Hello. Okay. It's Joe Spak, auto analyst here at UBS, and very pleased to have with us Dana, Tim Kraus, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and it's timely, because Dana had some large news, I guess the other week, and I think this is your sort of first, you know, public comment since then, so you know, Tim, maybe just for the education of people in the room or on the webcast, you know, maybe let's just, you know, rehash sort of the announcement and some of the strategic rationale behind the actions. Yeah, sure. I mean, so a week ago Monday, we announced that our intention to divest of our off-highway business. And along with that, we announced a leadership change, so a change out in the CEO position. Then in connection with this, we announced a plan to take $200 million of operating costs out of the business, effective in you know sort of run rate for 2026. So a lot of stuff in the release, but really at the core is if you know if you look back sort of you know 15, 18 months ago, really a dramatic amount of growth around electric vehicles and light vehicle, commercial vehicle. For us, we were looking at growth of, you know, sort of, you know, 50% increase over a five or six-year period. How do we fund it? Anyway, we took a hard look at everything and how we wanted to think about the strategy and how we were gonna fund it. You know, what became clear is that, you know, the off-highway business was really undervalued within the portfolio. So we started down the path of working on it. Did it make sense? How would it affect the businesses? How would it affect the customers? All of those sorts of things. Then while that was going on, right, the EV, you know, got really, the growth prospects for EV really, you know, decreased. We've not had any of our programs canceled, but you know, much lower volumes, delays, pushed out, you know, ICE longer for lower or EV lower for longer. But at the end of the day, we're like, "Look, you know, like, this still makes sense from a value creation perspective," and so you know, we just decided that you know, it was time. We're well down the path on the work around the divestiture. So given just the impact on customers and the number of people we have to have in the process, we thought it was time to put it out there. And we're very confident that we're gonna be able to get to an announced transaction you know, sort of in the next 4+ months. And so we felt it was a good time to go ahead and put that out. Now, on the cost takeout, the big issue there is once we sell, this is our highest margin business. We recognize that we have to fundamentally change the way we're running the businesses that are gonna remain with Dana. So we looked at it and you know, kind of the way to think about the math is we believe after we sell the off-highway business, and we complete the $200 million in reductions, we'll have EBITDA margins that are equal to or better than where the whole company is today, including off-highway. Mm-hmm. Okay. So let's unpack each of those announcements. I guess I'm starting with the transaction off-highway. I mean, it sounds like, you know, you just sort of expressed confidence in having this deal done in, you know, 4+ months. Let's call it four to six months. Yeah. Four, six months. That's. That's my words, not yours. Okay. Well, now you, now it's your words, so. Yeah. That's fine. Done meaning signed. Signed, right? Announced, I should say. Yeah. Is that, I mean, in terms of sort of having, you know, books or prospective buyers look at the business, like, that sort of already has occurred, or it's just at the point where that was going to occur, so you decided to sort of make it? So we have a very healthy list of strategic buyers that have expressed a lot of interest in the business. Mm-hmm. And some of those are a little bit further along in the process than others. But generally speaking, the interest is very high, and at valuation levels that are highly attractive for the company and for our shareholders. So it was really to the point where we just, we were gonna have to bring a lot more people in. Mm-hmm. Sort of under the tent, and it just made a lot more sense. You know, a few weeks ago, I don't know if it was four or five weeks ago, there was a bit of a rumor out there, you know, and customers that were inquiring. This just kinda makes it easier. We have a lot of confidence that we're gonna be able to go ahead and get that completed. That, aside from some sort of shared corporate overhead costs or shared services, that segment was run pretty autonomously? Yeah. It's highly separable. You know, we've integrated the businesses very well that we've bought principally into the off-highway business. Areas where there is integration or overlap are really around sort of the shared corporate costs, but, No shared facilities? There are only three facilities that have some shared O&M and they're generally on shared campuses, not necessarily buildings. So on a manufacturing level, they're exceedingly separable and independent. You think about it, like, in an axle for a front-end loader versus a Jeep, they're pretty different in size. And while they're effectively the same mechanicals, they're built differently. The volumes are different. Their sizes are different. So they are made in different facilities. You mentioned, you know, ICE stronger for longer, I think, as you put it, EV lower for longer. Was that really a more of a reference to some of the other end markets you play in or also sort of in off-highway? You know, off-highway is probably the least, you know, was the furthest behind, I mean, behind is probably not the right word, but, you know, the least developed, in terms of it. And if you think about the places where the off-highway business sits, it, you know, it's not highly attractive or doesn't make a lot of sense to have electrification if you're out in the middle of a field or in a mine where there isn't, or, you know, outside where there isn't access to charging-type facilities. There are aspects of the business that make a lot of sense, right, where you think about, you know, small compact-type machinery that operates inside of a city limit. That was well on the path of a lot of electrifying. but we're also talking about a much smaller markets, much smaller volumes where it's just not as big. A lot of it's low voltage versus high voltage in light vehicle and commercial vehicles. So, that is relatively modest in terms of where off-highway fit into the electrification story anyway. So if we turn over to sort of the, you know, remaining Dana business, and the cost savings you're sort of targeting here, the $200 million, how much of that is actually just, you know, reduced spend on electrification for the remaining end markets? Because, you know, over the past couple of years, right, there definitely has been an increase in the investment. You sort of see it in. You've sort of seen it in some of the numbers. I don't know if we, I don't know that we could sort of get a total number invested sort of to date, but I guess what I'm wondering is, or even sort of a current run rate of investment in or spending on electrification. But, you know, how much can be undone and what percentage of the $200 million is, Yeah. I mean, I'm, I don't wanna go into specifics, but a significant portion of it's related to reduced spending in EV. Mm-hmm. There's a couple of reasons for that. One, you know, we spent the last number of years really building a base of technologies and capabilities around electrification that can be used in light vehicle or commercial vehicle. That's principally finished. I mean, we have those capabilities today. We have, you know, the products that are on the shelf that can be applied. So that spending naturally was going to start to come out. The other part of this is, you know, where all of these programs were gonna be coming on at the same time or overlapping and had high volumes. Mm-hmm. That led to a very large anticipated and buildup in those costs. And now that those, a lot of those programs are now delayed, pushed out, lower, you know, we're able to actually moderate the amount of resources we need at any given time. Mm-hmm. Still manage the development of those programs that are now over a much longer period of time, so. So, I mean, just sort of piecing all together, though, it sounds like irrespective of an off-highway sale, that was likely to occur anyway. So was it sort of this $200 million in savings, unless there's a piece I'm missing, was probably in the cards anyway. Some would be. I think the other thing here is when you think about, you know, over the last, you know, five, six, seven years, a lot of startups, there's a lot of, like, excitement, new programs, new entrants. A lot of that has died down. And look, we didn't know where the winners and losers were gonna be. And we actively pursued a lot of this business with a lot of these different OEMs. If you take a step back now and we think about what's the way our strategy is, we're gonna really focus our efforts not on trying to win as many programs as we can or with the different startups, really stick to our core programs where we're currently the incumbent. Mm-hmm. We're gonna be the supplier of choice, we believe, for our customers for the electrified version of those. Mm-hmm. Of those products. And then if there is any type of conquest business or a new entrants, and that looks like an attractive investment opportunity, we'll look at those on a very selective basis and make sure that we're spending the money and making the investments where, one, the returns are there and the risk profile for those programs are acceptable from a returns and capital deployed perspective. Sorry, just to be clear, what you're sort of implying is that the proceeds from the sale will allow you to sort of pursue those opportunities or? No, not quite. Because it seems to me like the proceeds from the sales are probably more just a sort of a de-lever. No, no, no. The proceeds will de-lever and we'll return to some of the shares. No, what I'm saying is some of what we're not going to, we don't have to spend money on or won't be spending money on is going after large numbers of programs where it might be conquest business or business with a new entrants. Whereas historically, we had a lot of people working on developing program and design concepts to go after many of these programs all at the same time. And we're really gonna be focused on the ICE business we have that's going to be electrifying, however that's going to work. And we'll make sure we're the supplier of choice for those drive trains. Mm-hmm. And then if there is something that would be incremental business for us, we're gonna be very, very selective and make sure that the risk-return profile on those businesses meets what we expect and only invest in those where we are highly confident we can get the returns out of. From a, you know, assuming the sale goes through and is completed and you receive the proceeds, and you use that to de-lever, can you just sort of remind us, how is that all sort of prepayable? Like what, how? Yeah. From a capital structure perspective, you know, we don't think there's any significant breakage costs within the capital structure that we have today. Most of the bonds are either in a call period or under the asset sale provision would be able to be basically repaid at par. So. Mm-hmm. Very little breakage. You know, given where we think the leverage profile of the business will be, which is kind of a half a turn to a turn over the business cycle, any of the bonds that are out there that might carry some of those costs are economically not going to be incentivized to take the offer to repay and will likely be the debt that remains outstanding. So just very efficient way of being able to repay and skinny down the debt profile to come. So the remaining Dana you would target a half turn to a turn? Yeah. Leverage. Over the business cycle, correct. Business cycle. Yeah. Of net leverage. Right, right, right. And then so the $200 million, if I'm hearing you correctly, it sounds like that could start coming out in relatively short years. It already is. Okay. It already is. So if you would've noticed, we took a small charge in the third quarter. So we had a lot of this already in flight, you know, really around just, you know, starting to be able to really turn the screws and get more efficient. So that was already in flight. We'll take an additional charge here in the fourth quarter. We're not, Mm-hmm. Not able to say exactly how large it is 'cause we're still finalizing the plans. And then those costs will have already started coming out in the fourth quarter. We'll get a little bit of benefit. It'll be small in the fourth quarter. And then that'll ramp up as we move into the first half and into the third quarter of next year. Right. So when you say $200 million run rate by 2026, that means it's sort of at some point in the towards the end of 2026, you hit that $200 million annualized run rate. Yeah. I think that when we get out of, we should, assuming the Off-Highway sale, you know, gets completed late in 2025, some of the costs are around stranded costs that. Yeah. Need to come out, that, like, that'll need to come out after we close on the transaction. But I believe that when you get to 2026, we're looking at, you know, we should be able to have a $200 million savings in 2026. Oh, in 2026. Yeah. Absolutely. For the remaining business that we own. And I'm highly confident that we're gonna be able to get those costs out, you know, very, very quickly as we move through 2025. Right. Because again, if part of this is sort of like reduced spend or reduced, you know, activity on the EV side, like it seems like that part should be relatively, could come out in relatively short order. Exactly. And it will. And we're moving around. Obviously, we've got a lot of people and can come out at relatively low cost because, you know, as we ramped up, we brought on a lot of contract, you know, engineering and program management that can go out at basically no cost, versus taking employees out where you have some severance and whatnot. But, we are planning to get a lot of these costs out over, you know, what amounts to the next six or eight months. So if we think about remaining Dana, and like if it's too early, you know, fully understand this, but what is the right level of, you know, R&D going forward for that entity? What and what is the right level of CapEx for that entity? Yeah. So, CapEx should be. We think CapEx versus where we've been running is going to be lower. We think CapEx next year is lower than where we're at currently for 2024. In terms of the right level, I mean, we'll still spend more on R&D than we had historically prior to electrification 'cause electrification just has more development work in it. Most of these programs are. This is the first generation program. Mm-hmm. Obviously a lot more than redoing the Super Duty and the Wrangler where there's a lot of carryover. Mm-hmm. It'll still be elevated, but not to the level that it is today. Certainly we'll be, you know, very disciplined around how we deploy those resources. Given that the development time for some of these is now going to be lengthened, we'll be able to manage those resources, I think, far more efficiently than perhaps it had been possible in the past as you were just really kinda running to try to keep up with what the customer was trying to get to. With the announcement, you also, you know, reiterated your 2024 guidance, but I won't let you completely escape the sort of guidance question because, you know, based on sort of our prior conversation, it does sound like, again, some of these savings should hit in relatively short order. Was that already contemplated in when you sort of issued the guidance and you just weren't able to sort of talk about it in the? Yeah. Some of that's built into the guidance. It's a small number. I mean, we took the charge at the end of the third quarter and started working on a lot of these actions into the fourth. Mm-hmm. So, you know, you know, there's a bit of it in there for 2024. The majority of this is really gonna come through in the first half of 2025 and then, you know, and follow on into the third quarter. Okay. We are confident we're gonna be able to hit our $875 million and our $100 million free cash flow target for next year. Great. Or for this year, excuse me. If you wanna go, go ahead and give some 2025. No, no. I'm. I'm not gonna stop you, but let's sort of, and recognizing that you won't, that you're not gonna do that here today and you'll sort of wait till, you know, early next year. I guess one to start, when you do report fourth quarter earnings and you give sort of a year ahead look, is the plan still to talk about the business as it will be or are you still gonna have to sort of talk about the business as it is? We'll certainly give guidance as if nothing changes so that it's comparable and it's easy for people like you to sort of get through your models, you know. We'll have to see. But does there have to be? It presumably there would also be helpful to also, you know, to give a specific off-highway revenue or margin number as well. Yeah. I think some of this is. We'll think certainly about that. We're gonna have to give some guidance around kinda what the quarters might look like. Mm-hmm. but yes, to your point, yeah, I think we'll probably provide a bit more information given what. By segment. What we buy by segment, as we go through. We're still working through that, but it seems natural given, you know, what we're contemplating with the off-highway business. So, I guess just again, and recognizing we're not doing 2025 guidance here today, but just as you're clearly planning, the budget for 2025 at this point with, you know, or maybe it's already done with a couple weeks left in the year, at an industry level or end market level, right? How are you sort of thinking about, I guess, LVD and commercial vehicle at this point? 'Cause, you know, it seems like in light of the driveline, right, obviously there you've had a couple customers that have had some challenges or at least one customer that has had some challenges, this year. And maybe that sort of persists a little bit into the first half, but then it does seem like there's some, you know, maybe easier comparables. You know, commercial vehicle, right? There's, I think, a lot of different, differing opinions out there about, you know, magnitude or if a prebuy sort of occurs. How are you sort of planning? Yeah. So I think, look, I do think in the light vehicle and the commercial vehicle businesses, you know, we probably expect there to be still some continued softness. Mm-hmm. In both of those markets. The prebuy is a good question. I mean, I think if you ask 10 people, you get 10 different answers. So, we're obviously making sure that we're gonna be prepared to meet what the demands are from the customers and making sure that we're in a position to really capitalize and convert if those sales do come through. But, I think you know, the likelihood that we're gonna have any. Mm-hmm. Materially, you know, better outlook in terms of the backdrop. I think it's still gonna be a, you know, it's gonna be a tough backdrop in which to operate in both of those segments. Yeah, you know, you mentioned, you know, EV lower for longer. And I think, you know, as it pertains to the Light Vehicle market, actually the one segment that really sort of shows up and for you, I think, is sort of Power Technologies. And, you know, I think irrespective of how this election in the U.S. sort of played out, it was clear that EV penetration was lower anyway. Yeah. But are you, and I know you have to sort of respond to sort of what your customers are ultimately gonna want to do. But I am curious, you know, and recognizing this might, maybe it's still sort of early days, how are they beginning to sort of think about the path forward on electrification in the U.S.? And how does that dictate your planning for that business? I think the customers, and this isn't true just for light vehicle, but I think overall, I think they're approaching it much more, you know, from a much lower demand level and looking to make sure that they can provide the vehicles that the customers really do want versus just a huge number of vehicles that are somehow incentivized and forced upon the general public. Look, I don't believe. Look, I think, you know, electrification, the trend is not gonna stop. It's just gonna be a little bit slower to adopt, and I think, you know, that that's certainly fine. From our perspective, you know, we, you know, we believe we're gonna be able to provide the high quality, highly efficient, you know, four-in-one systems that, you know, when you think about, you know, hard parts, motor inverter, and then the thermal management properties to really maximize the efficiency on those axles is giving us a strong competitive advantage around being able to give them. Mm-hmm. Better range, better, you know, a better experience for their end customer, which should help them in terms of being able to get more interest and deliver more vehicles. Yeah. You know, the other topic that's really come up a lot among investors of late post the election is trade, and you know, I don't know if you wanna call it the threat or but the idea of the tariffs on Mexico. Yeah. You know, you have a good amount of facilities in the U.S. You also have some in Mexico. Can you just sort of, again, remind us of their footprint? And it might even be helpful to also understand what that footprint looks like on a prospective go-forward basis as with the remaining businesses. Like what, like, does getting rid of off-highway change your sort of. Yeah. North American footprint? So I'll answer that one first. It doesn't really. The smallest footprint we have in the off-highway business is in North America. It's primarily a. Mm-hmm. A European and. Yeah. Asian business, primarily European really. There's only a handful of facilities in the U.S. that are related. One major facility in the U.S. Mm-hmm. That currently exists. I mean, you think about the tariffs. So obviously, you know, it's a concern, you know, we're looking at. We tend to produce our, you know, assemble axles, you know, close to the customer or in the same region. Most of the light trucks that we supply into are made in the U.S. Mm-hmm. Those facilities that take Jeep Wrangler, right? We produce that in a facility that's literally five minutes from Stellantis's production facility. Mm-hmm. Now, we do produce, you know, gears and other input items, in Mexico and elsewhere that then get brought in. So, you know, obviously, you know, the threat of tariffs is and could be impactful. For us, the big thing is we typically operate as a maquila in Mexico. So it's a little hard to yet know really what's the true tariff impact is going on the value add 'cause the material's already owned by the U.S. and just. Mm-hmm. Gets brought in. So there's a lot of what-ifs. But I think the main view from our standpoint is if these things do come to fruition, you know, we're gonna be in with our customer explaining to them that, you know, this is here's your price increase. Mm-hmm. because, you know, this obviously was not priced into the product when we agreed to the program price. So that'll be a whole other discussion that, you know, whether it's the commercial vehicle or the light vehicle customers that we're gonna have to have because, I mean, at the rates, some of the tariffs they're talking about, it's gonna be really impactful. Yeah. Yeah. Just based on, you know, the previous exercise I'm sure you guys did when, in 2017 with border adjustment taxes, and you mentioned sort of maquiladora value. Is your understanding that the tariff would be just on the value-added portion? I mean, that would seem the most logical 'cause technically the material enters in bond, but, you know, I mean, we don't really know anything at this point. Fair enough. It would seem to make the most sense because that's what's going on, you know, there. But, you know, we'll have to wait and see. Are you at all concerned about 'cause you mentioned off-highway's primarily European business, but we know a lot of that product actually ends up back in the U.S.? Yeah. Is the concern the threat over tariffs from Europe, you know, into North America, which I think has sort of been, you know, put in as more as a at a 10% level? Is that at all a sort of a consideration? Yeah. I mean, again, I think, you know, for the most part, you know, our sales are out of Europe to OEM customers in the U.S. versus on an intercompany basis. You know, you know, typically, you know, the either if we're the importer of record or the OEM is, you know, that, again, that would just have to be passed along. I mean, if you think about our off-highway business, over the last few years, you think about inflation and supply chain, it's been the most resilient from a margin perspective, which, you know, you know, indicates that, you know, we are, you know, generally able to, you know, to pass along those types of costs. You know, European energy. Right. With the Ukraine conflict really drove a lot of costs. Mm-hmm. And, you know, we worked with our customers to make sure that we were getting recovery for the vast majority of that. So I think we'll have to go through that same process if the tariffs end up coming to fruition. Yeah. Going back to, you know, the business and some of the performance we've seen year to date, right, in a really tough market, right, and I know we've had a version of this conversation before, is you sort of get, you know, higher margins on, you know, flat to down sales. And I think that's some of the work you've done, combined with recent customer recoveries and other factors. How would you sort of, I guess, a, describe or bucket some of those benefits that you've seen year to date? And maybe more importantly, what's sort of the go-forward outlook for some of those buckets? And really what I wanna focus on, like, you know, recovery is like that that obviously occurs, right? What I'm curious to learn more about is, how much more do you think you have internally to control on costs? So I think when you think about it, right, yeah, I mean, our customers' order patterns have improved dramatically, which has really allowed us to run the plants at a level that we know we can run the plants at. That's been a big help. So just getting those order patterns, not having all the changeover costs that we've had over the last two, three years, you're starting to see that show up in the conversion rates within the plant, even like you said, on lower sales. Mm-hmm. Look, I think we're a culture where it's a continuous process to continue to improve the operations, whether it's through automation or better quality or leading to lower warranty and other costs. We still have, I think we still have some runway to go, and we still have more of those types of costs that can come out and improve margins. Now the other thing you have to realize is, you know, that continuous improvement in terms of cost also help offset natural inflation, other things that, you know, customer has historically not paid us for. Mm-hmm. There's a bit of an offset there. But what I think, you know, in the short term, there's still some more operating sort of plant floor improvements that we can continue to go after and get flowed through the P&L as we move forward. I know labor at times has sort of been an issue. What's sort of the latest there? Labor, if you're thinking, I mean, I'll think about the U.S., which is where most of the labor issues historically were, you know, post-COVID. You know, I think we're in a very good position. You know, plants needed to operate are very high 90s. I mean, we do not have the same issues around getting labor into the plant and making sure that it's efficient. A lot less temps in the plants, which makes the ability to operate the plants efficiently much easier. So. Mm-hmm. Much, much different than, say, two or three years ago. Okay. Anything in the audience for Dana? So, you know, let's operate under the assumption that the sale goes through. You get the proceeds, you delever down to, you know, the half turn to one turn net leverage you. Mm-hmm. Sort of talked about. I think in the release, you also mentioned free cash flow. I know you mentioned your margins could be similar to what they were at post-re post the savings, what they were with the off-highway business. I think you also made an allusion to free cash flow as well. Oh, no. We said free cash flow. What? I said free cash flow. Okay. Okay. Fine. So if you really wanna think about it, right. Yeah. What? We earlier talked about the margin. Yeah. Right? Let's talk about the margin. But so let's just walk, right? So you think about it's a lower top line at a margin that is the same or better than we're at today. So if we just think about that, so you're gonna have the higher EBITDA on those three business units that we still have. We'll have a significantly lower amount of debt. So a significant increase in free cash flow related to the avoidance of a significant portion of our current cash interest expense. Mm-hmm. The off-highway business is obviously the most profitable business and carries an outsized portion of our cash taxes. So more than the 25-ish percent of the business, the top line business that the off-highway business represents, will come out of taxes. So we'll get a big benefit from a tax perspective, in terms of the walk. And then off-highway tends to be our highest working capital usage business. So, obviously that won't happen. So those that combination, when you add it all together, should allow us to convert free cash flow at a much better rate than we have been over the last three, four years. And I think somewhere between, you know, 3% - 5%, you know, as we start moving out. So we're talking $200 million-$300 million of free cash flow. Mm-hmm. You know, over the next, you know, on a post-transaction basis, consistently so as we go forward is something that we're really striving to, and we think we can deliver that, and that gives us a lot of capital to look at returning to shareholders or looking at being opportunistic in other ways, but we're excited to get, you know, and I think the market has spoken, right? The market wants to see us generate free cash flow, and we're gonna, you know, reorder the business and take the cost out and skinny down the capital structure and deliver that free cash flow back to the shareholder or back into the business. And so, yeah, recognizing it's still early and that is something that I think the shareholder base, you know, wanted. How do you sort of preliminary think about that spending or using that cash? Yeah. I think, you know, we gotta get it first. Right. But. That's why I said I. I mean, you know, when you think about it, look, I think, you know, having the ability to make meaningful returns to that capital, to the shareholder, I think is probably number one. Mm-hmm. and then. Some combination of dividends and buybacks. Yeah. Something I mean, we'll see how the market reacts. Yeah. If the stock continues to be undervalued, then, you know, that, that makes a lot of sense. Right. So we'll but I do believe that, you know, that excess cash flow will first be, you know, an increase in terms of what we're returning to the shareholders. And then we'll see, you know, what other opportunities might be out there. But in regard and as we look at it today, I think, you know, we're thinking about it in terms of return of capital. Mm-hmm. We do believe we'll have excess capital. Yeah. In the business. I don't think you explicitly sort of answered the question earlier about sort of how what has sort of been total invested in electrification of the business. But maybe you should. I guess I didn't hear that question. But, well, you know, you have another chance to answer. But I guess maybe just asked differently, of the $200 million savings that you expect, how should we think about that by the remaining segments, like, where that how to allocate that? It's a good question. I, you know, I think that, you know, if you look at it generally, I think it's generally sort of pro-rata based on sales. It might be a little higher. A lot of the investment, correct? Yeah. But I was gonna say, like, and then with probably a bit more in coming through, commercial vehicle. Okay. given the amount that we have around electrification that's in that segment. Mm-hmm. But so if you allocate it and then said, "all right, some of that's probably a little bit higher" comes out of the other two segments. Okay. But predominantly, it's probably gonna be in light vehicle and commercial vehicle more so than in power tech. I guess just on the truck side and sort of what you had already been done or were planning to do on the electrification, geographically, was that more Europe or versus U.S. or how? For which. For the CV electrification efforts? It's both. I mean, we've got active programs on both continents for major OEMs. I think that will continue. I mean, our business is predominantly a North American and South American business today. I think that probably remains more like that, although we are seeing a lot of interest in some of the products we have developed for the North American market being of interest in Europe. But again, there's been a lot of slowdown even in the CV market. Yeah. If you think about, you know, I mean, you look at it like long line haul truck is kind of a difficult use case right now given the limitations on some of the infrastructure. I think last mile delivery still is, you know, and it has been our view has been being one of the most interesting and worthwhile places to really electrify because, I mean, these truck, the trucks start and end at the same end point. They don't have to worry about infrastructure. They have a known duty cycle. They know the math that's on the vehicle. So you can calculate and make sure that you're not gonna have a range issue in these trucks. And a lot of them drive around in cities either that have or are planning to have restrictive emissions, and they can make their rounds and not worry about trying to find a charging station. So we still think that's. Yeah. Where a lot of this ends up early. I think you had a question. Sure. Sorry. I'm blinded by the lines. I only saw it like vaguely. Go ahead. So I just wanna clarify that the $200 million cost cuts, that's all in power tech, commercial, and light, or is some of that? Yeah. Some of it, some of it comes out of the stranded cost from off-highway, but the predominant of it's in the other three. Okay. And then just talk a little bit more about the strategic interest in, I'm sorry, thinking back to Cummins taking out Meritor. I know it was a couple of years back. I haven't, you know, followed that, but sort of maybe some synergies, any thoughts or any insights on how that deal's progressed, the synergies, and just sort of how a strategic buy? I don't know. I don't run Cummins, so I can't really give. No. I'm trying to think through like the, you know, where this, I mean, we see where you're trading at, just sort of thinking about some of the strategic rationale for, you know, integration. Or is this more other buyers beyond? I'm just trying to think who the buyer interests come from specifically. Yeah. I mean, I don't wanna comment on any buyers, but we have a pretty broad range of interested strategic buyers for the business, so. Another one over here. Hi. Thanks. Have you commented on what you think the tax leakage would be from the deal? It's, I haven't said specifically, but it's highly tax efficient on a cash sale. So we wouldn't expect there to be a significant amount of leakage coming out that would have require us to do some sort of RMT or other, you know, equity or spin transaction. It's highly efficient. It'll be, you know, I'd say less than $100 million. Okay. Thanks. And then, the $200 million of savings, I mean, we should think that there's stranded costs eating into that, correct, or? There's some of it's in there. Yeah. That's correct. There's some of that will come out after we sell the off-highway business and have to skinny the rest of the cost structure down. Sorry. I guess what I'm asking is, is the 200 a net number, or should we think that it's 200 and then stranded costs eat into that 200? No. It's 200. Just think of it as all in 200 is what we should come out of the business. Okay. Thank you. I think we're just about at time. So, I don't wanna give you 10 seconds to answer one more question. No. Go ahead. Well, I guess, let's see. Where do we wanna go here?