All right. Welcome back, everyone. Very pleased to kick off this next session with Chris May, CFO. Although they left the R off the officer part in there, so apologies for that. No worries. All worries. All good. Dauch Corp. Chris, thanks for joining us. I think you want to make some opening comments, and we'll get into Q&A. Thank you, Joe, and good morning, everybody. I'd certainly like to thank UBS and yourself, Joe, for hosting this event. It's been a great day so far, having some great conversations and look forward to talking more about Dauch Corporation and our business over the next half hour or so. Look, to start the year, we obviously closed on our transaction with the acquisition o f Dowlais in early February. We posted our first quarter results early May. Very pleased with how we started the quarter. Nice operational quarter for us. Good margins in line with where we thought we would be from a cash flow perspective. From a leverage perspective, we really started our journey with this combined entity at 2.7x. A little better than we thought previously from a leverage perspective to start the year. The Base business continues to also operate quite well. We continue to announce awards. We've been expanding relationships with Chery in China. We secured some additional extensions of our core product in Brazil, which continues to align with the themes of extensions and next-generation product, really to lock in and secure our business for many years to come. Also on the Sideshaft side, which is a new driveline product for us with the acquisition of Dowlais, we continue to win new business there. Won over six new awards with various customers, which is playing out right to the theme we thought with that key product. As it relates to Dowlais, I know we'll probably have some questions there, the integration off to a very good start. We provided some updates at our first quarter earnings call from a synergy perspective. We saw a positive flow through in the quarter of $5 million, positive EBITDA performance. Maybe more importantly, from a run rate perspective, we provided insight to where we stood at our earnings call, about a $35 million per year run rate at that point in time. As you know, our goals as we go forward is by the end of year one, to be at $100 million run rate, by the end of year two, about $180 million year run rate, and then at the end of year three, the full achievement of our $300 million of synergy. We think we're in a really good spot as we sit here today. Excited about what has to come and excited for the first quarter and excited here for the rest of the year. With that, I will also remind everybody to take a look at all our forward-looking disclosures on our website before I turn it over to you, Joe, and the audience for any Q&A you may have. Yeah. Perfect. Thanks, Chris, for that. I guess, just to start, we've prepared a list of questions, but we saw some news, I guess, late Sunday and Monday about the actions at Three Rivers, and this is something that we've been monitoring, and I think we sort of talked about, and the rhetoric from at least coming from the union seemed pretty difficult, and obviously authorized the strike vote a couple of weeks ago, if not longer. This was always a possibility and I know it's a very sort of sensitive situation, but maybe you could just let us know what you can say about the situation. Where do we stand and how should investors think about it? Yeah. Currently our workforce at our Three Rivers facility is out on a work stoppage, it's a very active negotiation at this point in time. There's not a lot I can say. Of course our goal, and along with their goal, is to reach a mutually beneficial agreement that both parties can be successful on a go-forward basis. At this point in time, negotiations are very active. Not a lot we can say in terms of, I would say, current status other than they're ongoing at this point. Can you give us a sense of, and we know what products are made there, but can you give a sense of sort of output per week or anything else that comes out of Three Rivers? Yeah, just from a dimensionalized, our Three Rivers facility is our largest U.S. driveline facility. From a unionized workforce, it's about 1,000 people approximately. Our revenues there per week are around $20 million-$25 million per week of revenues. We supply the GM heavy duty truck as well as their mid-size truck and to some degree their full size van out of that facility. You mentioned it's the largest facility, but you obviously have some other facilities as well. Is there any potential to sort of compensate and produce a little bit more at some of the other facilities if this remains down for an extended period of time? At this point in time, that would be limited based on the product that it supplies into GM for their heavy duty trucks. Okay. Maybe you could just remind us, I think we're somewhat familiar with your U.S. footprint from Legacy American Axle, but you obviously took on a bunch of new plants from the Dowlais side as well. I know plants and labor negotiations and union contracts are on a plant-by-plant basis, but what does sort of the timeline or cadence look like for negotiations with some of those other facilities beyond Three Rivers? Yeah, we have a mix inside the U.S. from a unionized and non-unionized workforce. As you mentioned, all of our agreements from a union plant perspective are sort of standalone plant contracts. We have contracts that expire, I would say, almost every year at some point in our facility of plants. We've obviously been very successful working collaboratively with our partners there to reach agreements on those in the past, and we would expect to continue to do so in the future. You mentioned unionized and non-unionized. Can you just give us a sense of the plants you inherited from Dowlais, what the mix looks like there? Yeah. Most of those are non-unionized. Non-unionized. Okay. All right. With that out of the way, and I appreciate the commentary and color there. Understand the importance of the question. I'm sure it's something you want to get behind you guys as well. Aside, I guess, from this sort of work stoppage and we'll sort of see how things sort of play out there. Since you provided your outlook, we've seen some changes from some of the third-party forecasters. That's not necessarily ground truth. They're making estimates just like everyone else. I was curious to see from your perspective and your customers, which again, is a little bit different maybe than broader industry, how you're seeing production play out, because I think you typically do have at least that couple months visibility there. What you're expecting or what you're seeing right now, maybe even into a little bit in the third quarter, and there's obviously some sort of concerns raised by S&P, I guess, in production in the back half. It seems are more macro caution than anything from my perspective. I'd be curious to hear what you're seeing and what the message is from your customers. Sure. Yeah, most recently, S&P's updates, they had some, I would call slight adjustments in the regions, in particular Europe and North America, that we supply into. In terms of what we have been seeing at this point in time from a second quarter perspective, I would say generally volumes have been decent. They've been running pretty strong in many cases for some of our products. As you know, we take a view on the GM full size truck franchise. When we provide our guidance, we said 1.3 million-1.4 million units. We don't see, at this point in time, any reason to be making any adjustments associated with that. That truck continues to be in very strong demand, that product, as well as some other products that we supply into the marketplace. I think, to your comments on maybe some of the macro as we think about the back half, obviously we're watching this closely, as is S&P and yourself, and as well as our investors, and we'll see how that plays out. If you look at May sales that just came out, I think yesterday, they were pretty decent. Which of course will continue to, if you have decent sales, that will continue to support some level of decent production, would be our thought process. In the near- term, right now, our schedules are okay. Longer, deeper into the year, we'll have to see how that plays out. Right now, we're in a good spot. I guess just going back to the production schedules, especially as we think about second quarter, and maybe even tying it back to some of your comments about the strike. Again, just reporting what The Wall Street Journal said, I'm not sure where ground truth really lies, but they said, they seemed to hint that GM had been stockpiling maybe two weeks of inventory. That would suggest maybe $40 million-$50 million based on your numbers. Do you think that's a fair assessment that maybe their first quarter came in a little bit better because there was a little bit of cushion built just in case something happened? Well, keep in mind, that truck in particular on the heavy duty was down most of January. Right. They've been building strong to meet demand for that truck. In terms of inventories that they may or may not have had, we can't speak to that. There's always some level of inventory in the system, but there's clearly strong demand for that vehicle. I would expect that to continue, moving the work stoppage aside. Our expectation is there'll continue to be robust demand for that platform. Okay. I guess just turning to your outlook for the year then, assuming production is more or less in line with what you were expecting when you last updated us. You had the pro forma Dowlais sales, I think were + 5% up in the first quarter. Seems like the implied guide is that sales are down for the full year. Maybe you could just help us understand some of the factors that drive that decline in the back half. Yeah, certainly. In the first quarter, and I think you're referring to our year-over-year. Yes, sorry, year-over-year. You did have a little bit of a dynamic on the Dowlais side, as it relates to FX and the Europe that was a little bit weaker first quarter last year, much stronger here first quarter in 2026, and then really it strengthened in the second quarter last year. Some of that year-over-year dynamic will minimize. You have normal seasonality, of course, that plays out through the course of the year, and they had, quite frankly, a good first quarter from a sales perspective, which has a lot of production days in the first quarter. Also some of the commercial arrangements that they were beneficiary of were really back half of the year, meaning back half of 2025 weighted. On a year-over-year basis, you'll see some differences associated with that, and we called out some of those in our pro forma amounts u pwards of $100 million in the back half of last year. Those pieces really drive some of the nuances or dynamics that you're talking about. Other than that, they would fall within the production ranges of our macro guide. Right. Despite that, and I think you did lower technically some of the industry volume assumptions, but you raised the high end of the guide on both sales and EBITDA. Maybe you just talk about some of the comfort level behind that, and is where you fall in the range really just a volume-dependent factor at this point, or are there some stuff more under your control that you think can influence where you come in? From a May guide to our initial guide for the year from a volume, obviously, we remained firm on our view of the truck side from a volume. North America, we remained relatively straightforward, and it was down a little bit from the European marketplace. As we think about the full year, maybe I think the spirit of your question is a little bit of what are some of the puts and takes, if you will, as we think about it. Clearly volume, and we talked about that a few minutes ago. We have to see how the back half plays out a t this point in time. Also, we talked a little bit about the impact of the macro on our business from, I'll call it, inflation or cost increases associated with some of the increase in fuel oil, fuel surcharges, things of that nature for logistics. We mentioned potential $5 million-$10 million inside the second quarter. Yeah. If that continues deeper into the year, those type of costs, obviously, we've got to look to mitigate them and offset them, but in the very short term, you're going to incur some of those costs. That would be another sort of, I would call swing factor a little bit in terms of inside of the range of our guide. Those are a couple of the macro pieces I would think about. Clearly volume and a little bit of that inflation pressure. One of the things you mentioned on the call was seeing some maybe better economics on some of the new programs coming on. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about that and what's driving those economics. Is it really just a repricing of new contracts for the realities of the current labor environment versus other contracts that we're sort of stuck with old labor requirements, o r is there something else involved there? No, I think, broadly speaking, that commentary was associated with, in particular, product extensions where we have seen where we can then leverage an installed capacity base that would minimize investment to support maybe another two, three-year run of product, where you can see some better economics with that. When it comes to pricing, whether it's new products or even extensions, we have certain hurdle rates that we look to maintain, and we'll continue to drive towards the optimal output or outcome, if you will, of those financial hurdle rates. It does vary by product. To the extent where we have a nice position from either extensions or a good product set we think that our customers value greatly, we'll work with them to get the best pricing we can. How much of a headwind has pricing contracts, if you go back to, let's say, 2022, 2023, that are sort of still in the business now, that where labor was at a significantly different level than it is now, and so it's tougher to go back and recover that. Whereas now, as you're quoting business, you're able to quote the business for the new realities of labor. It seems like as those new programs come off and some of those other ones roll off, it seems like there should be almost a natural margin. Like a trough of inflation. Yeah, exactly. if you will. Look, to your point, we saw that real spike in inflation back in the 2022, 2023 timeframe, and we did reach agreement with our customers to get compensated for some of that. For labor too, though? Well, it would be a mix of broad inflationary, not labor specific utilities and things like that were very significant back in that timeframe. Some of that started to become built in, but to the extent you can reprice for current economics on a go-forward basis, that's always beneficial. As you know, we secure our programs, especially on our big driveline programs, for four, six, eight years, depending on the program length. To the extent you have an opportunity to reset pricing on a go-forward basis when those contracts come up, it is helpful. You mentioned $35 million synergy run rate in May. I think that's probably a little bit ahead of schedule for what you were thinking. When you originally gave the $300 million synergy target, you gave a number of buckets, like SG&A, procurement, manufacturing. Has it mostly been the SG&A part thus far, and how should we think about the phasing of the buckets of the synergies, where they come in? What's the low-hanging fruit? What's going to be tougher to get? Sure. Yeah. No, great question. As we think about the three buckets, you got them spot on. It was SG&A was about 30% of our $300 million, 1/2 was purchasing, and there's a little bit of sub-buckets we'll talk about that sit inside of each of these, and then operations was the 20% of the last piece. If you think coming right out of the chute, obviously, I'll call it, you refer to the low-hanging fruit, some duplicate public company costs, some SG&A. Obviously, these are ones we can get at very quickly, attack them right out of the chute, which is what we did, and we were pleased with that performance. We've started to see a little bit of purchasing, start to receive some benefits inside of that $35 million as well, but that's also one that will play out over the next many months especially into early next year, because a lot of contracts would reset, for example, on January 1 versus midyear breaking contracts with suppliers, et cetera to gain some favorability. Yeah, so I guess maybe initially, out of the chute, heavy SG&A, public company costs. As I think about phasing, we'll continue down additional SG&A opportunities that are in front of us. That'll also include things such as engineering costs, duplicate offices, which we're starting to close and rationalize. Those are key for our success. Heavy in the purchasing realm, and purchasing comes in really three areas for us. True out-negotiating with the supply base for economies of scale, you bring a bigger buy, obviously, they're interested in that work. You can achieve savings that way. But also vertical integration, which was a key piece of our thesis for this acquisition from twofold. Number one, we and our smaller powder metal business on legacy American Axle, we bought powder from Dowlais as well as others. We can in-source now more to ourself. At the same time, as the largest steel forger in the world, meaning legacy American Axle, legacy Dowlais bought a lot of steel forgings, many not from us. Playing that piece of vertical integration strength and then obviously margin capture to us creates for those synergies. That's a key piece of the purchasing piece. You helped to mention how much powder metal did old Axle buy? Yeah, the business itself, it was a couple hundred million dollar top-line business for us, of which this would be a portion, obviously, from, call it, 1/2 or less in terms of your cost of sales. We bought some from them and some from, I'll call, other competitors. Sure. Of course, the benefit to the company is the margin capture on those pieces. Same with the forging side as it relates to the Dowlais business. Logistics. We have a significantly expanded scope of logistics, negotiating with carriers and things like that to get optimal buys. That's another key piece of the purchasing. Those are all underway. They take a little time to negotiate. The third piece is the operational side, which we estimate around 20% of the $300 million. That really comes in twofold. It's true, I will call operational efficiency improvements, and you obtain that through identifying and taking two good operating systems, merging them together, taking the best of the best, and then spreading that across your fleet of plants. We're knee-deep in that process now, assessing both operating systems, going through locations, determining what's the best of the best, and obviously then you have to sort of recalibrate and re-roll out that to the different facilities, where then you'll gain true operational improvement, better quality, lower scrap, operational or OEE improvements in your factories that will drive real dollars. This last piece of that is footprint rationalization. There's some opportunities there. That will be the longest tail of these savings. I mean, building off that, I remember when you announced the deal and you were still in the unofficial phase, but you were talking about the deal and, unofficial meaning it hadn't closed, right? Yes. You were sort of talking about the synergies. One of the things you'd mentioned was that you weren't able to, because you didn't own it necessarily, really get into some of the facilities and really sort of evaluate, and you thought that as you were able to do that, you maybe had to make some haircutted or conservative assumptions in terms of what you could do in the plant. Now that you've owned it, I'm curious where you are in the process of going through that analysis and are you finding that your assumptions were reasonable or is it possible that there might even be more opportunity as you move through these plants for savings? Yeah. As it relates to the process, we're very active conducting operating reviews at all our locations. Our operating teams have been working very well together on both sides and bringing together what they're starting to view as the, again, the best of the best in terms of an operating system. Starting to lay the planking to roll that type of activity out across the facilities. I would say our excitement in this area continues to be very high. This is a core strength of legacy American Axle in terms of our operating system. They have some great elements inside of their operating system, which will benefit the fleet of Legacy American Axle plants. Very active, still continue to be very excited about this area of opportunity for us at this point in time. Again, this takes a little of time to assess, plan it out, roll it out, train, and then start to see those benefits come in. Okay. I would say very active and very excited about this area. What about historically you've sort of given a new business award, some commentary. I'm curious here on two fronts. One, what can you say about the backlog or book of business you've inherited from Dowlais? What does that look like? Two, are we seeing any additional potential synergies from being able to come out with a more complete, broader portfolio for your customers? That might take a little bit of time, but obviously you're starting to have these discussions with your customers. What can you say there? Sure. Maybe I'll start in reverse. In terms of the customer element, this is again one of the, I would say, elements when we looked at this transaction, super excited about it. As you know, we're historically very much overweight to GM. A little bit lesser so to Stellantis and Ford, principally the big three made up 75%-80% of our company's revenues. When we looked at the Dowlais book of business, very diverse, many great global customers, Toyota, Volkswagen, several in China through their joint venture, as well as many others. We have begun, I would say, the outreach, if you will, to having dialogue with these customers. We're looking to set up technical days to share with them not only what they have been historically familiar with on the Dauch side, but now some of the product that we can provide to them as part of the legacy American Axle side of the business. This is a process. It's like planting a seed and watering it, and it will grow, and then you'll start to expand those relationships, and then awards will start to come, would be the thought process from there. We've built none of this into our planning or our synergy numbers. Certainly really excited to get into some of these marquee names, and expand those relationships going forward. We see this as a real opportunity for us. Again, those are a little bit longer term to play out. I know we've got a long time between now and next January or February, but if we are able to fast-forward and we're sitting in early 2027 and you're giving your 2027 outlook, should we expect that a new business update is something you'll look to re-engage with and provide commentary to the street? We've not provided the last couple of years, really principally in due to the Dowlais acquisition. Certainly we've heard this request and we're taking a look at thinking of some things we can disclose on a go-forward basis. Okay. Is there still a plan to have some sort of event that goes over the strategy for the combined entity? Yes. Like a capital markets day? Yes. We are currently assessing and planning one of that, hopefully before the end of the year. Our thought process. That could also be maybe a good opportunity to talk about the combined- Well noted. opportunity. You mentioned the leverage from the deal and the start. You're talking about, I think you have a plan to reduce that leverage over time, clearly. Maybe just go over how you see the timeline playing out to get to targeted levels. What, historically, I think you've maybe targeted, if I recall, it was 2x to 2.5x when it was just standalone American Axle. Two times, right? Yeah. Is that still the right level you're sort of targeting, or has your thinking on sort of leverage changed here going forward? Yeah, I would say our thinking on leverage has changed a little bit really with the acquisition of Dowlais. What I mean by that is sort of previously you heard us in prior years talk about, look, we want to get to 2x or below, w e start to think about other capital allocation alternatives. With the acquisition of Dowlais, with the bigger balance sheet, with the robustness in our view on the opportunity that sits before us on our synergy potential, what we think now is, as I mentioned, we started the year at 2.7x, a little better than I thought in terms of where we would be. The year plays out, look, we'll have cash flow generation, but we had to fund, obviously, the acquisition closes and the synergy implementation cost. We'll be probably still in the same zip code of that leverage through the course of 2026, and then you'll start to see some real traction here in 2027. Back on the leverage point, we articulated through our acquisition that once we get to 2.5x levered we intend to open up that capital allocation playbook. A little higher leverage than you heard us talk about historically because of the size and strength of our balance sheet and a little bit more robustness from our business model. First key, I would say, marker if you will, from a leverage perspective, as we get to 2.5x open up the allocation playbook, i.e., shareholder friendly type activity. I would expect we're still focused on reducing and strengthening the balance sheet after the 2.5x. We would love to be in a position to get 2x or below. It's m ore of a medium-term target, if you will, on a go-forward basis, but with a little more balance in our capital allocation. Is that mainly through higher EBITDA levels, or are you also thinking about sort of gross debt reduction? Both. The cash flow will support debt paydown or gross debt reduction, and then EBITDA growth really on the back of the synergies. Okay. I guess within that and within sort of the free cash potential of the company, I know we've done the math, and we've had many conversations between us on this about how if you look through, you could be looking $450, maybe sort of $500 million of more sort of normalized free cash flow once we go just to get through all this noise. I think one of the points that investors always sort of point to and, quite frankly, give a little bit of pushback is restructuring, which I know is higher this year. I think you think a more normalized level is below this, but then there's concern out there that you are more European centric now than you were before, and then maybe that requires a certain elevated level of restructuring in Europe, maybe higher than you're assuming. Maybe, I know it's a long-winded sort of intro here, but maybe you could sort of talk a little bit about your level of comfort with the European footprint, the size of it, what actions are sort of currently planned, and sort of how you monitor as to sort of whether there will be more action needed. That is one of the levers there, right, towards getting to that. Clearly. In current year, you can see the spend is relatively elevated. Look, if you think historically, legacy Dowlais has a bigger European footprint than legacy American Axle, and they have been spending a significant amount of restructuring dollars to really optimize that footprint, move out of high-cost countries into lower-cost countries to really put us, again, as we went through some of our diligence to set us on a better footing going forward. We thought we would be able to capture that upside in future years because that spending has been done. We still believe that to be true. My point here is a lot of that restructuring has been done and is getting concluded, generally speaking, here this year. I would expect our overall restructuring to step down meaningfully in 2027, maybe by 1/2 or so. Then from a legacy American Axle side, we've made some, I would say, relatively minor in comparison to maybe some of the legacy Dowlais adjustments inside of our European footprint. We did close a facility end of last year. That's part of the restructuring cash here this year. Again, all holistically as part of, I expect, a step down into 2027. Big picture, I would expect some level of restructuring as part of the normal course of our business. Driving productivity creates opportunities to restructure, to continue to optimize, to continue to stay cost competitive. Our goal is not to have elevated levels of restructuring forever, right? Our goal is to reduce that to the extent we can and still maintain a good operating footprint that's competitive with the marketplace that we're in. Our goal is to reduce that amount significantly. Two more big topics I want to sort of touch on. One is, I think if we look out over the past probably month or so really, there's been a lot more focus on what is an automotive supplier's sort of key competency, right? I think one way you could sort of view this as you've got deep knowledge about certain products and how to manage those supply chains, how to industrialize, how to manufacture at sort of high quality. Some of those skills might be needed in additional end markets now. I think as we've seen sort of a lot of non-auto interest in some of the other names now, I think people will think of Dauch and sort of say, well, just high- level glance, you don't sort of really fit this bill. I guess as you sort of look at your portfolio and even more importantly, not your portfolio, but your core competencies, do you see opportunities to sort of diversify the business into other end markets? Yeah, the core competencies of our company play very well to many different industries. You have the basics of engineering, manufacturing, assembly, machining, things of these, forging, these are all core competencies that apply to many different industries. Even taking a step back at some of the core competencies of our operating system, quality management, program management, global capabilities. These things are just above just the core of the machining and the factory floor, right? That can allow us to replicate and support other type of industry opportunities. We do supply in a much lesser degree, other elements inside of our business, like on the industrial side through, for example, our powdered metal business. About 20% of that revenue is to the industrial side of the business. Anywhere from washing machine components to mixers and things like that you might find in your kitchen. They have a very unique use to it, a different customer base, but obviously our products and capabilities to support that industry sits inside of our powdered Metal business today, or our metal forming operations. The core competencies of the company apply to many different industries, aerospace, industrial, things of that type and nature. Internally, maybe you could just sort of shed some light on how you think about this as a management team. Do you have sort of an incubation type of process where you say, "Hey, we're very good at doing X, Company Y needs this thing. Let's sort of show them our capabilities"? Maybe you could just sort of shed a little bit of light of how that process sort of works in terms of seeking out and scoping those new opportunities. Yeah, we think about exactly that. It starts with what are our core competencies that we do today? What are adjacencies to our business, meaning outside of the Auto business or even other elements inside of Auto, but outside of Auto, I think is a little bit of spirit of your question here. Where can those competencies and product sets and knowledge apply to? We do various evaluations. We have discussions and debates internally inside the company on where we can maybe expand some of those skill sets into other areas of the business. Obviously, right now in the current state, we're very focused on integrating the Dowlais acquisition. I think this is clearly an area that will gain more and more attention inside our company going forward. Yeah. I guess just putting a bunch of different sort of scattered pieces together here, right? You have increased your U.S. footprint with Dowlais. Maybe there's a chance for some plant consolidation. I think you alluded to that earlier, which it gives you decisions of what to do with that plant. If we think about other big picture thematics where there's this bit onshoring theme, does that open up opportunity for you to fill some of that capacity that might free up with some of these other additional opportunities? How are you- Absolutely thinking about that? Yeah, absolutely. We're seeing, of course, that's in our Auto business today. We're absolutely seeing a lot of activity last year and discussion points after a lot of the tariff activity of potential onshoring, in particular leveraging our Metal-Forming business. What we're starting to see now this year in calendar year 2026 is PO and awards for that type of business as people are looking to onshore maybe some of these type of components that over the last decade or two, they have pushed to global sourcing strategies. They can clearly see now the benefits, both economically as well as logistics side of our North America footprint, and we're set up very well to do that. Good segue into sort of the last big picture topic I want to sort of touch on here, which is USMCA and the renegotiations. I know late last week we saw some news that the government might be pushing for 50% U.S. content. Maybe you could sort of just remind us, well, again, we don't know where things are going to land, to be clear, but I think there's been an effort underway by you and other suppliers already to sort of try to source more and get U.S. content higher, because even if we didn't know the 50%, I think it was quite clear that there was going to be some sort of U.S. requirements coming. Where do you stand? What efforts are underway, and how far do you think you could sort of push this? Yeah. Look, USMCA, as you know, is extremely critical to the Auto industry. We have maybe a few more months before this is finalized, and we'll see where it goes. I'm sure it'll be an interesting journey between here and the end negotiation. Obviously we're watching it very closely. Our core company philosophy always has been to sort of build and buy in the region that we produce and support our customers. That first and foremost, I think has served us well, from some of this either tariff activity or some of the risks associated with changes in trade arrangements. That said, recognizing the push holistically from the current administration to bring more onshore into the United States, I think is also a very nice setup for our footprint in the U.S. We clearly, as a lot of this activity changed in the course of last year, really allowed us to think about the Dowlais acquisition, expanding a little bit of more capabilities, both from a driveline and a Metal-Forming side inside of the U.S. with additional facilities. I think that positions us really well to navigate what changes may come as part of USMCA. That said, we've been focused on making sure and evaluating U.S. sources for our own supply. For example, almost all of our steel that we buy that goes into our primary driveline products is U.S.-sourced steel. Even steel we send down to Mexico in our Mexico facility is all U.S. steel, and it comes back as U.S. content and steel. We've been very conscious of this, understanding sort of a little bit where this is positioned, but I think as a company, both from our manufacturing footprint as well as our sourcing strategies, has us set up really well to navigate what's coming at us and also benefit from it as people look to bring in more product into the U.S. What are the pain points for you right now in terms of sort of U.S. content? I'm assuming there's some elements you just sort of can't get from the U.S. right now. We don't have a lot of it, to be frank, but things like in the electronics space, a lot of that comes out of the Asia market, right? Most suppliers have that brought in from China or others in that region. That's probably the number one piece. In terms of some of the core stuff that we do, a lot of that's all within either our control of the source or build internally inside the U.S. Maybe just here in the final minutes, want to close on electrification. I vividly remember being at a conference with you in like 2018, and we had speakers there about electric vehicle penetration, and you're like, "It's coming, but it's definitely not going to happen that fast." Look, I think you are probably more right than wrong on that view. I think even you and David and the team acknowledge that there is a longer- term shift where eventually at least certain vehicles will move more to electrification. I think you've gained a little bit more capabilities in there with Dowlais, it hasn't, I think, really gotten a lot of focus. I know I'm not giving you a lot of time for this with two minutes left. Maybe you could talk a little bit about some of the competencies you've gained from Dowlais, what they do, I think specifically in China, I believe is where they're stronger and is some of that leverageable to customers in other regions? Yeah. No, absolutely. First of all, our view on electrification is it's a very good technology. It's here and it's growing. It's just growing at different paces in different markets. Our primary home market of North America, obviously with recent past couple year has slowed down dramatically. In particular as it relates to our truck segment. Our view on that really hasn't changed. We believe that'll be the last segment to electrify, maybe decades. Who knows? Europe continues to grow and China, as you know, has grown significantly in that space and has been very well adopted by end consumers in that market. We're very well aware of the different regional elements that drive volumes for electrification, and we want to make sure we're in a position to support that. How have we done that? We historically on a legacy American Axle have made investments into our driveline systems, to support that both from drive units and as you know, we're in Mercedes and we're in Jaguar and others. Also into our e-beam axles, which has seen a lot of traction in the China marketplace actually, as it relates to electrification. Legacy Dowlais has done very similar in terms of their investments historically into electric drive units. They're in several platforms, but combined now we have a very nice bookshelf technology, if you will, that are in either active products or can be easily quoted in passenger cars, crossover vehicles, or truck segments that require beam axles. I think we're in a really good spot from that standpoint. From a component standpoint, obviously these are things that we make very similar in ICE hybrid and electrification, very similar. Both companies combined have these skill sets, and we are in these type of products today. Even as we thought about the Dowlais acquisition, one of the key, I think, features of that product was the sideshaft business. As you know, they are the global leader in sideshafts, 40% market share. Now we are 40% market share. It's completely agnostic. You need a sideshaft on an ICE vehicle. You need a sideshaft on a hybrid vehicle, and you need a sideshaft, actually, you need more of them, on average in an electric vehicle. As we thought about our product portfolio, we thought about from drive units, good spot from electrification and the investments that we've made combined. Now we're in a good spot, components as well as sideshafts. Hopefully I didn't rush. I know I had two minutes here. I tried to move it quick. The China marketplace is growing for us and we are leveraging that joint venture, which is roughly about a $1.5 billion sales. Does a really nice job inside China and this will obviously allow us to advance in the electrification space as well. Great way to close. Chris, thanks again for the conversation. Really enjoyed it. Thanks, Joe. Appreciate it. Thanks.