Good morning, everyone. Welcome back. I'm very pleased to move on to the next presentation. With us from the Ford Motor Company, we have Sherry House, CFO. Sherry, thanks again for joining us this year. Yeah, Joseph, great to be here. A lot of topics to get to, so we're going to try to be pretty orderly here. Let's start with 2026, because it is a pretty noisy year. I think one of the key swing factors here is really Novelis, your aluminum supplier, and them coming back online. A couple of weeks ago, they mentioned they fired up the plant again. Maybe you can sort of just talk about what you're seeing from them, what you're hearing from them, and how you expect that ramp to proceed over the balance of the year. Yeah, sure. From our perspective at Ford, I would say Novelis is largely on track. When we talked about Novelis in the past at Q1 earnings, we talked about having a $1 billion tailwind this year as a result of being able to make up a lot of our volume. We do have, just to maybe break down that $1 billion tailwind for everybody and to give everybody a reminder of it, what we're expecting is that we are going to have an additional $1.5 billion-$2 billion of cost this year associated with having alternative supply of aluminum until that plant gets fully up and ramped. What you're going to have as a counter to that is you have a non-recurrence of 100,000 loss of vehicles that we had last year, and we're also doing a partial makeup from last year of around 50,000 vehicles. At this point, in terms of communications with the Novelis facility, I would say that we would say it's largely tracking as planned, and we're going to be expecting to kind of be in this 10- 12 week period where you're in the process of ramping up. That's going to consist of validation of the material. That's going to consist of making sure that it can get successfully through all the parts of the supply chain. If there are any hiccups along the way, we have secured contingency material as well. With that 12-week period, does that effectively mean that in your guidance as you sort of get into the fall, September, October, you think that plant is running at pretty high utilization? Or how should we think about? I would say that it- Full output it's going to continue to be back half weighted as you're going through the second half. We would say that it'll be a little uneven. This is how these things go. We would expect that you would start seeing something that's approximating full pace, full capacity as we're in Q4. Okay, perfect. Then on the headwind, you talked about that $1.5 billion-$2 billion from tariff and logistics. It was only, I think you said about $300 million in the first quarter. That's correct. Is it fair that we see that stepping up here in the second quarter into the third quarter before starting to phase back down? Is that the right shape of that cost? Yeah, I would say you're going to see it stepping up in Q2 and Q3. We'll see how this all plays out in terms of the production, because a lot of it'll be matched to the production as you're using the material. Okay. Other parts of the 2026 guidance and maybe something about sort of first half or second half. You mentioned a billion-dollar investment for energy storage systems, which I know we'll get to in a minute, and UEV, which we'll also get to. I think $600 million was for the UEV. That's right, $400 for both. It seemed like a pretty de minimis number, quite frankly, and maybe earlier on in the year, which maybe led to some of the better than expected sort of first quarter performance. How should we think about that ramping through the year? Is it really sort of more back end of the year loaded as well? Or do we start to see some of that creep in in the second quarter? You are going to see both BESS as well as the UEV, some in Q2, and then it's going to continue to accelerate into Q3 and Q4. Okay. That's right. Because as you're getting closer to your launch. That will continue into 2027 too. Yeah. Commodity is another bucket that sort of people focus on here. I know you raised your headwind to $2 billion year-over-year. I guess maybe the pace of the price of aluminum has slowed a little bit, but you still sort of seems to have creeped a little bit higher from first quarter. How are you sort of thinking about that in terms of your outlook for the year? Because I know you sort of also started to put in some more hedging involved as well. Any sort of, maybe just level of comfort with where we see current pricing? I would say we're very comfortable suggesting that it's going to be a $2 billion year-over-year impact with commodities. In that range. Our guidance, which was the $8.5 billion-$10.5 billion, fully comprehends that $2 billion of commodities p otential headwind. Okay. Maybe just one more on the near term on 2026, then we could sort of talk a bit bigger picture about 2027. We had May sales, the other come out. Demand, I think at an industry level still looks pretty good. Maybe what are you seeing specifically at Ford from the demand perspective, from a consumer perspective in the face of sort of higher gasoline prices, and how do you see pricing holding up as well? Yeah, I would say industry numbers for May looked pretty much as expected in terms of where the industry shook out. I would say that for us, we had some expected reductions with the Focus and the Escape that we were going away because we've been moving more into more high margin vehicles, higher mix here currently. I would say that the industry is largely as we would have expected. You had a second part to that question as well. Just how you're seeing pricing holding up for Ford. Yeah. That was one of the reasons why we updated our guidance, is that we saw strong net pricing in Ford Blue in Q1. We also saw great software and physical services as well. At this point, we are not seeing fracturing in terms of the demand. We think part of that is because our products have such more powerful powertrains than we had in the past. They're much more fuel efficient than they were. If you go back just a few years, you've got 20% improvement in fuel efficiency. This is playing out into the consumers. Also when you look at the demographics of who is buying our vehicles, particularly when you're getting into some of those high trucks, you have a richer customer, a wealthier customer that is able to be able to purchase those vehicles. You also find that a lot of the vehicles are purchased for vocation, they're purchased for lifestyle. There's people, particularly commercial customers, that need it for towing, they need it for the payload. As a result, even though the fuel prices have been going up, we know that we need to continue to offer a wide range of products that are going to enable our customers to be able to adapt, we're not seeing a lot of changes as of this point in time. Yeah. Maybe to bridge this conversation to how investors should think about 2027 and beyond for Ford Motor Company. I think post the first quarter, a lot of investors said, "Oh, we're looking at the guidance for the year. We look at what you did in the first quarter. It assumes about a $2 billion pace for the balance of the year." I know that's not how you view it internally. I am not expecting you to give 2027 guidance here today, but if you want to, feel free. Maybe we could just talk about some of the larger building blocks, the puts and takes you see for 2027 relative to what is transpiring over the balance of the year. Sure. Thank you for acknowledging that it's early to be talking about 2027, but let me give you a few puts and takes as you suggested. First off, from a tailwind perspective, you wouldn't have the $1.5 billion-$2 billion of the aluminum supply, alternative supply cost that we had. You start with taking that away. As you look at the core business, I think what's important is you are going to continue to see a fitter business, one that is really focused on being more durable for the long-term. That breaks into us continuing to work on warranty and our material costs and a lot of our structural costs, continuing to do that. We are going to continue to have launch costs as well as we're getting closer to the unlock that those investments are going to make for the BESS, so the Battery Energy Storage business, as well as the Universal EV platform, both launching in 2027. You're going to have, I would expect, continued savings. You're going to have the continued investment there. We also can see- Sorry to cut in. Yeah. More than the incremental $1 billion you're seeing today, or is that the right level? No, I think that you should think about it as comparable. Okay. Yeah. Kind of think about they are comparable. The composition might change a little bit as to what's in it because now you're starting to get more labor that you're hiring as you're getting ready to launch and you're backing off some of those other costs. Think about that as being roughly comparable. Okay. You're also going to have software, you're going to have physical services. We've seen years now of improvement there. We're continuing to expect to see software and physical services improving. Also, remember that we've got a pathway laid out in order to get Model e profitable by 2029. A lot of that is getting the BESS and the UEV- kind of continue in its launch curve through 2027, which will give you that further unlock as you go forward. In terms of the headwinds, I would say one would be the non-recurrence of the IE for receivable. That would be one. I think we're going to have to see what happens with commodities. Is that going to continue at its current pace as you move into next year? I would say those are the couple of things I'd be thinking about. What about the additional Super Duty capacity that comes on or? That is a great point. Oakville is ramping really well. Our thesis all along is that we have not been able to supply the amount of demand that we've had for that product. We do believe that there's going to continue to be increased demand. How much? It's probably a little bit early in the year to still make that call. That is going to be there. It's going to give us the upside opportunity. Okay. The capacity there is about 100,000 units, right? All right. Let's move on to BESS, which I think is probably what a lot of people have been waiting for. Late last year you talked about this $2 billion investment to convert one of your facilities in Kentucky, 20 GWh. I think 5 MWh plus systems. As we, and I think everyone sort of continues to do a little bit more work on this area, especially coming from the auto side, you see it's a pretty somewhat fragmented value chain, right? You've got the cell provider. You've got the pack and sort of container provider, the integrator, if you will, and you've got install service. If I go back to your original release, you talk about almost cell to service, but I want to maybe try to touch on each one of those parts of the value chain to see where you think Ford fits in and what the core competencies are. If we start with the cell, you have the CATL license, right? I think they are widely viewed as one of the leaders in LFP, so that's a good thing to have, I would say. I think it's very unlikely anyone else would be able to get the setup that you have right now. I think where we get some questions for investors and maybe hopefully you could help clarify or maybe even debunk some concerns, right? I think you've made clear that you're PTC eligible. I think people look at some of the language, the FEOC language, around licensing and everything. I know this is probably a very nuanced sort of answer, but maybe at a high level maybe you can sort of clarify for people why you think you are or why you are PTC compliant. Yeah. Sure. This is drawing upon the same licensing agreement that we already have in our Marshall facility. We went through great lengths to make sure that this was going to be eligible for the current language of the production tax credit, we believe that is going to hold as we move into this additional factory that's making the same type of cells that we were making before. We're also making electrode coils, as you were talking about, the value chain. We don't see any issues there. The other thing that's really important is that we believe this is going to be ITC eligible as well, that is really important for the customers to be able to have a U.S.-domiciled product be able to get the eligibility of that ITC. Yeah. I'll be upfront. One of my questions there. You're going to get to that, too. Maybe just a little bit on the cells. To the extent you're able to comment on this, some of those components, or the materials, if you will needed to make the cell clearly are not yet available in the United States. You can get them from Asia, whether that's Korea, Japan, China, of course. Given that it is let's say a CATL-licensed technology, does that mean you sort of piggyback off their supply chain, or do you have leeway to source as you see fit for your business? Yeah. We're in the process of setting up the supply chain today. We do have a level of flexibility there, I would say. Given what we know today, with the way all of these regs are written, we don't see any concerns with respect to eligibility of what we're sourcing. Okay. Yeah. Perfect. If we move from the cell now to the module, the pack, the container. I think it's easy to maybe think of this as somewhat simple, like you're just shoving it all in and packing it. It seems, I think in reality, it's much more complex than that. You're really acting as, I would say, the storage system integrator here, and that's where I think some of your Ford's manufacturing capabilities really play in. I know Tesla does this, although they're sourcing their cells from overseas. I guess Fluence is another one that's sort of acting as an integrator. How would you assess that part of the market, and why you think Ford has an ability to compete and win in that integration area? Yeah. What I would say is, it's very similar to the way that we create battery packs today. The container is different. We're already creating battery packs today. You start with the cell. The cell goes into a module that we are creating and building, it's going to go into a container that we're buying. We're also going to have in there liquid cooling, thermal regulation components, you're also going to have battery management system that's going to be resident within that container as well. Our role today extends for the entirety of the container. Everything that goes in the container, we're going to bring in, we're going to manufacture. These are not incredibly complex units to create, especially when you compare it to something like a vehicle or a truck. We're going to be building those. We're also going to be providing service on that as well. That's largely where. That is once it's installed, you mean? That's right. Yeah. That's right. You mentioned some of the other components, like getting to the container, battery management- some power electronics. You obviously have some of those capabilities from, as you mentioned, your electric vehicle business. I know I was recently out at your formerly known as Skunk Works facility in California. Look, I think one of my takeaways from that is that there's a big focus not just on hardware, but also software. As the energy business evolves, is there also an opportunity to take some of the software and hardware learnings from that UEV platform and apply it to energy, or are the requirements different? Do you need to bring in other parts of the value chain or supply chain to make that container? Certainly as it relates to the container, the battery management system, the thermal cooling. These are our core competencies that our company has today. We're going to continue to do that. If you are looking to go even further downstream, we're building the DC block, the direct current block. From there, a lot of times there's an inverter that would be added to enable you to be able to link up to power sources, whether they be solar or if they're wind or they're otherwise. That part of the value chain we are not participating in at this point. We'll keep our options open as to whether or not that makes sense, there have to be synergies. It has to be profitable. We have to make sure that the bringing together of the business components made sense. At this point, we are definitely fully committed to the full container and everything that goes along with that, including service. You did design your own inverter for UE- other power electronics. Yeah. We've got that capacity in-house. That's right. Okay. Installation, are you partnering there? Do you have any ambitions to get involved in that part of the value chain? The customers would be responsible for the installation. Of course, on-site support would be something that we'd be providing as it relates to our container. One of the things I was sort of thinking a little bit about in sort of Ford's broader capabilities also is, you obviously have Ford Credit. It's effectively a bank. That's right. Is there an opportunity for Ford Credit to also help finance customer purchases there on the energy side? We haven't really spoken about that at all at this point yet. Nothing to share on that front. Okay. 20 GWh initial capacity. At the end of 2027, right? We know through the old sort of BlueOval SK setup, you have a second facility right nearby that I think is effectively just four walls and a roof maybe at this point, and it's empty. I guess you clearly have capacity now. I think you would obviously need to make an investment to sort of build that out, that capacity. Wondering how you sort of think about, if you decided to go down that path, the capital requirements to do so. Also, really what signals you're seeing internally for the decision to make further investment. I can certainly totally appreciate that you don't want to get too far out of your skis and commit capital before you sort of see the demand signal. On the other hand, right, things like the PTC, we know start stepping down in terms of expiring. It does seem like you've got a counterbalance there that would almost want you to move faster rather than slower to sort of take advantage of some government programs. I think you're right in that we want to get our 20 GWh facility up and running first. We're making terrific progress on that today. That had a $2 billion investment associated with it. Partly, that $2 billion investment is not as large as what it would require to build out a second facility, because this was already a battery operation that was producing NMC versus the LFP. We do have to do some conversion to get there, but it would be a different investment profile to move into that second facility. We think it's just too soon. We're making all the right progress points that we'd want. As you said, the BlueOval SK dissolution occurred. That JV dissolved in Q2. That has now enabled us the unlock to do the factory changeover that we needed to do within the Glendale Kentucky one facility. The equipment's ordered. We're working on that process. We're also in the process of doing all of our contracting. In terms of levers, let's get our contracts all set for this first 20 GWh and we'll continue to evaluate if and when it makes sense to expand. We're certainly not looking to be talking about that today. One thing that has come up a couple times. I think if you go back to the original BlueOval SK announcement, there was talk about sort of maybe total ultimate capacity of 60 GWh with the possibilities to expand further. That's not the right sort of level to think about now because, one, again, what you're building has changed, plus some of that footprint is being used for containers, et cetera. Is it fair to say that at least if you look at the original BlueOval SK footprint, you can't just say, "Okay, we were going to do 60. We could do up to 60" with what you're doing now on the energy side? I would say that probably the most available capacity would be actually in our Marshall facility that's already making LFP batteries as well. We do have a little bit of capacity there, that's not something that we're talking about at this point. We're still talking about the 20 GWh. There are other alternatives for expansion that we could look at. We just think that we want to really focus on landing successfully what we have right now. I know you had the initial EDF Power Solutions agreement. Yes, that's right. I'm sure Lisa Drake and her team are working to sign up as many customers as possible. Is that really what you internally and what you advise investors as well, just sort of look for as confidence and demand signals before you start thinking about I know you said you're not ready to have that conversation today, but presumably that is what you're looking for as signals to sort of be able to make a go or no-go decision on additional output. It's one of many. You would look at what is the profitability of expanding? How are we seeing the industry demand signals play out? Are we seeing any type of commoditization that's occurring? How does our right to win to continue to play out? We feel very strongly about it. We'd be watching all of those items. Is the early investment that we made on target? Watching all of those, the progress points. The EDF contract that you mentioned, yes, that's for 20 GWh over five years. It is a framework agreement in that it has the ability to get up to four each of five years. It does importantly have a minimum purchase commitment that's a part of it as well, which some of these agreements don't always have that clause, but ours does. Okay. What's that level? Well, we haven't shared that. Is the best way to think about that is sort of mostly like an off-take agreement in simplest terms. That's right. Is the way to think about that? Okay. Let's move on to UEV. As I mentioned earlier, I got a chance to explore that facility and I know start of production is scheduled for next year. The EV market, I think, in the U.S., generally, I think you'd sort of say is a little bit at a crossroads. I guess internally as a management team and working with Alan and sort of the other constituents within Ford, because you have made this comment about you won't launch a vehicle unless you're comfortable that it can be profitable within 12 months. How do you get comfortable with that framework, given what we're seeing from the demand side? Yeah. We haven't really talked about that kind of framework in a couple of years that you're referring to right now. The way we look at this product is it's a platform, and the more that you utilize the platform, the more the economies of scale will come into play and the more profitable it will get over time. We are excited about this product. It's going to be very feature-rich. It's going to be very tech forward. It's going to be affordable. We think that it's affordable to the point that it's not just competing against EVs, it's also competing against gas-powered vehicles as well. That starts to open up a larger total addressable market, which helps, with the point that you were making about where is EV today. We see the market opening up when you're starting in the price point range of $30,000. At this point, the project is going really well. We are on plan for our 2027 launch. We are making prototype vehicles in Michigan. We're testing those already on the road. We're testing our mega casting, which is a new product. We're doing supplier readiness assessments. All those things that you'd expect us to be doing as we're- kind of preparing for launch are in full force today. On the supplier readiness, I think I'm glad you sort of brought that up because I know in talking to Jim, you mentioned, right, the unique process you went out to suppliers to sort of try to source content for this vehicle. I forget the exact number, but he mentioned that I think, I want to say it was 80%, but there's a lot of new suppliers to Ford, I think through this program. Maybe you could sort of talk about that process, some of the benefits, but also maybe some of the risks it presents, because it sounds like that's what you're sort of going through now in terms of sort of assessing their readiness. That's right. Well, we have a standard protocol that we take all of our suppliers through. They have to run the product at rate, at high quality. There's a production approval process that they go through. What's really important about the way we did this product is it started with the design. We decided to design the most complex items in-house, and we took a very physics-based approach to the cost because we looked at what should it cost, and we know because we designed it. That puts you at a very competitive advantage as you're going out to then source it. It allows us to then take that knowledge, and we chose to not just go to the suppliers that we've always had, but to open the aperture a little bit wider- to see what other opportunities were there. That process where we have full design control, we know intimately what it should cost. We also know where you can make adjustments to the design to potentially improve the cost, we believe is part of what is making this so successful. As we think about UEV and it sort of being more like a next-gen platform, maybe something a little bit closer to what Tesla or some of the Chinese have done, right? Where the hardware is sort of mostly fixed. You're able to sort of continually improve the vehicle via software- Over-the-air update. I think when I go back to sort of Tesla's earlier days and visiting their factory in Fremont, they would also mention that basically, even some of the hardware, right, that you're looking at the vehicle that's coming off the line today, there could be dozens of changes versus what was produced maybe a couple of months ago because they sort of found a better way. How set is some of the hardware and the manufacturing, and do you sort of expect it to be a little bit more iterative relative to sort of how you typically have designed programs? We're already looking at the next generation, in next elements of cost savings. This is something that Ford is always doing. You have a product that you launch, and then you're looking at how are we going to take costs out over time? How are we going to continue to improve the product over time? Although we're launching in 2027, you can expect that shortly thereafter, we're going to continue to improve that product. That's part of the agile engineering that we're doing. Of course, you're going to make sure that that makes sense from an investment perspective. Are you going to get the payback based on the life cycle of the vehicle? Importantly, this is set up as a platform. The platform is capable of everything from B size vehicles all the way up to commercial vans, and it can also adapt to different types of battery chemistry. That was all designed in to enable this to be flexible, to enable us to get economies of scale. You mentioned the new suppliers and the supplier readiness and that they're going through now. I guess, where are they in terms of sort of, for lack of a better term, like setting up shop here in the U.S. or near Kentucky or wherever they are? How is that process going? Because as we've seen many times in manufacturing, right, like, there's a hiccup somewhere along the way. Sort of obviously it can impact your output. What's their ramp looking like? Yeah, I'm not here to maybe talk about the details of that. I guess what I would say is that as we selected these suppliers, we looked at it through the entire life cycle of what it would take for them to deliver the product operationally. Then we also look at it, what would it take to deliver it financially. We look at a fully landed cost. We think about the piece price, we think about the investment, and we think about the logistics to get it to where it needs to go. All of that is in the financials, then we look at that entire life cycle stream as well as it relates operationally. That goes into the consideration set as to whether to select a supplier or not. When we were talking about large factors for 2027, you mentioned starting that glide path to model breakeven in 2029 from about $4 billion-$4.5 billion loss this year, right? We know Ford Energy is a part of that. Right? Since you're sort of really not committing beyond that 20 GW, we could also sort of make reasonable assumptions toward how much that contributes to 2029. It still does suggest pretty meaningful improvement in the vehicle making of the business. I know the mix right now of vehicles from Europe versus the U.S. might sort of help a little bit with that loss. Can you help us understand what type of cost down assumptions on UEV you're baking in? Also more importantly, obviously, what type of volumes, because clearly you're going to need some sort of scale here in order to sort of get billions of dollars of loss out of that business. What I've said publicly is that we've got a whole vehicle plant that's dedicated to it. You can make your own assumptions about what a vehicle plant might be capable of. We also have just said that we are going to be launching additional top hats over time. I think that you're going to continue to see capacity increase. As you know, there's unit step function increases that you can do at key points to increase the number of shifts that you have, which enables you to maximize a first shift before you move to a second. You can do different types of labor arbitrage in order to be able to get a little bit more through overtime. We're going to be working all of those mechanics to optimally produce this from a structural cost perspective. You can certainly expect that. Let's maybe close. If we have time, we'll see if there's anything in the audience. On USMCA. There was obviously some news and headlines late last week about the U.S. negotiating for a 50% content. I guess maybe to take a step back, a couple questions here. One, I know Ford and really the entire automotive industry has been in, I think, pretty close contact with this administration and understanding sort of what's going on. What can you share about what the Ford team is hearing and thinking about how USMCA will evolve and/or change? Maybe you could also help us understand, on average, what you would sort of put the U.S. content on the Ford vehicle today. Maybe finally, some comments on work that is already being done to sort of help shift more of that content to U.S. content. I think when we talk to the suppliers, without mentioning you or any automaker specifically, they do broadly mention that there is an effort to sort of try to bring more of the content to the United States. Let me just start at the highest level first. Very important issue for us, USMCA. As the company that produces the most vehicles in America and also the company that exports the most from America, this is a very key issue for us. It's going to be really important that we've got a strong North America agreement that also enables ability for supply chains to thrive as well. If we look at the components of the policy that are important to us, we think that we need to have good clarity around labor. We need to have really good clarity around content, and there needs to be a structure that enables non-compliance to be handled with tariffs. Those tariffs have to be meaningful enough to really encourage the type of behavior that we think the U.S. needs in order to continue to have high-skill, high-wage jobs within America. That is going to be kind of the overarching framework in which we talk to Canada about, we talk to Mexico about, we talk to our own U.S. government about. As we have been encountering these content requirements, just even associated with what we're dealing with today, we're constantly looking at where does it make sense to onshore more, maybe to put more within Canada or Mexico. That is already ongoing. As you said, if this is what you're hearing from the suppliers, it's true. We're constantly talking to them about that. I can't really talk at this point about any specifics there on what we might be changing, I think it's fair to say that, of course, we're looking at it. We're always going to be trying to profit optimize. What about just on average, across your portfolio, roughly the U.S. content? We haven't shared that. I guess the other thing that's at least unclear to us from the outside is, what is the government considering as part of the content? Is it straight physical product? Is it some of the intellectual property and R&D that goes into the vehicle? Do you have any color there? The concepts, the negotiations are ongoing. There's lots of things that are on the table that come off the table. I would say that there's not a lot of clarity yet. In what this is going to look like. Okay. Maybe I'll see if there's anything in the audience here. We just have a couple minutes left. Okay. If there's nothing there, I guess, maybe just to sort of close. I know you sort of gave out these 2029 targets. If we think and fast-forward to 2029 and even beyond, if Ford is successful on some of these initiatives and energy storage system and software and services, how would you say that sets the company up for the future to be a structurally different company going forward than what it's been in the past? Yeah, I think that what you are seeing is a company that is becoming fitter through all of the cost and quality efforts that we've been ongoing. Being able to take $1.5 billion out on a net basis last year, taking another $1 billion we're expecting out of cost this year. Now we are reinvesting some of it this year, and I expect that we're going to continue that momentum as we go forward. That's going to be a core part of the foundation laying in order to enable that pathway to 8% in 2029. Also important is going to be us to continue to successfully launch all of our new profit pillar vehicles, like the new F-150, the new Super Duty, and also these new products that have a very important part in our portfolio, like the Universal EV platform, that isn't just going to satisfy an affordable product for the customer, but it's also a hedge on what if regulations change in the future as well. Now we'll have a product that's going to be a lot more profitable for us to lean into if we need to. You're going to have all of that happening. Of course, you've got, as you had said, the adjacencies and the diversification that we're doing. The software and physical services are going to continue to give us uplift, and that is anti-cyclical. Now you've got a more durable company as well. The Battery Energy Stationary Storage, we're very excited about that. It's an opportunity for us to continue to be in high growth, high margin, anti-cyclical businesses that we think are going to make a much more sustainable financial picture for Ford and just accrue benefit to all of our shareholders more successfully. That's what I would say that you can expect to continue to see from us, and we have all the strategic initiatives in place to make that happen. Great. Well, looking forward to seeing what's next. I think we got through a lot here today in our time. Really appreciate you coming back to the conference here and thanks for joining us. Oh, thanks, Joe. It was a pleasure. Great. Take care. Really appreciate it.