a input of your decision-making. I mean, I guess if there is a kind of a macro credit issue, that doesn't sound like that's really gonna impact volumes or, you know, merchant pricing that should stay the same because your product becomes more valuable in that situation. Or maybe you could talk about, I don't know, like the inputs and outputs there. I'll tell you a little bit of a color-generating anecdote. In the earliest days of the pandemic, we actually went to our merchants and said, "Look, we believe the macroeconomic conditions are going to worsen before they get better. We don't really know. There's a lot of uncertainty. For those of you who are very focused on the bottom line, we are going to adjust credits, which means that approvals will go down a little bit." This is. We're dealing in a margin here, so this is points up or down. For those focused on the top line, and it all depends on the margin embedded in the merchant's product, right? Some people manufacture their own, others resell something they buy and resell it again. The margin content that they have is usable to increase our approvals and allow us to bet in the consumer ability to repay sort of gray zone where the models say profitability is five, but it's you know not 100%. We generally speaking were able to command a significant price increases at the merchant base during the early days of the pandemic because the products that we provide to the consumer in the moments of uncertainty is just so damn powerful. Yes, generally speaking, I mean, there's lots of sort of asterisks to add there. You know, macroeconomic issues can be described as all kinds of things. as the economy ebbs and flows, if consumers need more access to credit, many of our partners are very happy to pay more for their consumers to complete transactions, because the certainty and sense of control that we provide is what helps them move merchandise off the shelves. In that sense, I mean, it's a little glib, but macroeconomic uncertainty is actually a driver of business like ours. If everybody was just swimming in government stimulus money, maybe just buy everything for cash. The discontinuation of various stimuli is on net a positive driver for the business, both on the consumer demand side and the merchant's willingness to pay for our services. Okay, perfect. That's very helpful commentary. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Chris Brendler with D.A. Davidson. Please proceed with your question. Hi. Thanks. Good afternoon, and thanks for taking my questions. I'll start a little bit, something a little bit more boring, on the expense side. You know, pretty big sequential increases in all the non-GAAP expenses, you know, technology or sales and marketing. I just wanna get a sense, is that, you know, related to some of the ramp-up in some of these partnerships, or should we think of that expense growth as a run rate? And obviously, I know you have the operating income guidance out there for the near term, but just thinking about expense growth slowing, and maybe giving a characteristic of some of that expense growth would be great as well. Thanks. Yeah. You know, characteristic is mostly human capital combined with marketing investments on the non-GAAP side. On the GAAP side, there's also the impact associated with stock-based compensation, D&A, and the other non-cash items. You know, I think we will stand by our long-term guidance that we gave in September around the profitability of the business being a function of the growth rate. While we're growing like this, we are gonna keep investing in that human capital to build great products and delight consumers. When and if that growth rate ever starts to slow down, you'll see us grow expenses much slower and begin to deliver positive adjusted operating income. I think you know, of the profitability or bottom line measures that we really manage to, that adjusted operating income number is what we you know, intend to hit. It's where we have the guidance out for you for this period, and that's the number that we think will become a, you know, scaling up and down as growth rates change. Okay. Thank you. I guess another boring question, Michael, is the health of the debt markets. I know you continue to use securitization both on and off balance sheet. It looks like you sold some more whole loans this quarter. Balance sheet growth actually came in a little bit below our estimates. Just, you know, is it still as healthy as it was given your increasing traction among fixed income investors, or has there been a bit of a pullback given the macro conditions? No, I think we still continue to have very well-received deals in the market, both, you know, single counterparty deals and our forward flow relationships. As mentioned on the script, we added a great deal of capacity by adding new partners and upsizing existing ones, and we still continue to receive a lot of demand for the assets. Our securitization activity has also been very successful, and you're gonna see us continue to be very, very active there in both of those two markets and levers to continue to grow our business and deliver, we think again, excellent capital efficiency. Great. Congrats on the results as well. Thank you so much. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes our question and answer session. This also concludes our call. Thank you for your participation. You may disconnect your lines at this time, and have a wonderful day.