Okay, it looks like the webcast is starting. So, once again, I'm Ryan Brinkman, the US Automotive Equity Research Analyst at J.P. Morgan. Very happy to have BorgWarner with us, including their relatively new CFO, Craig Aaron, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Of course, not new to BorgWarner and longtime Vice President, Investor Relations, Pat Nolan. So, Craig and Pat, thanks so much for coming to the conference. Thank you for having us. You know, we've been starting all of the supplier discussions with a couple of standard questions. And the first one, it really relates to BorgWarner, and that's, you know, what has happened over the past, you know, year and a half or so in terms of the changing expectations for battery electric vehicles? You know, for a long time, it just seemed like, you know, we couldn't keep pace with the forecast, and now it's starting to go in the other direction. Still growth, but not like before. You know, S&P Global Mobility at the start of the year was thinking that global BEV production this year would be up 32%, and now they think only 10%. What, in your view, accounts for this significant reset of expectations, and has the slower near-term growth caused you to think any differently about the medium- or long-term trajectory? And what are the implications, do you think, for BorgWarner? Yeah, so, you know, we're obviously seeing a lot of volatility on the light vehicle side of our eProducts portfolio, and we're seeing the push out of some programs, but also just lower volumes on existing platforms. When I take a big step back, it all comes back to the consumer, and what does the consumer want? And I think there's some challenges right now, whether that's range anxiety, infrastructure-related challenges, or just the cost of the vehicle. I think over the long term, you know, those issues get solved. You know, for BorgWarner, there's obviously gonna be changing regulations in Europe and in China, and for us, that's gonna drive future hybridization and electrification of the vehicle. So I think our long-term thesis of battery electric vehicles and hybridization is gonna be a larger portion of the market, I think, holds. I think that makes a lot of sense to us. Over the short term, I fully expect that we're gonna see volatility in the market. And so it really comes down to what can BorgWarner control? And what BorgWarner can control is having a technology-focused portfolio that can support our customers around the globe. What we can control is growing above-market production and converting that growth into income in the mid-teens. You know, what we can control is converting that income into cash flow and be able to invest that intelligently, whether that's organically or inorganically, or providing it to shareholders, which is what we're doing this year. So we're really focused on what we can control. Second question relates to another big theme in the industry currently, which is the strong rise of domestic Chinese automakers, where I think you have some very good news to report. You know, these automakers were quick to embrace electrification. Their quality and design has improved significantly. They're introducing models twice the rate of global peers, incorporating latest technologies. BYD, five years ago, was the 13th largest automaker in China, now they're the biggest. Collectively, the Chinese have gone from 35% of that market to 55%, even more, maybe in some recent months. Still small outside of China, but with big ambitions. How do you see this trend evolving inside and outside of China? And, you know, many of the companies we cover are underexposed. You're overexposed. Maybe talk about how you got there and, what's next with your relationship with Chinese domestic Chinese automakers. Yeah, you're right. We've seen the rise of some China OEMs. BYD is a great example of that. I think for BorgWarner, really what it comes down to is diversification. We need to be diversified across regions. We need to be diversified through our customer base. We don't want to rise and fall with one region. We don't want to rise and fall with one customer. So when I take a big step back, we just need to support all of our customers around the globe, have a diverse customer base, be diversified by region. I think that's the best way to run the portfolio. Would it be helpful to just talk about our exposure to- Yeah, please. Thanks, Ryan. So China today, it's about 20% of our revenue, which is obviously significantly higher than it was a few years ago. And within that mix of revenue, about 70% of it's with the local OEMs. It's pretty diverse representation among them, but if you also look at our eProduct side of our business in China, about 90% of that net sales is with the locals as well. So I think it's a really good testament to what we're seeing in terms of the pull of our technologies across the portfolio. Pat and I were talking on the phone not long ago, and, and he reminded me that, our annual bus tour of Detroit was... How many years ago did you join? Was it six, seven? Late 2016, right at the end of 2016. Got it. It's like his first day there, you know, we, he, you know, was our, was our tour, and, and he got that question. You know, what, what's the exposure to foreign JV? Or, it was the opposite. Yeah. It was 70% with the JVs, right? That's right. So, big, big, big change there. Good, good call on that one. Next question is about, growth over market, right? So you, you're currently targeting, you know, like 0.5%-2.5% organic growth, this year in an industry which weighted for your end markets is forecast, I think, to shrink, you know, 2%-3%. So sort of like 400 basis points of, of outperformance at the midpoint, which is, you know, really very little change versus the, like, 425 basis points, that seemed to be implied by the 2024 guide when it was first introduced in, February. And the context here is what we just talked about, the S&P Global Mobility BEV forecast coming down so much, and a lot of the other suppliers have been complaining about, you know, adverse customer mix, and maybe you sideskirt a little of that in China with your better composition. But still, you know, everybody's hit by Stellantis and here and there, and you know. Just curious, you know, how your growth over market has managed to maybe hold up better than peers this year, and if that, you know, tells us anything about how the growth over market might be able to trend going forward as the industry continues to be volatile and change. Yeah, so our growth over market this year that we just updated with our January re-release was 350-450 basis points for the full year. So we're really proud of that. And it really comes back to our technology-focused portfolio, and how do we manage that? We manage that on the foundational side of the business, which is our combustion products. The goal of those businesses are to grow over your respective market. The market for them is the combustion plus the hybrid market. Then we have our eProducts business units. They're focused on hybrid and electric vehicles. Those business units, you need to grow over market, which means the hybrid market and the battery electric vehicle market. If both of the sides of our portfolio are growing above market, the total company grows above market, and that's really what we're focused on doing, and that's what's really leading to that 300-450 basis points. At the end of the day, if we're leading on both sides of that ledger, then it doesn't really matter what the propulsion mix is in any given year. So that's our focus. Yeah. Let's go back for a moment to what I thought was really one of the key takeaways from the May 2023 Investor Day- Mm-hmm. which was that scenario analysis that you put out, demonstrating your expectation that BorgWarner could deliver roughly the same amount of EBIT dollars as assumed in your base case scenario of 48% BEV penetration in 2030. Even in the event that BEV penetration were to track, you know, a materially lower 40% or higher 60%. I note that S&P Global Mobility, they currently expect 2030 BEV penetration of 43%. So, you know, down from the 47% that they expected when you expected 48%. So, trending toward the lower end there. And, you know, perhaps there could be another, you know, change in the volatile powertrain expectations. But just wanted to check in with you, now that it does appear, we think that the industry's probably trending toward the low end of the BEV penetration scenario, how you're feeling about the company's ability to deliver on that similar profit level that you talked about. And then I'd note, too, that your scenario analysis, you know, I made sure it says BEV, you know, not EV, right? And so, it seems to be specifically about the BEV penetration versus ICE. And, you know, it seems like some of the consensus is that, okay, well, if we're gonna be lower on BEV, we might be higher on the HEV, which I don't know, if I add some nuance, could be good, make the downside different. What do you think about that scenario analysis now, in light of everything that has transpired since the Investor Day? Yeah, maybe I'll take that one. So Ryan, I agree with a lot of what you said about the volatility in the market. Clearly, that's making it very hard to predict over the near and maybe very near midterm, where ultimately the industry is gonna be. As Craig talked about, we continue to believe in the long-term trend, I would say, in the NEV market, that hybrid plus BEV market. But I think given the volatility, I think the one thing that's changed a bit, and it's interesting, though, when we put that scenario analysis together, we were getting questions on the other end. "Well, what if BEV comes faster?" Now it's the opposite way. What I think the takeaway for us is, and how we've changed how we're managing the operating profile of the business, is we wanna deliver an incremental margin on an all-in basis as we move forward. So as we drop through the higher revenue, whether or not it comes from combustion, hybrid, electric, we want to deliver that same mid-teens conversion. That's a little different than what we said a year ago. 'Cause a year ago, our message was: Well, we are gonna deliver a contribution on our growth, but we're gonna be continuing to ramp up our spending, i.e., our ER&D, that we're not gonna quite hit that mid-teens conversion if it comes from BEV purely. Now, the message is different. Now, we wanna deliver that same mid-teens all-in, because given the lack of visibility that we have near term, because all the volatility you talked about, that's how we think we have this is the appropriate way to manage the business and drive the margin profile. I wanted to ask, I saw in June that you announced a change in your segment reporting. Probably no different go-to-market, but, you know, who reports to who within the organization. And there was, you know, one change in the name of a division. ePropulsion now is gonna be called PowerDrive. So not a lot of change to that unit, but just curiously trying to signal anything with the name change. And then the more substantive change appears to be, you know, to have been grouping the Morse engine timing systems together with drivetrain and then grouping battery with charging. I mean, it appears very logical, but maybe just talk about what the motivation might have been there. One focused on growth, one focused on cost. Anything gonna change differently within the organization as a result of this? Yeah. I mean, I think the key word that comes to mind is focus. It's really all about focus. When you think about this resegmentation, we're gonna have two very focused foundational business units. It's gonna be called Turbo, and Thermal Technologies will be one of those business units, and the other one is Drivetrain and Morse Systems. And their goals on that side of the business is outgrow their individual markets, again, the combustion market and the hybrid market, convert that growth into income and deliver cash for the company. Those are their objectives on that, on those for those foundational business units. On the other side, we're gonna have very focused eProducts business units. It's PowerDrive Systems, formerly ePropulsion. We're simply just changing the name, which is an internal name, so we're using the same internal name and external name. But then we also are breaking out our battery and charging business, which is at scale. And so the focus of those ePropulsion business units are grow over market and deliver incremental conversion on an all-in basis. So it's really, for us, all about focus. And then the other thought here is providing additional clarity to our investors. You know, we get a lot of questions, obviously, about, the eProduct side of our portfolio. By breaking out battery and charging, they're gonna be able to see another business unit from us, not just, PowerDrive Systems, but now battery and charging, and the success that we're having with that business. ... Thanks. You know, next, I thought to ask around, you know, the restructuring programs that you're currently engaged in. Mm-hmm. You know, firstly, you have this ongoing restructuring that was announced last year impacting your foundational businesses. Maybe just give us an update on where you stand with regard to the planned $130 million -$150 million of spending, with regard to the $80 million -$90 million of savings. But secondly, you've got this, you know, new restructuring program that was just announced and which already began delivering savings in June, you know, helping margin during the quarter, aimed this time at ePropulsion. And, in fact, I heard you talk on the call about how, you know, you call, you know, "Hey, look, there were some one-time items that kind of helped us," and one of which, you know, the surrendering of some, you know, Kevin's comp packages as he left. But another one was just restructuring program that you guys didn't know about that contributed in the quarter. I mean, that's arguably. Yeah, we didn't. It wasn't in consensus, but that's real. I mean, that's not a one-time item, right? So, it is already helping. You know, what, what can you tell us about this, the second new restructuring program as well, and, and what it implies for your ability to deliver profitable growth and targeted incrementals, regardless of the source of that growth? Maybe those teams just kept expanding, expanding for so long, and maybe they weren't expecting to have restructuring, but what does it say about, you know, the, the discipline that, that you have? Yeah, so we have two restructuring programs, like you mentioned. In 2023, we announced a foundational restructuring, and so some of the statistics that you mentioned are very true, $100 million -$150 million of restructuring costs. We see $80 million -$90 million of savings in 2027. And what was the purpose of that restructuring? Well, we expect that foundational revenue to decline over time, and so we need to take cost actions to make sure that when we lose that revenue, we're decrementing in the mid-teens. That's the goal of that restructuring. And we're seeing the benefits of that restructuring through our P&L today. When you look at our second quarter results, also our first quarter results, part of the reason they were so strong is because you're seeing the benefits of those restructuring actions around the globe. Then in June, we announced restructuring related to our PowerDrive Systems, formerly ePropulsion segment. That's a $75 million restructuring costs, and we expect a $100 million in savings by 2026, with $20 million-$30 million this year. And the focus there is we couldn't wait for the revenue any longer. We're seeing the delays in revenue like we've been talking about earlier. We needed to get that cost structure aligned with the current level of revenue. That's gonna be the future growth engine of the company, get the cost structure right, so that when that business grows, which it will, we're gonna drive incremental margins in the mid-teens on an all-in basis. So it's really about aligning the current level of sales with the appropriate cost structure. Great, thanks. And, you know, maybe can we check in regarding your thoughts on valuation, given... So we've talked about some pretty good, you know, news so far, and, you know, your growth over market, you know, almost unchanged for the year when other peers have seen significant degradation, with you actually taking up your margin despite lower sales, only one of three suppliers that we cover, that out of 11 that has managed to do that this year. And that's despite, you know, the headwind from industry sales. So, you know, but I think the knock on Borg, historically, has been that, you know, you couldn't sustain the performance you have now because of the upcoming changes and the powertrain mix. I feel like this year you're showing that you can do that. But despite this, you know, you're using the midpoint of the new EPS guide, which is supercharged by your buybacks at $4.05, up from $3.03 at the start of the year. You know, given where your shares are now, it's just about 8.2 times EPS, right? 8.2 x P/E, versus 12.1 x for the average supplier we cover, and 5.3x EBITDA, versus the sector average of 6.3. So, you know, where do you think the biggest opportunity, or opportunities, may lie, in terms of, you know, helping to close this valuation gap, to trade, you know, even at parity with, with the other suppliers, let alone to return to the, the type of premium multiple that you'd historically commanded? Yeah, I mean, I'll start by saying I'm really proud of the year that we're having so far. We had a really strong first six months of the year, growth over market, really strong margin profile, and we delivered $297 million of free cash flow in the second quarter. It was a great quarter for us. When we updated our outlook, even with revenue coming down primarily from production, we're expanding margins, and we're delivering over $500 million of free cash flow in the year. I'm really proud of where we're at as a company. I think our focus from a valuation perspective is, let's focus on what BorgWarner can control, and what can we control? We can control having a great portfolio that can support our customers around the globe, whether that's for foundational products or e-products... or hybrid applications. We can focus on that growth, converting it to income on an all-in basis in the mid-teens, which isn't something we were talking about previously. Focus on growing operating income on an absolute basis year over year. Focus on delivering free cash flow, and then that will allow us to invest organically, inorganically, but also return cash to shareholders. And we announced we're providing all the cash flow this year to our shareholders. So I think we need to focus on what BorgWarner can control. Growth over market, conversion, cash flow. I think that's what we should focus on. Well, yeah, let's talk about that, buyback then, right? $300 million. You did $100 million already in the first quarter. You pay about $100 million in dividends, right? So, that is the $500 million of the $525 million of FCF that you guide to. Now, how indicative of, you know, how indicative is this year's allocation to what we might expect going forward? 'Cause in the past, you know, the repurchases needed to compete with M&A, you know, to prepare the company for the EV transition. I feel like that's pretty much done, would you say? I don't know, so is there much more room now to return capital? And then maybe on a related note, I'm curious if you would ever potentially consider levering to repurchase shares while maintaining your investment grade rating, similar to what Aptiv announced last week. You probably were expecting that question, after what they did. And, you know, can you remind us of your targeted leverage range, why you feel that's, you know, the appropriate amount to run with? Sure. Yeah, so I'll, I'll actually start with liquidity and leverage. And when, when I look at our balance sheet at the end of the second quarter, I put a check mark next to both of those. We target liquidity, including our $2 billion revolver, at about 20% of sales, and we're achieving that mark in the second quarter. When I think about leverage on a gross basis for the company, we're looking for leverage right around 2x. Again, when I look at our balance sheet at the end of the second quarter, I feel good about liquidity, I feel good about leverage. Fred shared on the call that we don't see any M&A closing or being announced in the next few quarters, and so the right approach from us, just a very balanced capital allocation approach, is that we feel really good about our balance sheet. We should take this extra cash and return it to shareholders. And it's exactly what you just said, $400 million in buybacks and $100 million in consistent quarterly dividend that we're not gonna turn on and turn off. It's gonna be paid through the cycle. You know, as far as your comment about Aptiv, you know, that's not our focus right now. Our focus right now is let's execute that $300 million buyback, and so that's what we're gonna do through the course of the next six months. I think an interesting point is, you know, when you take a step back and look at our repurchases going back to Q4 of last year, once we execute this $300 million, we'll have repurchased 7% of the company's shares post the PHINIA spin-off. So, I think that's a pretty, pretty healthy share buyback program, and we're excited to execute it. And they were talking yesterday. They're buying back their shares as well. Yeah, and you know, I wanted to check in on you know, where we are at the latest with the automaker in-source, outsource decisions, because I think it's been you know, clear for some time to the investors that you know, the content per vehicle opportunity is much greater on battery electric vehicles for you than on internal combustion. But there's always been that separate question of you know, what will your share of the battery electric opportunity be, including because you know, of how much will the automakers maybe opt to do in-house versus you know, in-house for EVs versus what they had done for the ICE components, which you know, ICE, maybe they're more willing to outsource. You know, GM especially, it seems, with the Ultium Drive, Ford, with some of their statements, you know, seem to be desiring to do more in-house when it came to EV propulsion and even EV driveline. However, you know, it seems like these strategies were articulated when there was a lot more concern about, you know, continuity of supply than there is now, because there was thought to be not enough lithium to go around, you know, not enough, you know, motors or inverters. It was this gold rush to EVs, right? Now, now that the growth in EVs is expected to be more moderate, with the increased focus on profitability that the automakers have versus, you know, growth, you know, previously in EVs at any cost, you know, I'm curious, how you're thinking now about the, how much of the addressable market might end up going to suppliers like BorgWarner? How are you thinking about this, and how are the customers thinking about it? Are you having any different tone or conversations with them? Yeah. So I think you're right that the volatility that we've seen, the change in some of the volume expectation of the programs, it's rational that it's gonna at least bring to light, or the thought process of, do I reconsider what I thought was gonna be in-house versus outsourced? I think that's a very reasonable thing to think, that those decisions that seemed so finite 12-24 months ago probably could see some potential to change. I'd say the reality is we haven't seen it yet, right? I think we're. I I think many of our customers are trying to figure out how their portfolios are gonna pivot in reaction to this volatility. There are some programs coming now, and that's what's different from maybe 3, 6 months ago, is those programs are getting, starting to get closer. They're starting to become real programs. They haven't come out for a quote yet, but there's starting to be programs in the pipeline. As we stand here today, I think our view of what the outsourced market, in terms of percentage of BEV, is roughly unchanged from on a component level. We still see about 80% of inverters outsourced. That's just not where the OEMs live, right? In that electronic space. Motors, we still see 50%-60% of that outsourced. Maybe that could go higher, we'll, we'll see. And IDMs is about a third of the market today. So those numbers have been fairly consistent over the past several years, but I think we're gonna have to wait and see. Do this change in this market dynamic change the outsource decisions by customers?... I think it's the right question. We haven't seen a change yet. I think it was two of our Detroit trips ago, December of 2022, I guess, when we were leaving the BorgWarner campus to go to Ford, and, you know, we'd mentioned to Fred about, you know, insourcing even inverter production. And he said, "When you ask Jim, say, 'What do you mean when you say you will insource it? What do you mean exactly?' Mm-hmm. Like, are you gonna be doing everything? Are there still gonna be a component opportunity? So, maybe just frame that a little bit to the downside. Even when the automakers are doing it themselves, is there still a role for BorgWarner to play there, an opportunity for you? I, I think the opportunity is still significant. I mean, if we're supplying, we're happy to supply an inverter. An inverter can be $400-$800 of content. That's more than we have on combustion vehicles in terms of our average adjustable content. Motors, we're happy to supply a full motor. If you want us to supply a rotor stator and do the final assembly of the motor, we're happy to do that, too. I think when you take a step back, I think the strength that we have is that we can go both paths. IDMs are not the biggest pro- e-product in Borg's portfolio. About five of the e-product wins that we've announced to date, which is now close to 50, have been IDMs, but that's a nice business for us. Also having the capability to have that system-level discussion helps you as you're pursuing those individual products. We're happy to do either. We apply the same return on capital hurdles, whether or not it's a system or it's components or individual component, so we're happy to do either. And relative to those, those IDMs or three-in-one systems or four-in-one systems, electronic drive units, eMachines, whatever people are calling them, when you combine the electric motor, the inverter, the gearbox, when you make an EV go, you recover a number of suppliers competing in this space. We've got, you know, American Axle, which partners with Inovance. We've got, you know, Magna, which partners with LG Electronics on the power electronics side. We've got, you know, Dana, that partners with TM4 up in Canada. And then you've got BorgWarner, which is, you know, different. It's entirely vertically integrated, entirely in-house when it comes to these capabilities. You know, on the one hand, it's sort of, you know, three against one, when I go to these other companies, 'cause I know BorgWarner says, "Hey, we can move faster, we can do it better." And they say, "No, we can do, you know, just as well, partnering. We don't have to make the inverter ourselves." But then you look at the share and the awards, and I feel like, you know, you guys seem to have, by far, the most. Just curious, what do you think that your awards or your anticipated share or conversation with the customers might imply about the merits of your differentiated vertically integrated approach? So I think it's important to acknowledge, we've been doing this for quite some time, right? IDMs, individual products, we've started down this journey about 10 years ago. And what we've learned is this, the pillars of what made our foundational business successful, i.e., leading with the product leadership in the individual components, is still very much the path. So we think that helps you not only with the component sales, but I think it's hard to get that same level of leadership if you don't have that capabilities all in one house. There's anything else you'd add? No, I think that's exactly right. Maybe, can we check in on the battery pack business? So it wasn't coming down with some of the other eProducts sales and the outlook. You know, talk about the assets that you purchased with Akasol, but also the expansion over into Seneca, right? And, you know, how's that process been going, the ramp at Seneca? And I know the battery business that you do, it's not levered to the light vehicles, right? It's more like the commercial vehicles, like the buses, for example. Have we seen the same type of expectation reset in ELCVs as we have in ELVs? And also, I think that business had been capacity constrained previously, which might have prevented you from being able to exploit some of the adjacencies, like with stationary power, industrial. Where are you on the... in terms of the process of solving the capacity constraint, and when can you turn to these other end markets, and what could the ultimate potential there be, do you think? Yeah. The teams in Seneca and Darmstadt have done a really great job with capacity expansions. So I think we'd classify today as we don't see ourselves constrained by our capacity. We still see growth in that business as we move forward based on the demand of our customers, but we're really happy with the expansions that we've been able to execute there. Keep in mind, this is a relatively small part of the ECV overall market, right? This is where we see an opportunity to do battery packs. First, buses is where we see the biggest growth, and we don't need a lot of volume for this to be a significant sales business for us. These systems on these buses range anywhere from $75,000-$100,000 per vehicle. So you can kind of run the math for a nice $700 million-$750 million business this year, you don't need a lot of volume by customers. So we still see really strong demand there. Has not had the same volatility that we've seen on the light vehicle part of our business, but we're really happy what we see, both from the demand and again, on that capacity expansion side, the teams did a really great job. You know, when I first heard about the Akasol acquisition, and I thought, wow, you know, that's... these guys are gonna take on, you know, LG Chem and SK and Hyundai. How can they possibly compete? It was this mile-long factory in South Korea. But, I think it's different. Like you said, the content, you know, is so big in the size of it. Is that business always gonna be like a batch, you know, type assembly, and you'll be able to effectively compete against these really big companies? I still think where we're gonna focus is still gonna be on that ECV side of the business, right? We see buses as a growing area and opportunity for us. We think there could be other opportunities in other commercial vehicle markets, maybe off-highway, long term. Light vehicle, that's not a business that we foresee pursuing for battery packs, because those battery packs are gonna be integrated into the structure of the vehicle. Tough to really penetrate that market, but we see a significant opportunity on the commercial vehicle side. Okay. And I, I've got a number of more questions, but let's check to see if there might be any, in the audience. It looks like Jim Irwin here up in the front middle with a hand raised. Thank you. Thank you. Just to follow up on one of Ryan's earlier questions, the OEMs and sourcing, you've already addressed that. But there's a narrative from, whether it's Jim Farley and the Skunk Works and this dramatic low-cost EV coming out of California, or Stellantis talking about a Chinese cost structure that's much, much lower than what you're getting today from existing Tier 1 suppliers. Could you kind of provide, and you already have provided a little bit of it, where you're already competing against those players, you already know what that cost structure is, and that's not really new news to you. But I just wanted to kind of give your ability to kind of push back on that narrative, 'cause it's being applied to all suppliers, you know, in terms of the developed markets. A little elaboration on what you already touched on with Ryan. Thank you. Yeah. I, I mean, I think it comes back to the different dynamic in the Chinese market and how you work with those customers, particularly, your question seemed to be centered on the BEVs. On the e-product side, those customers are very focused on speed to market. And as they do that, they're more willing to use, I hate to use the phrase off the shelf, but existing technologies to really leverage the get those vehicles to market faster. They also have the propensity to source some more systems than components, which also helps that speed to market. It's that speed to market and the lack of needing to customize components, which helps their cost base. So it's not just a pure cost to cost, it's how it's the process is different, too. I would look at, in our investor presentation, we've announced about roughly 50 awards that Pat mentioned earlier, and over 20 of them are in China. You know, it's across systems, it's across components. It gives me a lot of confidence that if we're winning in China, we're gonna continue to win in North America, we're gonna continue to win in Europe. So I think it's a big success for the company. Staying on this track, so 20% of the revenue is from China. How much of that is e-products? The 20%, how much is with local OEMs outside of the top five? And why are you not concerned about local OEMs that, you know, aren't high ranking in terms of volume, not being marginalized as it's just such a competitive market? Yeah, so I can give you the pieces, like, and you can kind of get, you can kind of get to that. So it's 20% of our overall revenue. If you look at our e-products revenue, about $2.5 billion is our forecast for this year. That was the last, the recent guide. If you take off about $700 million from battery packs, your light vehicle business is about $1.8 billion, of which 45% of that is in China. So you can run the math in the terms of breaking down that percentage. As it relates to the top six within that 70% is about two-thirds of that revenue. Maybe while they're thinking of the next question, I wanna ask on commercial settlements. I mean, obviously, your margin's doing well this year. It's going up despite the softer sales. Seems like that's kind of coming from more like execution and restructuring. And just wanna check in on commercial settlements. We've been hearing from some suppliers that they're harder to come by, you know, they're not just handing them out anymore. But, you know, first of all, is there any ability, you think, to still recoup some of these out-of-period, you know, premium expenses? And then moreover, is there still... Even if the automakers don't open up the contracts and help you out in addition to what they're contractually obligated to do with, you know, aluminum and stuff and nickel, what about just like the natural roll-off of these contracts, like, things that were signed in 2019, will last through the end of 2024, get renegotiated in 2025, and in an environment that reflects, you know, the higher cost? Is there still a little bit of uplift to your margin from correcting those earlier problematic, you know, margin programs after inflation changed, whether it's commercial settlements or just new contracts? Yeah, I mean, when you go back the last couple of years, obviously inflation was a major obstacle for all companies, and we were really successful working with our customers to navigate that and get significant recoveries that didn't impact our margin overall. So, really great operational performance by our teams. When I think about our margin performance this year, it doesn't really have anything to do with those commercial settlements. It's going back to the BorgWarner basics, what BorgWarner is really good at. We're good at productivity, generating productivity savings, restructuring savings, supplier savings. We're really focused on cost controls, and that's really been our focus this year, and you can see the expansion of our margins because of that focus. So we need to continue down that path. Then maybe just last question, on some of the internal combustion stuff that you kept apart from turbochargers. I was relieved to see that Morse Systems, you know, didn't go, you know, with PHINIA. That was such an interesting business. I visited there. It was a long time ago, but I was in Ithaca, and I think at that point, you guys were talking about, like, 50% of the global market is chains and 50% is belts, and we might have, like, 50% of the chains, but we're only 25% of the vehicles. I don't remember exactly what the numbers were, but it is a very high share and a very, you know, sort of proprietary technology, differentiated, maybe underappreciated. Can you just talk a little bit about the Morse TEC business, what attracts you to it? And obviously, it's not a separate reporting segment, but what would the investors, you know, think about its operating performance if there was that transparency? Yeah, I can, I can start. I mean, I was the VP of finance for, for that, for that business unit. So it really goes back to product leadership. They've been making chain for, I, I think it's close to 100 years, so there's a lot of in-house technology. It, it's a great culture, and I think it's the combination of technology and culture that, that drives the business, and Morse is a great example of that. I won't comment on their margin profile, but, but it's very strong, and we're really happy with that business. When you take a big step back, and you mentioned PHINIA, you know, where are we at today versus where we are - where, where we were when we, when we acquired PHINIA? Really, the same foundational products that we had pre-PHINIA is what we have today. The foundational components of that spin-off are really just what we acquired with Delphi. And having peeled off that silicon carbide inverter. Yeah, of course. Of course, it was important technology for us to acquire. Absolutely. All right, well, it looks like we are out of time, so, please join me in thanking Craig and Patrick for all the great color and insight they shared. Thank you, Ryan.