Thank you, and good morning. My name is Dave Begleiter of the U.S. Pencils team here at Deutsche Bank. Next up is the team from Celanese, led by Scott Richardson. Scott became CEO January 1. He spent over 20 years at Celanese in various roles in Asia and the U.S., driving value and outcomes. So I'll have happy Celanese the last couple of years. We'll have Scott make a few brief comments on where they are today, and we'll go into the fireside portion of the chat. Scott, all yours. Thank you, David. Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. It is great to be here and talk about what we are doing at Celanese. That word "do" is, I think, the important one. Our focus is on execution and really around three key focus areas. I mean, it starts with EPS and EPS growth. The way we are thinking about things is, how do we find ways in which to drive incremental EPS every single quarter and be adding to that? In this environment, that means we have to focus on the things that we are doing and that we can control, and we cannot rely on that broader macro to be driving that. Here in the second quarter, we had guided to $1.30-$1.50 of EPS, which is up about $1 or about $0.80-$0.90 above what we did in the first quarter. That range is still where we see things in the quarter. That is with some improvement in demand, certainly started in March, kind of continued in April and May. June is pretty similar to where we are seeing things overall or we saw things in April and May. The second area of focus is about cash. How do we turn that EPS into free cash flow? We are focused heavily on working capital reduction. The things that we can control, we significantly have cut capital expenditures in a way where we are driving free cash flow. We called out a guide of $700 million-$800 million of free cash flow this year. Cash, we believe, can come from divestiture proceeds as well. We are targeting $1 billion of divestiture proceeds by the end of 2027. That includes the Micromax transaction that we began marketing here over the last month. We believe we have a nice portfolio of options and opportunities for divestitures, even beyond the Micromax transaction. That is going to yield the third element of focus, which is aggressively deleveraging the balance sheet. We did a refinancing transaction in the first quarter, which pushed out maturities. We are targeting the $3.5 billion of maturities we have coming up before the end of 2027. We are targeting to pay that off with free cash flow and divestiture proceeds. That means that we need to continue to grow that free cash flow number that I talked about. Aggressively bringing the leverage down on the balance sheet is a critical area of focus for us. We're starting here, even this quarter, we have a delayed draw term loan that comes due in the early part of 2026, and that is largely paid off with cash flow that we generated already this quarter. The team is going to keep taking things one quarter at a time, but those are just really the three elements of focus. Everything that we're doing across the organization is really focused on those three areas. Thank you, Scott. Perfect. On that point, you've been COO for five months. Discuss your transitions to the role, the changes you've made versus your predecessor, and some of the other management and board changes you've made over the last few months as well. It is that word "do" that I talked about earlier is an important one. We have to be action-oriented. I think we made the decision to make a change with engineering materials. Our commercial model there is critically important. We drive projects that meet unique solutions for our customers. We felt like we were kind of through the big, heavy lifting elements of the integration, but lifting us to the next level. We felt like we needed to make some changes across the organization. Bringing Todd Elliott into the organization has been a great re-add with him coming back and really taking a hard look at everything that we are doing and making sure that our resources are pointing on those areas of opportunity, making sure we have re-energized our project pipeline growth model and are really focused on those areas of high impact. We call them high-impact programs on where we can be successful going forward, things that are going to commercialize quickly, areas where we can build unique moats. Todd's bringing that element to things. At the board level, we have six new board directors in the last 18 months. We are really focused on folks that know the industry, know how to create value in these types of markets, both in kind of the chemical side of things and acetyls or in the engineering materials business and those end uses. We have a number of new adds, including most recently bringing Scott Sutton back to the company in a board role. I think it's all been additive. We created a committee on the board called the Finance and Business Review Committee, which really gives me and the management team an ability to work with the board and really fully utilize the unique talents we have on the board to really be driving in these three areas of focus that I talked about and really aggressively deleveraging the balance sheet so we can increase optionality going forward. Very good. Going forward to business plans Q2, where are you seeing the improvement by region, by end market, by product? I'm careful with the word "improvement." What I would say is it's all a little bit relative. I mean, where it's improved versus Q1 is largely auto, largely in Europe. We saw an end to destocking, as we called out on our earnings call, started in February, really continued into April. We're not seeing, I would say, real improvement in anything else through the quarter. Certainly, that auto stability in the Western Hemisphere is good. We haven't seen, even with the China tariff pause, we haven't seen that really drive any kind of inflection or improvement in demand anywhere else. In fact, probably a little bit of softness in China demand, which it's pretty low margin for us, so it really doesn't have much of an impact. Certainly, volumetrically, I think there is definitely some weakness there in the Chinese market. You mentioned June, continuing some of the positive trends in May. How are you or both where you're seeing any strength or stable or even weakness? Yeah. Typically, the last month of the quarter for us is the strongest volumetric month. I would say June, right now, is pretty similar to what we saw in April and May, which is kind of what we had more or less baked in. I think that similar nature is some of what I talked about a little bit with where China volumes are. I do not think they are going to be necessarily as strong as we finish the quarter as maybe they have been in previous quarters. Certainly, as I talked about, it should not have much margin impact. Got it. You were at ACC the last few days in Colorado. How was the sentiment amongst your peer CEOs? Pessimistic? I guess I was optimistic, but maybe it was. How was the sentiment out there? Look, I think the amount of visibility that we have as an industry right now is pretty limited. We do not even know where orders will end up for June and where things are. That is very different for us as an industry. I mean, typically, most parts of this value chain, you would have at least a month or, in some cases, two or three months of visibility as to where that order book will ultimately land. That visibility is limited because of the uncertainty that is out there really on a macro basis. I think that has led a lot of our customers to not be overcommitting in terms of where they are going to need product and when they are going to need it. It just has kind of reduced that visibility time that we have. The industry has had to certainly take stock of that. We, as an industry, in periods like this, tend to make changes. We tend to do restructurings, look at where our footprint needs to be. I think that, much like at Celanese, where we have talked very openly about the things we're doing to drive self-help, as an industry broadly, I think that's a lot of what I heard in the last week. Q2 guide, good to hear it's still on track. Is there bias to either the upper half or lower half of the range sitting here right now? Look, I would not over-rotate on that. At At the end of the day, we gave $1.30-$1.50. I mean, that is $25 million, at the end of the day, on an EPS basis for us. That is a pretty narrow number. I mean, one barge shipment of a product in acetyls could be $2.5 million one way or the other. At the end of the day, it is a pretty narrow range. I would not over-rotate too much. Okay. Very good. On the cost savings, back in May, you increased your target from $80 million to $120 million. What's driving that increase? What's the cadence of those savings going forward? Yeah. It is split about half, that $40 million, half acetyls, half engineering materials. It should be pretty evenly split between Q3 and Q4, maybe a little heavier weighted towards the fourth quarter, particularly in engineering materials. In acetyls, a lot of it is operational things, elements and steps we are taking around block operating certain assets. If we saw a demand environment that improved, I mean, that is one. Some of that, you may actually see it come back, whereas the changes that we are doing in engineering materials are really permanent in nature. It is really kind of that first step, those additional opportunities that we talked about in our February earnings call of a target of at least $50 million-$100 million of additional engineering materials cost savings. This is $20 million of that. On a four-year basis, that's certainly bigger, but there's still more opportunity and things that Todd Elliott and team are continuing to work on to be able to get to the upper end of that range as we get into next year. Got it. On the tariff impacts, you called out about $15 million per quarter during Q3. Where are these impacts coming from? What are you doing to offset them? Yeah. That is really the direct impact of tariffs. It's related to some products that we make in the U.S. and ship directly to China. You can imagine with the pause that we saw happen a few weeks ago, that number in the second half of the year is closer to zero per quarter than it is $15 million, just because we're able to take some steps from a logistics perspective now during this period. I think for us, the direct impact of tariffs is really the small one. It's what happens to demand. That's the bigger concern in question. It's leading to some of that uncertainty that I talked about for the industry broadly. Yeah. On On that issue, what's the next step to resolving this uncertainty, gaining more clarity for you and your customers? Is it just a U.S.-China trade deal? Is it a U.S.-EU trade deal? What do you need to see for that certainty to be reduced? I think it's just what are the rules going to be going forward one way or the other? I think that we, as an industry and our customers, do a really good job, I think, of working together to come up with solutions depending on where things are at. Once we know what they are, then we'll go work those solutions. I think mitigating elements and finding ways in which to reduce our cost to serve to customers is something our team is certainly brainstorming with different permutations. Just kind of once we get to a finality, and I think that's sooner rather than later, certainly would be good. Okay. A key question I get from people is on your full-year guide or the exit rate. On the Q1 call, you reaffirmed a $2 per share quarterly run rate exit rate for this year. Let's say you make $1.40 in Q2, midpoint of range. What's the bridge from $1.40 in Q2 to a $2 per share exit run rate this year? Yeah. Let me just kind of take a step back. I think that $2 that I've talked about, it's important. I wanted to talk about it publicly because that's how we're managing things internally. It's kind of that next step, next plateau for us as a team. That's what we did the last couple of years. On average, we actually did a little better than that. Getting back to that in a macro that's much worse than where it was, through self-help actions and cost reduction elements that are sustainable and will continue into the future is very critical on kind of where we're orienting things. We know we have to continue to rebuild credibility on where we are and our performance. For me, I think if we were getting in that level, then we start to get evaluation of what we're doing and what we're going to do going forward as opposed to being valued on what we've done. I think that's really important that we kind of hit that milestone. That's where we're pushing the organization, and that's where we're driving actions. Once we get there, then we'll put another target in place, whether that's $2.50 a quarter or $3 a quarter, wherever it goes to. That's where we want to be. $1.40 in the second quarter, you get about $0.15-$0.20 from not having the turnarounds. We have a heavy turnaround quarter here in the second quarter. You get a little bit from acetate toe seasonality as well. You get another $15 million-$20 million from incremental cost actions. That kind of gets you in that $1.75-$1.80 range. What is that bridge to that last $0.20 or so? Some of it, and it could be a number of different things, working these high-impact programs and commercialization there and getting additional volume from our pipeline and having that flow through and not be offset by other things, which have happened the last several years, and making sure that we have kind of put a bottom on those other things. It could be pricing. We have talked very heavily about the unsustainable nature of margins in standard-grade materials and engineering materials. We have been very focused on, with the price action we took in the first quarter, got a little bit from that, but we felt like we needed another catalyst and another push. We issued a second announcement in the second quarter. Getting price and getting to a point where returns are just even at acceptable levels for standard-grade materials is very critical. Those are some of the big levers. We are not stopping on the cost reduction side as well. As I talked about, we have additional things we are working in engineering materials and then across the functional side of the portfolio to be able to drive additional cost reduction. What's the macro guidance? I'm putting that with some macro assumption. I'm putting that $2 per share run rate. Is it just flattish volumes from here? Yeah. I mean, in this range. We know they're going to move around a little bit, but it's somewhere in this range. By no means are volumes strong here in the second quarter. They're better than they were in the first quarter, certainly better than they were in Europe, which is our highest margin region in the fourth quarter of last year. For us, and we've been pretty open about this, the majority of our profitability is generated in the Western Hemisphere, not in Asia. Even some of the volume declines I talked about a little bit earlier and concern around China demand is really less impactful. To be clear, the $2 per share exit rate does not mean you are going to make $2 in Q4. It means you are going to exit the year. Should we think about 2026 as an $8 per share type year in the current macro, or what do we need to get to $8 per share for the full year of 2026? David, if I could answer that question, I would be in Las Vegas, not sitting here with you in New York. No. I mean, look, that is why getting into that range of $8± is really important for us because it is a very different valuation if we are, and then the growth off of that is very different. The cash flow generation is also substantially more. I mean, we talked about generating $700 million-$800 million of free cash flow this year. I mean, if you are run rating on a four-year basis in that range, that is several hundred million dollars more free cash flow generation. That just is going to allow us to deleverage the balance sheet that much faster. I was talking to a group of investors a couple of weeks ago, and I said, "Simple rule of thumb, how I think about it is every billion dollars of debt we pay off is worth around $0.50 of earnings." That power is certainly, I do not love having over $600 million of interest expense, but it is an opportunity. If we can just whittle away at that, I mean, we are really generating EPS, generating additional cash flow. As quick as we can get that number down and be able to start having a more balanced deployment of cash in the future is really critical. Good segue into balance sheet. We remain levered, obviously. You've also pushed on maturities the next couple of years. What's your deleveraging strategy, and what's your confidence in having no liquidity issues going forward? Look, the team has done a great job of refinancing. We have been able to do that a couple of times over the last several years. We will continue to be opportunistic. If the market is there and we can push out maturities, we will. We also need to be paying off debt. That is the priority here. It is a priority for us to generate cash first from operations and very quickly be able to reduce the debt. As I talked about, we have been able to reduce some debt this quarter. How do we look at divestitures as a way to accelerate that? We have certain parts of the portfolio that are not critical to our operating models, either in acetyls or engineering materials. The value of those assets may be worth more to someone than how they are valued at Celanese today. We are looking for things that we can do along those lines to accelerate that. Micromax was one. We have been very open about finding ways to monetize our joint ventures where they come in on the equity earnings line, really at net income, and it is net income after tax. It is an extreme discount over our share of the EBITDA that those JVs generate. Now, it is hard to sell portions of joint ventures. We are going to keep focused and work on that because we think we can unlock value there. Very good. Just on Micromax, it's been about a month since the announcement. How has interest been in that asset? Interest has been very strong. We have never signed more NDAs on any process we've ever run, which is great. We have a high degree of interest, both from sponsors as well as strategics and interest from around the world. It is a very big process, a pretty diverse process. That is why we announced it publicly. I mean, we have not announced a divestiture publicly in a long time, but we did because there was a high likelihood this was going to leak. We felt like it was important both for investors, but also for our employees to be able to be ahead of that message and be able to message appropriately. That has to catch probably the half of your $1 billion divestiture target, give or take, my guess. I'm not going to limit the possibilities, David. Certainly, I think it can get us a good chunk of the way there. Okay. The next step, is it one or two more assets? How are you feeling about the next? Why is it more than $1 billion? You have numerous JVs in Asia and China. Does it all make sense for Celanese longer term? Look, I think it's important to probably wait that number. Certainly, if we can drive value-lifting transactions that's more than a billion, we will. I also want to make sure that we get back to doing what we say we're going to do. That is a really important mantra for us as a leadership team, not just on what we're doing from a divestiture perspective, but also in terms of our earnings. Are there other cash or deleveraging actions that could be done, either working capital or other hidden value that could accelerate deleveraging? Yeah. Working capital continues to be a big opportunity for us. We still have higher levels of inventory than I think we need. There is also work being done on the cost reduction side from our network optimization projects within engineering materials, which should also drive working capital opportunities as well. As we look at making sure we have got footprint in the right spot, we will take working capital into account as we look at that. We are targeting at least $100 million of inventory reduction in engineering materials this year, but we are going to push for more. Even in the second quarter, I mean, we are taking the opportunity to bring inventories down. We are very open on the earnings call that even with volumes better in the second quarter than they were in the first, we are not taking plant rates up. It's important that we're very prudent on the inventory side of things right now. Even if we have a little bit of an absorption hit, we feel like that's worth it to drive incremental free cash flow. Very good. Let me see if I have questions from the audience. If you have a question, please just raise your hand. I'll keep on going. Scott, just on the cash flow guidance, it sounds like it was still on track for $7 million of free cash flow this year. Is that fair? Yes. Now, on CapEx down to maintenance levels this year, how long should we think about staying here before we go back onto some modest growth activities? Yeah. At the $300 million-$350 million CapEx level, I mean, that's maintenance capital plus a little bit of very quick return productivity projects. I would look at this being kind of where we're going to be for the next several years. I mean, I think we can stay at this level for the next several years. We've spent a lot of money. We spent a lot of money on growth capital over the last several years. We spent a lot of money on acquisitions. We're now in a return on capital improvement cycle. I liken it to when the company went through the Blackstone LBO and came out of that. If you look at where leverage was and you include the unfunded pension liability that we had, which was sizable at the time, leverage is pretty similar then to where it is today in the 2005, 2006 timeframe. We went through a period where it really was about harvesting and driving returns, very prudent cash spending, and whether it is on expenses, but also important on the capital side. That is where we are going to be here. This is about harvesting returns, driving the return profile of the company upwards, and driving free cash flow and getting the debt paid down. Once that is done and we get into a different cycle where the company is, then we can look at driving that capital number up again. Very good. Switching to the businesses, engineering materials, you talked about a rebound a bit in European automotive. What's driving that? And what are you seeing in China auto as well as U.S. auto this quarter? Yeah. I do not know if it is as much of a rebound as it is just kind of an end to the destock that we saw. I mean, there was inventory that was built, our inventory, our customers' inventory, all through the value chain, our supply chain partners, our distributors. When Q2 volumes were stronger than expected, and there was an expectation that was going to continue in Q3, it did not happen. It took a while to kind of unwind from that. We really did not see things start to get better until March. Volumes have kind of normalized now the last few months, but it is normalized at a lower level, certainly lower than where we were in the first half of last year. We are very confident that that has happened. We look at where our distributor sales have been in the last several months. They've been kind of very consistent from month to month. It is a good sign that we've kind of got the inventories flushed through that value chain. In the U.S., things have been very stable through the quarter and continuing. Certainly, sales, soft dealer lots has been pretty okay through the quarter. We haven't really seen that turn into increased production as of yet. Volumes continue to be very stable. In China, a little bit of volume weakness. You've seen some things have come out publicly from some of the OEMs there in China. A little bit of volume weakness, nothing substantial. I think as we look into the second half, we're not predicting any kind of big increases per se at this point. Kind of how we baked, what we baked into our free cash flow guide for the year was the auto forecast that were out there back when we did our earnings call, which was expecting some dip in the second half of the build. Very good. You mentioned talking about your efforts to sharpen and accelerate the project pipeline model in engineering materials. Talk about that as well as the opportunity that might lead to with the Chinese automakers and EV players there. Look, not all projects are created equal. There is a very different value that is there. I mean, certainly with some of the overcapacity that we see in China for everything, our ability to win in standard-grade projects is probably going to be less likely than our ability to win in more specialty applications. It is very important that we have our resources tuned to be able to work on those projects around the globe that are going to have a higher level of return. It was just kind of recasting that and also kind of using data. We have a lot of pipeline data now for many years that we have been able to create a scoring system and really kind of cross-checking where is industry growth, where is the attractiveness of our applications there, and kind of where do those points intersect, making sure that our entire team knows that. They know kind of where to be putting those incremental resources that we have. That is what the leadership team in engineering materials has been working on now for the last several months, just making sure that that is tuned. Us being successful in China is very important. It is important for several reasons. One, we are going to continue to see the technical requirements of vehicles in China move up. That plays really well for our specialty opportunities. We have to be winning there. China is an innovator. China is an innovator in some of our key end uses, not just electric vehicles. It is, but also in other areas. I mean, things around AI and data centers. There is a lot happening there. As our customers in the Western Hemisphere are driving innovation, there is a lot of success that we are going to have in China. It was always innovation was happening in the West, and it went to our customers into China, kind of an outside-in model. There is a lot more of an inside-out mentality to it today. It is critically important that the team kind of can go both ways. The things we are having success on that we are driving translation opportunities over into the Western Hemisphere as well. What's your share of the Chinese automakers versus European or U.S. automakers? Yeah. It is lower. And it's about 40%-50%, depending on the OEM at most. But there are some OEMs where we have, quite honestly, about the same amount of volume we have with some of our customers in the Western Hemisphere. Now, overall, it's kind of in that 40%-50%. I do think it can be higher, but we have to be realistic about where the competition is at. If we have competitors that are willing to sell at or below cost for standard-grade materials, then we're probably not going to win that business. We have to kind of recalibrate that a bit. It's not just going to be about share. It's really about value. What's very encouraging is if we have like-for-like specialty applications, China versus Europe or China versus the U.S., the margins we make on that is equivalent. It's not like we're having to drive a discount there. We definitely can get value when we bring it into certain application sets in China. What is your content value on a U.S. or European auto right now? It just kind of depends. I mean, we tend to, we haven't talked as much about kilograms per vehicle because weight doesn't matter as much in every single application area. I would say I think it's been one that hasn't grown a lot in terms of the value over the last several years just because there has not been as many kind of new model overhauls and launches in the Western Hemisphere. There is a lot of uncertainty as to what vehicle mix would need to look like, particularly here in the U.S., ICE versus EV. I think as some of those questions on what consumer demand is going to be are starting to be answered, I think we're going to see a lot more new model launches, particularly in the U.S. and Europe. That creates a lot more opportunity for us to drive more innovation. I do think we have an opportunity for that to grow. We grew our business in EVs in China last year by about 20% on a year-over-year basis, which is a little bit lower than the overall EV growth in China. Actually, when you look at that standard-grade equation I talked about earlier and the fact that the premium segment is still very small and still developing in China, that was actually a lot of growth for us. Being able to keep that moving is critically important. On that point, thinking about the value opportunity on EV versus traditional ICE vehicle, how much larger or greater is that for you guys? Yeah. I mean, we've said about 50% or so more of addressable space in that range. It depends on the model. Certainly, those that are kind of more in the standard model vehicles, it's a lot less in terms of opportunities. We tend to play in kind of more the middle of the market or the premium segments where the technical requirements for vehicles are higher. There is more addressable space, but we have to make sure we're being successful there. Certainly, hybrids present a much greater opportunity because it has both powertrains. That is an area here in the U.S. If that's kind of where things continue to move, that's certainly very good. On nylon, you highlighted on the Q1 call, the profit degradation, the nylon portfolio. You're very close on a plan too to help that. You announced some price increases as well. What do you need to see nylon profitability improve? How impactful can these price increases be for both the nylon and nylon products in the portfolio? is a lot of opportunity here. I do not know exactly what the end equation is going to end up being. Certainly, plant footprint was part of that with the closures that we announced last year and carried out in Europe. Footprint will continue to be an area that we look at and analyze at all times to say how much polymer do we want to be making versus buying. Buying is not necessarily a bad thing given where things are at from a length in the marketplace, and variabilizing the business is not a bad thing either. That could be an equation. Pricing is certainly an element. Standard-grade pricing is at unsustainable levels for the industry. We have seen that through some competitive actions that have happened in the marketplace. We know that margins need to move up. There is an element here. There's also top-line volume growth opportunity. Nylon 66 is a really good, strong polymer. And there's a lot of specialty applications for nylon 66. I think a lot of people look at it and say, "Okay, that's a commodity polymer." It's not. There are a lot of standard-grade applications for that business, maybe more so than other polymers. But there's also some really good differentiated opportunities. It is about putting that focus on continuing to work with customers in this good, strong workhorse polymer for opportunities. It doesn't have to just be nylon 66. I mean, our nylon 66 business improvement may actually come from being successful in other polymers and us growing other polymers because the profitability is stronger there. Or we can drive different customer solutions and growing end uses stronger there. We're not just we want and need to improve the profitability of the nylon 66 business. But at the end of the day, what really matters is that the whole EM business is moving upwards in profitability. Right. No. Very clear. Just briefly, at the tails, there's this new supply coming out of China. There's been some investor focus on that. It's not your first rodeo. How are you dealing with a company with new additional Chinese supply and after deals? Our team has done a really nice job of being able to kind of push and add capacity downstream. The acquisition of our redispersible powders business, we've continued to add vinyl emulsion capacity. Actually, right now, about 65% of what gets sold to an end customer in the acetyl chain business is not acetic acid or VAM on a global basis. By going further downstream, we get a little bit more differentiation, particularly in emulsions and powders. We can kind of tailor formulations for what customers need a little bit differently in those businesses, which is a little more different than selling acetic acid or VAM. Look, there has been a lot of capacity added, all really in China. That product is mainly staying in Asia today because the arbitrage windows just really are not open given where pricing is at around the world. That is not a bad thing. Our markets in the West have been pretty depressed. Paints, coatings, and construction demand has been pretty weak. Existing home sales, which is one of the most important things that we watch around the world, have been very low, not just here in the U.S., but also in Europe and really low in China. When people move, people paint, redo a bathroom, usually buy at least one appliance. When that is not happening and those existing home sale transactions are very weak, you just do not have a pull for that demand. That is really kind of core acetyl demand. We are kind of stable at low levels overall, but certainly the margins have been pretty balanced. Lastly, how should we think about foundational or mid-cycle earnings for acetyls? Look, we are kind of focused on putting one foot in front of the other. That is why I kind of talked at the very beginning about every quarter kind of moving up. The good thing is I think folks are starting to believe that we can go execute on the things that we say we are going to do in the quarter. We are getting a lot more questions about that. We will work to outline that for folks. I think a lot of it is really around these self-help actions. Not knowing what the macro is going to do, our focus is what does that range of outcomes look like in the future based on if the world did not change and demand stayed where it was, what would that be based on the things that we can go do? As we kind of work those actions through the end of this year and get into next year, I think we'll be able to provide a little more clarity. Excellent. With that, we'll end there. Scott, thank you very much. Good. Thanks. Good. Thanks.