Welcome, everyone. We're super excited to have Jim Farley, President and CEO of Ford, join us again this year at our conference. I'm Toni Sacconaghi, Bernstein's IT hardware and electric vehicles analyst, and I'm joined by Daniel Roeska, who's our U.S. autos and auto parts analyst. And we're gonna, we're gonna do this jointly together. So again, thanks very much for having us, Jim. Thanks for being here. Jim, you were here last year, and the year before, and we're indebted to you for your participation. Maybe we could just start by you reflecting on what are the two or three things that have happened in the auto industry that you believe are most notable or have changed your thinking over the last 12 months. Thank you. Hi everyone. Good morning. It is a milestone to be here. There are a few things that have become extremely clear that were not clear a year ago. The commoditization of the affordable EV cost, the supply chain connected with that, has become very clear. Batteries, the chemistry formats, are being commoditized, the kind of design requirements for a profitable, affordable EV, the customer's interests in multi-energy solutions that are more complex than just a single hybrid system that includes EREVs and increased diversity of PHEV applications. The software roadmap for attached services has become much clearer relative to the commoditization of ADAS, and how quickly the operating domains for standard ADAS features, the pricing power of that, being commoditized has become much clear. The talent war has become much more clear. I come here at this moment in time, like, as a CEO, much clearer about our executional priorities and the way we need to make our way through this successfully to be a great company is a lot clearer than it was last year. Jim, if I could follow up on that and just what are the strategic or operational imperatives that result out of that? 'Cause you said a lot of really interesting things there. You know, one, the commoditization of cost. Two, you know, kind of the roadmap for software and services. Maybe you could talk about, you know, what are the either operational or strategic responses or changes given that increased clarity to you? Well, let's take them one at a time. There's just natural law is emerging, natural law in attached technology, like the software and attached services. That, that comes from tech, which was new to us, that natural law. The natural law in our business of cost. You're gonna hear every CEO talk about the EV transition, and all they're gonna talk to you about is cost, or that's what they should talk about. So, strategically, that requires a legacy company like Ford to completely disrupt the engineering, supply chain, and manufacturing standards. And so it turns out we were maybe smarter than we actually intended to be with our skunkworks because the way they're working is completely foreign to the standard operating procedures of Ford. And that was actually not something to celebrate. It was actually required for fitness, for cost, to use a completely different supply chain, to totally change the design standards for our EV components, to go to vertically integrate and make the sourcing decisions, to a lower part of the supply chain. You know, all those things were actually required now to be fit. It's not something that maybe a year ago we were like, "Hey, this is gonna be really different." Now I know all those things are required for excellence. On that, strategically, basically taking our skunkworks team and turning them into the standard for industrial fitness. On the software side, it requires a laser focus with the best talent, laser focus on leading the latest, the best, most customer-focused, software deployment. So, you know, I, I believe that the, the China consumer experience digitally is far beyond the West. What Huawei and Xiaomi have done inside the vehicle is far beyond what we can see with CarPlay and Google Automotive Services. That is the natural law now in terms of great software. So strategically, how do you must have the talent in the company to give the customer that functionality on the software side but do it in a way that's compliant with the standards in the West. And that so strategically, it's not about updating your electrical architecture or having a great software team. That's necessary. Sufficiency or winning comes from strategically having the talent who can take that new standard, the best global standard, I believe, and execute it with a Western software tech stack. It's a totally different strategically. It's a totally different thing. And of course, this is all caught up in geopolitics or will be, which makes it all more difficult or interesting depending on your point of view. But so I think, what I keep coming back to is the natural law that you have to have great cost fitness and quality fitness to even have the right to compete. And that's being defined not by here in the U.S. It's defined by China. Right. If we just, you know, so clearly, I mean, you haven't directly said it, but you've alluded to it in several of your comments. The standards being set by the Chinese, both from a cost perspective and from a technology perspective, are really challenging or pushing the industry. And I think even two years ago, you were the first to say, like, the toughest competitors are the Chinese. Before that was well known. I remember you're saying that two years ago. Does that just make it so much tougher for everyone else? And how do we think about the global automotive industry, like, 10 years from now? Well, first of all, I think, you know, everyone said it. You guys have said it. The community that watches these stocks have all said it, that it's natural law. Like in the 1920s when, you know, the Model T came along, it's natural law that with price collapsing, you get industrial fitness. That's what's happened in China. And I don't really see it as difficult. I mean, look, you have Leapmotor with Stellantis. You have BYD and Toyota working together in China. You have VW working with XPENG. You have, I mean, Geely and I'll just go down the list, right? You know, whether the question is, do you wanna delegate that capability to someone else, or do you wanna develop in your company? That's the strategic choice. And as far as difficulty is concerned, you know, I think this is just natural law. Like, you don't have a choice. If you want to be the best in the world and so the way this could probably play out is it's starting with exports today into Europe, of course, Mexico, and a lot of other markets. You look at the Thai market and ASEAN, you look at Mexico, you look at Europe, and already, you know, not just in EVs, in ICE as well, those brands are really becoming dominant. 21% of the Mexico market is sourced in China now. We all could drive to Mexico today. It's not far from here. And why does that matter? It matters 'cause of supply chain. The supply chain is there. Supply chain will be in ASEAN. Supply chain will be in Western Europe. The supply chain will be in Eastern Europe. The supply chain will be in Africa. The supply chain will be in Mexico. And that, that's natural law, I guess, in a way. And so I think what you'll see is companies either moving off their internally developed Gen 1 EV platforms because there's a new standard and it's more fit, or they will have, like Ford has done, a Skunkworks team that tries to take advantage of that opportunity and build the fitness in the company. I believe for Ford, after what happened with Mazda, after what happened with Kia, and all the lessons we've had, we need that transfer function. How do you in your mind's eye see your relationship with the supplier networks? For you just mentioned, right, going down the tiers a bit. But we've heard from other OEMs that in this transition, they find sometimes their suppliers aren't moving fast enough to that new kind of Skunkworks standard. So what role do you think or how would you like suppliers to shape up in the next decade? I mean, it's gonna take care of itself. It's natural law. What I mean by that is I keep saying that, but it's like, you know, when we have a CEO of a part for our skunkworks team and they're looking at even a non-EV component, but let's say an inverter, a Silicon Carbide Inverter, and we wanna make money at $25,000 or $30,000 cost, so we have to, like, have a completely new cost delivery. And, you know, when we quote this supplier or that supplier, we always start with the challenger. And that automatically creates a fitness. And it's interesting because our current suppliers often own the design of that part. What we're finding with the challenger suppliers is they're willing to actually give us the IP of the part, the design of the part itself. And then we work with them on their technology roadmap to make it better. And then, when we go to our traditional supply chain, we have the design fixed. We know it fits a future technology roadmap for that challenger supplier. We have our own quality standards, which we have to actually study and verify whether those are really required to be competitive. And then we'll see how good the traditional supply chain is. And we've learned a lot. I'm not gonna go into the details of who's gonna win and lose out of that. That's not the purpose of this talk. It's just very interesting to me that there's a new global standard of fitness. That could be for megacastings, unit castings, something new, new technology like that where our traditional suppliers actually aren't used to doing that work to very ordinary things like seats and IPs. Well, that sounds optimistic that you think the supply chain or parts of the supply chain will be able. I do. To kind of deliver the cost that you need. Because fitness is required in China. I mean, you can view that, you know, both ominously or excitedly, right? Yeah. You know, kind of only the fittest will survive. Uh-huh. I know we've talked in the past about you're seeing consolidation going forward. Is that consolidation through, you know, people dropping out of the industry or these partnerships that you alluded to becoming, you know, stronger and there being consolidation from a, you know, from an investment perspective, perhaps out of necessity or perhaps just to bolster up to be able to be stronger in this more competitive world? You know, if you just think of industry structure, do you see fewer car companies? Do you see car companies, established car companies consolidating or not making it? How you know, how significant is this fitness threshold and, does everyone pass? No. I don't think everyone makes it through. And the most interesting case studies there are the ones in the short run are, you know, the all-EV brands who don't have an ICE profitable business where the capital markets they're facing a lot more challenging, you know, access to capital. Whether that's in China and the US, those are kind of the most natural ones to look at. You know, I think they have to get fit 'cause, you know, they don't have Pro. I have this amazing business called Pro. I wish everyone would value it like it deserves to be valued. But, you know, they don't have that opportunity. I think you're also gonna see the state-owned enterprises in China. They're all at different points. And so, you know, that's gonna have to be rationalized. You know, there's 53 million units of installed capacity in China, and the local market's 29 million. And they built that capacity probably partly for export. So I wouldn't call it overcapacity. But on the same token, it's like incredible amount I mean, that gap between the local market and the total capacity is larger than the entire U.S. North American market. It's entire it's larger than the entire European market. So it's not small. And so, you know, that pricing pressure is going to be there for the all-EVs. So I think that will happen in a lot of forms. But the most important part of this consolidation is talent walking, walking from one brand to another. That's the most exciting opportunity we're seeing in this consolidation. Talent good talent wants to work for the best companies with the best strategy and the best execution. And so what we're seeing is talent changing, changing teams, putting from one shirt to another shirt. And that's happening right now in a large, large way. There's another thing that's happening in China, well, everywhere, really. It's actually happening everywhere where partial electrification is becoming more a bigger part of the solution. I don't know if regulators are, you know, we're gonna have to talk to all the regulators 'cause they really bet on pure EVs. But EREVs in China are really the growing part of the EV market. And when you see reported new energy vehicles, they include EREVs. And EREVs in the U.S. could be 120 miles of all-electric. And they drive like EVs. They don't drive like combustion vehicles. So you get an EV, and you have 700 miles of range. You don't have to. You would have no range anxiety for a long trip. You don't have to rely on any chargers. Those vehicles have half the batteries. So they're very profitable. They're different than PHEVs, which are traditional combustion vehicles. So I, I think the other thing the fitness test is how quickly can some of the players adopt these kind of in-between solutions that customers really are excited about. A year ago, we weren't covering the cost premium for a hybrid with the price that customers paid us. We are now. Many of our hybrids in the U.S. are now more profitable than their non-hybrid equivalent. That was not the case a year ago. Customers are voting. They, they like these in-between solutions. We still have a lot of work to do with regulators 'cause they're not there. That's another part of the consolidation. Can you? Do you have the resources to offer customers this choice that Ford does? We're number three in hybrids in the U.S. We're number two in EV, and we're the most popular ICE brand, you know, with vehicles like F-150. Depends on the month, of course. So that choice is super important. Turns out, being a company, if you're open, you know, you have the option. But I believe partnerships will be huge. You're just gonna see a ton of partnerships. Just on the hybrid side, I mean, do you view it as a 5- or 7-year interim solution? You mentioned policy regulators. Like, do you think, you know, California is gonna change its view on hybrid in 2035, or do you think Europe's gonna change its view? Or do you feel like this is a 5- or 7-year bridge? You know, 7 years, you'll have lower cost curves on batteries. You'll have higher range. You'll potentially have solid-state batteries that the need for hybrids will go away. How do you think about that? That's a good question. I, I think we should stop talking about as transitional technology on the powertrain side. I, I mean, the first-generation Prius. I was at Toyota 25 years ago. Ford launched the hybrid Escape, and here we are talking about the exciting hybrid market. It's 25 years old now. It's not, it's, so, you know, maybe PHEVs could, you know, traditional PHEVs that go 60 kilometers, 100 kilometers could be a transitional technology. But I don't see hybrids. Why? Well, first of all, hybrids aren't what everyone thought they were going to be. Hybrids used to be super efficient powertrains. And although we have that on Maverick and it's super popular, 35-mile-per-gallon small pickup truck, our fastest-selling vehicle and our lowest-cost vehicle company in North America. You know, but we also have Pro Power Onboard for F-150 hybrid, which is now 25% of our F-150 sales. Our competitors don't even have hybrid. And I sell 25% of all F-150s, the second-largest consumer product in the U.S. behind the iPhone in total revenue, is hybrid. And why? It's not, even though the powertrain is very efficient for towing, it's Pro Power Onboard, exportable power. That's what those batteries allow you to do. Power a job site. Look what happened in Texas last week. Power your home when there's a grid outage. People, so hybrid isn't just what people thought it was. It includes exportable power. So that's why I don't think it will be transitional. The regulator question's a bit different 'cause the big decision's gonna be EREVs. It's an electric vehicle. But it has a combustion engine, but it doesn't power the car. That is really a big decision for us as an industry and for regulators. Is that an EV, or isn't it? It has a smaller battery, but 95% of the trips are gonna be all-electric. And then you don't have range anxiety, and the infrastructure is taking time to fill out. So it's a good solution. That's why it's popular in China. That's why it's doubled its sales in China. And you know, we really like that solution. Three years ago, you made a big bet on the kind of EV/non-EV drivetrain segregation within Ford, and you created kind of Model e and Blue. Yes. Yes. Now, with the discussion we just had, is that still as relevant to split it exactly that way? Yeah. It's a good question. I think certainly, the way we look at it is, you know, EREVs, something with a plug that's, you know, like a Model E product. Yes, it's actually more important now that we did it, not because we did it, but because of the focus I'm seeing in the team. If you take the powertrain during this transition and you put it in your businesses, let's say Pro and Non-pro, if we split it that way, I don't think you would have the laser focus in a legacy auto company in getting to this fitness level because the pain is so high right now. The urgency is so high that it's an all-hands-on-deck company project now to turn around Model E. If you don't do that, some car companies will create CO2 benefits for the EV business. Actually, Ford did that to get the regional funding for EVs. We actually did that. We said, you know, we created a carbon trading model inside the company to allocate the capital. That's a dangerous thing when you're running a business. You know, we don't believe that EVs should be subsidized. We believe that we have to get to that fitness level as soon as possible because it will move our company to a good company to a great company. And so I believe this is one of the most important things we've done, but it is one of the most painful things we've done. If we zoom in on that, you kind of just pushed out, say, the timeline on Model e and the progression a little bit. What are the building blocks from where you are today to that future state, right? What is the one, two, three to get to that profitable Model e? Okay. I mean, that's longer than 26 minutes. But the high-hard ones on that would be look, we, we've kind of shrunk the company around where we can make money. But to be a vibrant company, we have to grow. And to grow, you have to have competitive cost. You have no rights to grow unless you're competitive on growth on, on cost. But, but that's not the only fitness. But that, that's, that's the kind of entry ticket. So the first thing so in, in, inevitably, it's gonna be this cost-quality thing to solve for. But we know customers really well in work and in enthusiast-iconic products like Bronco and Mustang and F-150. We now have the Maverick. We have now a new Ranger. We have a new F-150 coming out, and we have a new Super Duty. We're globally the number one in pickup trucks. We know pickup truck customers. We know work. We are dominant in Pro, not just competitive. We are dominant. And so, the most important thing is to not launch in customer segments that are generic for us. We go to the places where we can use the innovation and the cost leverage to customers we know well. Look at Maverick's success. It's, it's, I think, the first down payment on Ford growing again globally. But we can do it globally. So that's one. Compete where you know the customers really well because for software innovation, which we haven't really talked about, and all the digital transformation of our industry, which is most exciting for me, integrated services, that's where you can win. Look at Pro. We have three-quarters of our software subscriptions are on Pro. And I believe it's a marker for the future industry. The second thing is we have to get to a radically different engineered product with a different supply chain and manufactured radically more efficiently. And that's a necessity. And the standard, again, is not global OEM. It's a different standard. And it's brutal. And it requires a completely different approach, at least at Ford, it did. I think the next thing is you have to have the talent on the digital side to differentiate your product. You can't just look at the digital transformation as, like, "I can make some money." That's not sufficiency. Sufficiency is you have to win. To have a winning mindset in software and digital, yes, you have to have an advanced electric architecture. It has to be competitive in cost. You can't have it, you know, too expensive, but you have to have software that really differentiates your car. When I look at China, you know, it was there for the last 10 years, 10 days, so it's very fresh in our minds, all of our minds. You know, the competition is so high in China for new energy vehicles that you're seeing sub-sub-sub-segments that you don't see anywhere else. And many of those competitors see the digital experience so compelling that you don't have to drive the car, that the experience inside your car is so compelling that it's your new third space. That is what you want in your digital experience. You want movie projector for the second row. You want content. You want ADAS to come to life in a way that you want AI assistance in the car. And why do you want that? Because Level 3's gonna give us time back. When we get Level 3, the car is effectively stationary. So that's the next thing. We have to get our digital capability in the company, you know, differentiating. That's why pro is so important for the company because we can do it with productivity. Customers will pay for 24/7 uptime and productivity. That's what we're learning as a company that I think a lot of OEMs aren't because we have pro. The biggest gift, I believe, for pro is not just this year's profitability. It's that it is showing us what fitness will look like in terms of growth and revenue power and, and, and kind of de-risking our revenue. That's what it's learning. But when to do that in the retail world, look at look at Microsoft and Apple. Like, it's a different game to win in the retail software business. But those are the key ones. Yeah. So, Jim, if I if I could just follow up because, you, you talked about sort of playing in segments that you know well and you clearly have very established competencies in certain market segments. But you also talk about doing really well to grow. Are those implicit trade-offs? And if you did have to trade off profitability versus growth, what is more important to you over the next five years? Is it getting that cost fitness, dominating in the niches where you are and being super profitable, even, even if that means you don't really grow? Or is, is growth more imperative? And how do you think about that trade-off? It's the first. But it's an interesting predicament because if we compete where we have that advantage, you could argue that our fitness won't have to be as high. Oh, okay. I think that's the dilemma. The key strategic bet for us is to compete in those places but at the low end 'cause we can grow. When I joined Toyota a long time ago, 40 years ago, we sold 400,000 small pickups. The average small pickup in the U.S. and so why? Well, there were Civic and Corolla customers then, but there were a lot of customers who said, "Hey, this pickup truck is cheap enough." It was called the 8100 truck. It was before the Chicken Tax. And, you know, that told me as a future executive that, you know, people really like pickups. And if it's the same cost as a Civic or a Corolla, there's gonna be some Americans who switch. So we believe there's some growth there, actually. The most important thing to get the fitness is you gotta force yourself to compete at the low end. That's the hard part. How do you see Ford's involvement? Now I'm giving away a product plan. How do you see Ford's involvement in international markets, right, going beyond the U.S., right? Yes. Yes. The fitness? Exactly. That's where the games can be played. The fitness in Europe and China probably looks different. You're just going back to Europe. Yep. Talk us through that a bit. You know, Europe, our strategy well, first of all, I think we're really fortunate that we stayed in China, but we had a low-cost, low-capital strategy. That wound up being actually really smart but maybe not totally intentional. We just didn't wanna lose a lot of money. We were making money in China now. A lot of people aren't. And in Europe, our answer's pretty simple. Like, we believe the Pro business is so strong there, and we're just kinda getting started. We really haven't gone on the low end. We're just launching our low-end vans now. And the attach rates for services there are not as high, and for parts. So it's kind of a harder business for Pro on the attach side. So we think that that's a fitness test for us too. So we really believe Pro and, like, we'll do, like, you know, kind of niche iconic models there on the retail side. Pro is our future there. And the Pro market is huge there, especially a small van market where we've never been successful. Stellantis is very successful, and they have huge industrial scale. So I think Pro, we, you know, we're just building, you know, VW's partnership is coming to life. We are now fully building the one-ton van, with them, and the same for Amarok and Ranger. And we're number one in pickup and one-ton van. So they and we're just launching our new product. So we have a really strong future in Europe. I'd say the real interesting question is in South America, Africa, and South Africa specifically, for us, in ASEAN and Thailand, where we have two plants and growing Ranger business. All those places, we've restructured dramatically to be profitable, which we are now, very profitable. And yet, the Chinese competitors are coming in with ICE vehicles too there. And we have a choice between do we grow, and how profitable is that growth, or do we stay where we are? We think we have to future-proof that business. We think that just staying where we are with Ranger and Everest could be a risk. We believe that the competitors that we're seeing there in all those markets now are very fit, and we don't want to do what happened in many markets for Ford. We need to compete in the low end, and we need to future-proof the electrification of those products. We'll do it smartly where we can make money, and we'll be thoughtful about partnerships. Jim, you had talked a little bit about, you know, having a software stack and a digital experience that's compelling and what you had observed in China. You know, Ford Pro is probably, you know, the best example in the industry of kind of beyond-the-box revenue. Yes. To use kind of the technology example, but how do you think about creating and, more importantly, monetizing the beyond-the-box revenue on the consumer side? Okay. Because the Pro side and you're welcome to share some of the numbers 'cause they are pretty compelling and contributes to the outsized profitability of Ford. But how do you think about beyond-the-box for consumer? How does it manifest itself? And are you more or less excited than you were, like, two or three years ago? You won't let me talk about Pro. I really won't. No, no, no. I said you can talk about pro. Throw out all the numbers, and then let's talk about the future. No, but your question was, like, no, let's talk about. No, no, no, no. Definitely. And Pro's a great story to talk about. Yeah. You know, it turned out, actually, the parts business is, is exciting as the software business and Pro because it's, it's a kind of it's a system. It's an ecosystem, you know, with prognostics on the vehicle now that we can make the vehicle predict its own failure, you know, and a parts business that's, you know, 30+% margin and then a software business that's 40%-50% margin. You know, it all kinda works together for productivity and uptime. And, and that's where, you know, of the 770,000 subscriptions, 560 are Pro. And it's all productivity software, you know, from fuel card fraud to now we can control the speed of the vehicle. We can control the access to the vehicle that the telcos and the third-party telematics can't compete with us. They don't have control over the vehicle. And now about 13% of our EBIT on pro is attached services. And we think it'll be 20% in a couple of years. And already, pro's easily the most profitable part, you know, you know, 16% margin the first quarter, and, you know, we see a lot of upside. So retail. I think it's gonna be pretty challenging. Maybe, I think, more challenging than I thought. But I don't think it's so challenging that you can't build a great business around it. It just, what we've seen where ADAS is, you know, pervasive in China, the lower operating domains, let's say hands-free, no-turn lane, that's getting commoditized maybe faster than I thought. And so ADAS is still a huge I think the largest profit pool in this first inning of consumer digital revenue for auto companies. ADAS is big. It's really big because, it has a lot of pricing power. But what we need to do is make sure we lead on ODD, the operating domain. Like, we need to get to Level 3, not like the Mercedes system at 35 miles an hour with a car in front of you, but like 80 miles an hour on the highway, as most Americans will want it to be. And you give those kinda empty-calorie miles back to the customer in terms of time. And, you know, you have an experience inside the vehicle with content and productivity and all the other things that you could do at home. You're like, "Wow, I got all this time back, and it's super productive for me as a consumer." I think that's very compelling still. But if you are just buying your system from a supplier and there are 12 other car companies that offer the same digital experience, you will not have a lot of pricing power. You have to be at the leading edge of the ODD, and you have to have kinda your stationary product experience, so to speak, so good that people want to be in your car versus other people's brands. So I think ADAS is good. You know, we're just starting with safety and security. OnStar's been out there for many years, but it's a different tech stack. Safety and security as an auto retail, I think, has some pricing power, but I think that will commoditize really quickly. Beyond that, you know, I think this productivity kind of experience, stationary experience, is a big thing. Like, all the pieces working together from content, productivity, doing conference calls, you know, all of that is going to be like, you have to be a leader there. I don't think it gets monetized in, like, a connections, you know, prime payment you make to Ford. Although we'll try, I, I don't think it's gonna be, like, you know, huge. I think you're gonna monetize it on your pricing for ADAS. Is it your pricing for ADAS, or is it just people wanna buy your car because they know your ADAS is good, but they sit in the car and go, "Wow, this is so cool. Like, I gotta buy this car," or you charge a lot for the car? How ironic is that, that the monetization may be really low marketing cost? Right. Right. But the ADAS itself, you talk about level three, and I get that, right? You know, we could go on a long trip. It can be super productive, and it can be fun, and, you know, how quick, technically and regulatorily, do you think we get to level three? And, you know, we talked about maybe you monetize through better sales of the car, but what do you think the pricing power is on level three? We're having that debate right now in the company. So it's an active discussion. Technologically, you know, we always saw hands-free as a technology gateway to eyes-off. You know, we always thought that being a leader in hands-free with BlueCruise, even though technologically, it's actually quite a different roadmap, that, that, that would be, you know, a really big, important winning marker for our ability to win in Level 3 is BlueCruise. And, you know, we have, like, 26 million hours now on BlueCruise. I mean, we know all the disconnects. When do people disconnect? You know, is it lane change, lane centering? What, what is kind of natural for humans, with a car to do lane centering, especially on two-lane roads with trucks and stuff? I'd say technologically, I'd be surprised if the leaders in Level 3 aren't out in the market in two years in the U.S. So it's soon. It's right around the corner. Regulators, yeah, approving that. Yeah. Yes. I think I think, you know, we're having discussion in the company about what that means. But Ford has always been I mean, we're a 120-year-old company. We know the regulators really well. We want it to be a win for them too. We, we know this is gonna be good for customers. And so we'll work really closely with the regulators to make sure this is, is the right you know, that it's not only safer than a human, but it's it, it's it works. And it's important for us because, you know, our reputation's gonna be online. You know, we see, as we see, data privacy and the system working safely as, like, a differentiator for us as a company. So we want that to work well for regulators. And no, I think it'd be pretty hard to say no. I mean, hands-free is pretty close, right? You got lane centering. You got proximity. I mean, all the basics are there. The next thing is just doing it at 80 miles an hour. And I think the question's gonna be the ODD expansion, you know. When do you snow, hail, rain, heavy rain? You know, when does the operating domain kinda what, what how do you prove that an operating domain is safe? I do that part is a little bit less clear to me. But I think on a sunny day, in, in, in the tri-state area, you know, I think in 2-3 years, there're gonna be quite a few people pushing that button, on, right here. And it's gonna be a pretty, pretty big, pretty big opportunity. As far as pricing is concerned, it's a good question. You know, I really don't wanna get into that. Honestly, we could spend a lot of time on it. We only have 7 minutes left. I think that for a while, it's gonna be incredible pricing, opportunity. I know when I sold my Prius, when I left Toyota, the HOV sticker was worth $5,000. And so I know at least 16 years ago that people were willing to pay $5,000 to drive in the HOV lane in California for a couple of minutes a day. How much are people willing to pay to get 45 minutes back in their life? I think for a while, it's gonna be a pretty good run. Maybe take a step back. You talked about the capabilities and talent needed for that software journey. Yes. How do you set this up organizationally for Ford to deliver kind of that pathway? What do you need to do to kind of create the org and environment for you to deliver that product? Yes. We're way beyond the eight players attracted to eight players, but that's a necessity. It's safety-critical. So you can't just take someone from Apple and Google. You can't fire an airbag from the cloud, even though it may be more efficient. You could. It It might be late. Yeah. You don't wanna do that if you're Ford. So I think this is a really important and difficult question to answer in a convincing way. So I'm not gonna try to be convincing. It's, I think, the most important thing is to have talent and to have that talent be heavily integrated into the legacy part of the company 'cause we have a safety product. And so we purposely did not do what others did and broke out this organizationally, like, Model e or something. No. Because the biggest opportunity for us in this digital transformation in the industry is our ICE business, our Pro business. See, at Ford, we kinda think of the digital transition first at Pro. And you know, so most of the Pro vehicles are still ICE or hybrid or partially electrified. You know, that's gonna work best for a tradesman, which are the dominant part of the Pro business. So the most exciting part for us digitally is actually, we don't differentiate between ICE and non-ICE on digital because we have this incredible Pro business that will increase you know, we'll continue to be ICE. Why would we wanna restrict ourselves for our digital revenue to be just EVs? Now, those customers are very oriented on the retail side for buying software. But for our Pro customers, that would be so bad. So organizationally, I'd say the big bet we made was to not differentiate it and really tie it to new energy vehicles and then to make sure that the safety orientation of the company and this new software team work really closely together. I'd say of all things that keep me up at night in execution, landing in advanced electrical architecture in time is one of the biggest. It's really hard. It's really hard. Now, we've talked about Pro here, here and there. So we'll give you the opportunity to dive in a bit more. But I'm gonna ask the question slightly differently, all right? If you were a competitor looking at your profits in this segment right now, what capabilities would that competitor have to build to have be as successful as you are? I see. First, they should give up. There's no, no, no reason to even try. I, I think it's actually the stuff that's not super sexy. It's, like, upfitters and your physical repair network. Like, it turned out that it's pretty hard to recruit technicians and build big buildings to repair Ford commercial Super Dutys and vans 24/7. So we now have 3,500 mobile trucks that do service at our Pro customers. And that was a pretty quick way to expand our service capacity. Like, if I was a competitor, I'd be working with all the upfitters because that's one of the biggest moats we have. I'd be, really working on my fitness of my repair network, which is not sexy. But it's like, if you don't have that, you cannot fulfill prognostics. So a specialized field force, working with those dealers to make those investments, and real expertise on operating, recruiting technicians, you know, getting them loyal, getting complicated problems fixed in the field. Very, it's really nuts and bolts stuff like a PACCAR or a Penske leasing have to go through. That's the one first thing I would do. Second thing is, I would pick my places to compete against Ford really carefully. Like, you could invest in pickups. I'm not sure you would want to. But, you know, small van, interesting. New formats, interesting. So I'd pick where to compete with a company like Ford, and I would try to just be really good for those particular customers. On the digital side, I'd probably do a lot of partnerships to get up to speed. I wouldn't try to build it inside the company. We have a three-year head start. It's pretty hard. We're now getting into vehicle control. So, but there's still a lot of customers who just want basic telematics, and there are some good companies out there. That's probably what I would be doing if I was a competitor other than giving up. You just mentioned kind of the smaller formats or different formats. Is that something you see for the Pro business as well, right? We've got the Transit. We've got the pickups. You know, how valuable do you think the Pro model lineup will be five or ten years from now? I think pretty valuable. It's a growth opportunity for us. Again, it's you know, I ask my friends, you know, "How's Ford doing?" And they're like, "Well, there's no Fords in New York City. They're just Audis and, you know, taxi cabs." "Yeah. Well, look at all those white vans. We got a really good market here in New York." So it's almost like the Pro business is kind of invisible in a way. Even my friends don't even, you know, think that you know, so but, but there's parts of the business we are not yet really dominant in. And we, we have all the rights to compete there. I'm very respectful of what Carlos has done on small van, you know. And, you know, you look at his small van in Europe, he's got Toyota on the platform, Citroën, Peugeot, and, and, Vauxhall and, and Opel. I mean, that's five brands. That's good industrial scale. So I think they're and also, the Chinese are big in pickups. People don't realize that how quickly the pickup market is evolving for SAIC and Great Wall outside of China. You know, so, you know, we have some opportunity maybe, there, outside of the US for Pro. So yeah, Pro's great. I wish we had more time to spend on it. But I, I think people are starting to figure out Pro. I think we're out of time. So, thanks, Jim, for your candor as always and for participating in the conference. Thanks, everyone, for joining.