All right, let's get started. Thanks, everybody, for joining us. Before we get started with Taylor and Nancy from Shift4, I'm James Faucette, Senior Research Analyst here at Morgan Stanley, covering the fintech space. And just as a reminder, I'm sure you've heard this already today, but for those that haven't or may be on the webcast, for important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley research disclosure website at morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. If you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales rep. So, as I indicated, we're very pleased today to have Shift4 President Taylor Lauber, as well as Shift4 CFO Nancy Disman. Thank you guys for joining us. You guys have been busy the last few weeks, so taking the show on the road, appreciate it. Yeah, thanks for having us. You know, maybe we'll start with what I was saying to you beforehand, and this isn't hyperbole, is that in the universe of coverage that we look at in the payment space or fintech space generally, Shift4 is always one of the more interesting names that people want to talk about. There's always lots of things happening, and development of the business seems to be quite dynamic. So, with all of that in mind, you recently hosted an Investor Day and spent a lot of time walking through the business. But maybe in a nutshell, what were the main takeaways you wanted investors to walk away with from your presentations? Yeah, sure. So, I'll start. I think it's important with any Investor Day to sort of take a look back at the various stages we've been as a public company. And then prior to that, your comments around being dynamic, I think they most manifest when you look at the business over kind of these three-ish year periods. So, what we wanted to talk about is our business inside of a bunch of different franchises that, quite frankly, didn't exist at the last time we set our Investor Day or at the time of our IPO, kind of grade how we think we're doing across these verticals. So, I'll start with hospitality. So, when I entered the business or re-entered the business seven years ago, we weren't in a single hotel. We're now in about 40% of the hotels in the country and moving rapidly around the world. We give ourselves kind of an A in that category. Sports and entertainment, even better example, weren't in a single stadium at our IPO. We're now in 75%+ of the stadiums across every professional league in the United States and quickly growing from there into ticketing and all sorts of other things. And then our longest-standing franchise in restaurants, we're still very fast-growing in that. We've got one good competitor in that vertical, and we think about kind of table service restaurants as our vertical and lots of room to grow both inside and outside the United States in the restaurant vertical. So, starting with this concept that our core products are doing really well, they're really stable, and there's a lot of growth opportunity both inside the United States and outside. But we made a commitment at the time of our IPO to further diversify the business and have been looking at lots of different sub-verticals, all in this concept of kind of unified commerce. What can we do to allow a single integration to fulfill the biggest and most complex merchants around the world, whether that is a large casino and resort in Las Vegas, where, yes, there's a ton of different point of sale to integrate to, there's hundreds of revenue centers, but there's also an increasing online and digital presence, and they're trying to grow around the world. How do we fulfill that mission? And we really wanted to use the day to highlight the capabilities that investors probably don't give us a lot of credit for, which is that we're in 30+ countries today. We were in one country 18 months ago. We're supporting lots of different sub-verticals across that. And we've got a capability set that we've invested in quietly and deliberately and on the backs of some really thoughtful and strategic customers that we think is going to show really well over the next decade inside of the business. I point it out because when we invest in these things, it's with an incredible amount of capital discipline, an incredible amount of kind of rigor in what we think capital belongs inside of a new market. And we built out all these capabilities with meaningful margin expansion for the shareholders throughout the entire time. So, I think there's a rightful skepticism when we talk about going into new markets, going into new capabilities. We deliver those all to our investors in the face of an expanding free cash flow conversion profile of the business. Lastly, we announced a really cool and large acquisition that we think will continue to kind of accelerate those capabilities and verticals and geographies in the years ahead. So, Nancy, anything that you would add? I mean, I think Taylor gave a great overview of the messaging on strategy, but anything financial? Yeah, I think we started and ended the meeting with two important guardrails. One was to recognize that we met and exceeded our initial midterm outlook with the IPO, and that was obviously through some challenging economic times, and obviously, we set our new, our next three-year outlook, which is a super exciting time for the business, so, I know for me, I really hoped everybody would walk away with just the same level of confidence that we have in what this business can do. So, Taylor, let me ask you. I think people obviously have a lot of awareness of Jared as CEO and as he looks to move to take on another challenge here upon confirmation over the next few months. Give people an overview of your time at Shift4. You mentioned a few minutes ago that you came back to the business about seven years ago. But I think beyond just that, love to hear from you how you're thinking about the next several years and what you would expect to do differently, if anything. Yeah, sure. So, I'll start with a little bit of my background. My first job in between high school and college was in Jared's parents' basement when we were teenagers and he was building the business. I was a bigger probably payment cynic than anyone in this room because I left and went to college, even though he told me not to. And he asked me to rejoin the business every year for 18 years in a row, and I told him not. So, I spent the bulk of my career first at Merrill Lynch and then about eight years at Blackstone, really focused on strategy roles inside those organizations. And then about seven years ago, he said, I think it was, "I'm not going to ask you anymore, I'm going to tell you. I want you to come join. Here's why I think it makes sense and I need the help." And he was incredibly right. So, he laid out kind of a vision for what he thought the business could grow at. And it was in the face, ironically, of having just done about six acquisitions in six months, laid out this really interesting software-integrated payments value proposition, what buying a hospitality gateway could mean to revolutionize how we go to market and deliver payments product inside of that. And I took the leap from what I thought was a very complicated industry in asset management into an incredibly complicated industry inside of payments, but it's been incredible. So, I think the business in that period of time, not only have we faced a global pandemic, but we've kind of nearly 10x'd our EBITDA well within the timeframe that I've been there. So, the performance has been excellent. I think the most important thing to consider is we don't want to change that. Right, right. When a founder as influential as Jared is stepping back from the business, we want to preserve as much of that as possible. What's made the business successful over that timeframe? Certainly wasn't me, or the broader management team. I think there was this ability to identify trends that would persist for decades into the future. The first trend that the team identified was this concept that software and hardware and payments that were like three cottage industries in the early 2000s would not stay that way. These things would be bundled together into better commerce-enabling experience, and that as complexity grows, as commerce grows, the ability to kind of leverage that toolkit would exist for many, many years into the future. So, we've had a really good track record of identifying these changes in commerce and really building, buying, or partnering with solutions that we think will give us a differentiator right to win. That will not change, period, full stop. What I think is somewhat fortuitous is the biggest journey we're on at this moment in time is replicating a lot of what made the business successful back in the early 2000s, combining software and hardware payments in geographies that haven't yet had that convergence around the world. That's going to continue. There's no kind of strategic mysteries. There's no pivots. I think in general, a CEO transition precipitates a lot of that. In this case, Jared just found a hell of a cool job to work on for the next few years, and we want to preserve the business and, quite frankly, deliver on a really demanding shareholder or the needs of a really demanding shareholder for the years ahead, so not a lot of mysteries as to what we're up to. Got it. So, you talked about M&A strategy, and from the time that I met you guys is that Jared has talked about, and you have talked about that being different in a lot of ways than from other people that we see in the industry. And look, the industry is full of M&A, and it has been forever. And in a lot of ways, over the long run, that makes sense. But talk about Shift4's historical strategy and, more importantly, what you look for in the assets you purchase and how you drive value and synergies. And maybe we can start the conversation around Global Blue. Like, how does Global Blue fit that or doesn't? Yeah, absolutely. So, what we start with is like a maniacal focus on what commerce looks like. Okay. In the current environment. And I would tell you, if you think about the evolution of commerce, it's not hard to understand that every time new parts get added to the process, it becomes an area for us to think about, could this be better, or is this new part really, really important and misunderstood? I point it out because the business started as putting a countertop terminal into a pizzeria, and now that pizzeria is probably using more software to enable the commerce experience than a hotel. Right, right, right. And so, identifying this and paying really close attention to the tools needed to affect business today and around the world is something we consider ourselves really good at. And from there, we look at these tools and we say, do we build, do we buy, or do we partner to gain access to these capabilities? Because what merchants don't pay a lot of money for is an approval, decline, or refund. What they will see a lot of value in is solutions that help them do more business or sell in more geographies than they ever had before. That M&A could look like buying the gateway that every piece of software in a hotel like this is connected to because you know that is more important than any one of the other pieces of software. Delivering inside of that, things like hardware management, security, analytics, and the payment processing that they would traditionally have to outsource. So, finding a really critical solution and consolidating the work of otherwise five or six different vendors into a solution, that drives a hell of a lot of value through M&A. You can acquire customers cheaply. You can enhance your own product offering, and you're delivering something in the market that very few others can in that context. So, we've done a bunch of different flavors of this. I would say ideally, we hope that each one brings us customers, it brings us capabilities, and hopefully gives us a platform within which to do this in more and more different places. So, Global Blue is kind of the perfect example of this. Perfect. I didn't mention our price discipline, but obviously, this has to work really, really well on a financial basis. Just to give you a sense for kind of our history in fintech, we didn't take outside capital for the first 15 years the business existed. So, a lot of our decision-making is not predicated on the hypothetical return on a dollar. It is literally look at your checking account before you make a decision, and you better get that money back within 18 months or more. It's just simply how we grew up. So, how does a big transformative transaction like Global Blue fit into this? We've been looking at it for five-plus years. So, I think we understand the business really well. We had the opportunity to buy it at different points in our history, and we didn't. We really got to understand how the business could perform in really tough times, like a large country removing the concept of the VAT tax refund, like COVID happening, like really important consumer -end markets, whether that be Russian consumers or Chinese consumers being quite depressed or, quite frankly, out of the market entirely, so we got to watch a business like this evolve and manage through an exceptionally tough period of time, and they did it really well during that, but we also had a really, I think, unique appreciation for just how important their solution was inside of a broader ecosystem, meaning that if you want to sell luxury goods in a tourist destination, you need to enable VAT tax refunds. It is a critical piece to kind of the shopper journey that you're traveling abroad, and you might not otherwise want to buy this good, but it's meaningfully cheaper to buy it abroad. You can actually get a meaningful refund back from the tax authorities if you leave the country with that good, and they enable this experience in a highly digitized way against really one competitor, and they own 80% of the market today, so we think the transaction makes a ton of sense on the basis of just that one product and how differentiated they are in that one product, and if that product were delivered alongside of things like our payment processing, does that make life easier for a lot of different merchants? So, can I ask you, Taylor, just on that point? So, the business has 80%. You have had familiarity with it. I've had other companies reach out to me and say, "Hey, we're also familiar with it." What's the value that Shift4 sees that maybe even others that have looked closely at it might be missing? It's that this component of VAT tax refund is critical. They're one of only two that can do it, and they're clearly differentiated from the competitor, and yet they need to partner with lots of other vendors to deliver the complete commerce solution. We don't think that necessarily has to be the case. Much in the way when we acquired a payment gateway, we said, "We can bundle this with payment processing. You need this. It's a critical technology component, but you're also working with five or six vendors to actually make the full payment experience work." We think there can be fewer in that mix as a result of us partnering with this best-in-class, call it feature or part, and embedding it in a broader commerce solution. So, you talked. Let's talk a little bit about the cross-sell opportunity and the synergies that you outlined on announcement. What is the cross-sell potential? What have you built into your plans, and how do you expect to approach the integration of Global Blue's 75,000 merchants or so? Yeah, sure. So, I will also say they offer another product in dynamic currency conversion that is they're one of kind of three or four that really do this at scale. And so, we see kind of that as a critical kind of travel-oriented component that we've never offered to any of our merchants today. So, the ability to cross-sell all of the hotels we support in the United States, and cross-sell is probably not the right word, simply empower them with dynamic currency conversion is an obvious synergy. It's a product we're not offering today. They are one of the best-in-class leaders in that product. We can enable it. So, that will happen. Separately, we hope to be able to offer more payment services to their VAT tax customers today. And I don't want to be too myopic. It doesn't have to be in-store. We can fulfill e-commerce in a particular geography or something like that, but we know it's a unique combination that under one roof, suddenly you can offer payments, you can offer VAT tax refunds, you can offer dynamic currency conversion. These are all must-haves, by the way, for merchants that are operating in these geographies. So, underwriting this concept of we think we can get in a conservative way, we think we can get $80-odd million of synergies, revenue synergies from both these two cross-sells, and you've got a better solution for the market. So, they should be able to win more customers on a net new basis is something we were able to get a lot of conviction in. So, let's talk about the financial targets themselves, Nancy. You and the team outlined three scenarios of outcome and kind of your over the next three years, and I like the way you titled them, the sit-on-our-hands case, impact of Global Blue, and then the most likely case. And the most likely case is the last one, obviously, assuming roughly a 30% revenue CAGR over the next three years. Can you tell us a little bit about what the to-dos are to get you to the best-case scenario, and what are the assumed terms of Global Blue's growth and your confidence in achieving each of those? Yeah, so let me start with the base case because that's certainly what people are most immediately interested in. This is really just with the businesses we own today and organic growth on top of the businesses that we bought last year that'll still be annualizing into 2025 if we did nothing else, which we'll get to the most likely because we would never sit on what is like an extraordinary amount of free cash flow generation. How would these businesses perform? And that got you to that kind of high teens and high teens plus outlook. It's really run rate. I know there's been a lot of conversation, okay, look at our Q4 and multiply it by four. And you asked me at the start of this, like what was my goal for Investor Day? And it was really confidence. So, we kind of went into 2025 with a high confidence guide, and the sit-on-our-hands case was really meant to kind of back that up and say, we have all the chips in place, whether it's the embedded volume for cross-sell, it's the backlog of sales that we've signed that have yet installed. And that was kind of the do nothing, sit-on-your-hands case. And then on top of that, which Taylor can elaborate on, was layering in Global Blue, which what we think is a, I would say, modest amount of revenue synergies to achieve that case. It's a great business on its own, generating really nice organic growth on its own, plus really nice margins. We'll need to do some work to get them slightly higher up into our margin profile. And then I'll let Taylor go back in a second. But the last case was really to say, look, this is modest redeployment of cash under the Shift4 playbook, which of course, my whole section of the Investor Day ended with that we'll be on run rate at the end of those three years for generating almost $1 billion of cash with these two businesses combined. Obviously, we think we're really good capital allocators, and we're going to either invest for organic growth or continue to look for a strategic M&A to expand that organic growth. So, that was kind of how we built the three cases, but I think maybe it's worth going back to Global Blue and just talk about the revenue synergies for a minute. You know what I'd like to say, because I think investors are constantly yearning for a do you do M&A or not kind of scenario analysis inside the business. We tried to just dramatically simplify it for folks at Investor Day and say whether we built through R&D, whether we've repurchased our shares, or whether we bought businesses, the free cash flow yield on dollars deployed over the last five years has been 16%. We are constantly seeking, number one, real discipline around how those dollars deployed, but as many opportunities to do that as possible. I think to a fault, investors are biased towards they don't buy companies, grow organically instead. We like to do a lot of both, and we deploy our dollars against those opportunities in equal measure. And I think if the business quality were deteriorating as a result of this capital deployment, there'd be a conversation to be had. But again, our EBITDA margins have expanded dramatically. Our free cash flow conversion inside of that has expanded dramatically. So, we're going to continue to do this. And that's that kind of most likely case is we take our free cash flow and we make the same sort of decisions we've made over the last kind of, well, 26 years. Do you buy your stock if it's the cheapest thing you can do? Do you invest in R&D and do you buy companies? And undoubtedly, we will do some combination of those. Got it. Been going here for a few minutes. I want to make sure if there are any questions from the audience, raise your hand. All right, so let's get into you talked about that you moved into a lot of new markets, etc. As you move into new markets and new verticals, onboard large new clients, part of the assumption set seems to be here that you've got confidence in being able to maintain the spreads at the 60 basis point level or something. Where does that confidence derive from? Because a lot of times I think the assumption is bigger customers means lower spreads, etc. Yeah, I think it's important to start with. It is a 2025 guide on spreads. We will look at this again once we close on Global Blue and come back to you with kind of how their business profile overlaps with ours. What is most important to remember, I think, about Shift4 is that we have incredible visibility into the current year. Almost all of our volume, right, or let's say 50% of that volume approximately is going to generate from business that we've already signed and boarded in 2024. And the rest of the bridge that we provided as part of our Investor Day materials really says that between our backlog, which again, it's business we've already signed, it just hasn't installed, and we've got this now massive embedded funnel of cross-sell opportunities, we've got a lot of visibility in terms of how that spread is going to materialize and kind of tack onto each other. I'm going to point you back if you're interested to our Q3 shareholder letter where we talked about the 60 bips and showed kind of the convergence of the different verticals and how they've kind of come together to build to that 60 basis points. What's most important is while we are expanding and we've definitely moved up market, the bulk of our business still comes from our core, our restaurants, hospitality, special retail, and those spreads have been incredibly stable. They're still the anchor of that 60 bips. As we move up market, we're not really blending that off with still growth in that core. As we go internationally, the spreads will come down, but they're still blended into that 60 basis points because we're leading with restaurants and hospitality. It isn't the assumption that we're going to win all of this global e-comm and it's going to come on board very quickly in 2025. We're very balanced. Obviously, if we were fortunate enough to win two or three really big large enterprise clients that come in in 2025, we would obviously give an update on those spreads. But right now, that makeup of the 60 basis points is a combination of geographic expansion, the up market moves that we've made or signed this year like Alterra, and really just an incredibly core, stable spread at the base of our business. So, another part of the assumption set that you put out is related to SkyTab. And part of your target seems to assume driving even more SkyTab installs this year, especially internationally. What sets SkyTab apart from the competition, and how do you plan to leverage the recently acquired merchant networks internationally to support install growth this year? Where does SkyTab fit? Why international, and how can you get leverage from other parts of the business? Yeah, sure. SkyTab is our hybrid cloud Android-based restaurant platform. It's kind of informed by, call it half a dozen different restaurant software brands we've either built or acquired throughout our history. This is kind of the latest technology stack behind many decades of experience in the restaurant vertical. I think that's what gives us a differentiated right to win is we don't have to guess what feature set we think is most applicable to the market. We've got all of that experience in-house. And by the way, most of the technology teams from every one of those acquisitions still lives inside the business. An incredibly informed product. And as we think of its winning really nicely inside the United States today, but we can't ignore this international opportunity, which is that you can go to some of the most developed markets in the world, and it is still a bank terminal sitting on a countertop, not at all integrated to the software the restaurant may or may not be using at all. So, we see that, and it's just screaming to us. This is exactly what the bar in the mid-2000s looked like in the United States. And we can combine all these technologies. We can deliver an integrated solution where there's no longer any errors between what the chef cooked and what dollar amounts on the terminal, these basic things, but that matter a lot. We could talk for ages about the reasons that the markets have evolved the way they are, but they will not stay this way, and we're highly convicted in that. We have invested in a variety of different ways in distribution capabilities to now go knock on doors of restaurants across Europe and say, hey, you can now have all of these components under one solution. Lo and behold, this isn't a tough sell for them. This is kick out your bank processor and exchange for a tightly integrated product that's much more modern that updates itself every few weeks when we put out updates. I think what we had to get right was making sure we had distribution that knew the local markets as well as we wanted them to, to set us up for success. We acquired a restaurant point-of-sale business in Germany that had never embedded payments that gave us 300 dealers that actually go install this stuff across 65,000 restaurants in Germany. That was their embedded customer base. We have a distribution network now in the U.K., and it shouldn't be a surprise that in November, if you look at the restaurant merchants that signed up with Shift4, about 7% of them were international. In January, 32% of them were international, and our U.S. business really didn't slow that much. This is something we've identified for years. It took us longer than we would have liked to put these critical distribution components in place, but is our software ready for it? Absolutely. We've had, quite frankly, tons of time to get there. It's only just now manifesting itself in the production numbers, which is the percentage of our restaurants that join our platform from international locations as opposed to the U.S. And so, when you talk about international, talk about a little bit which of these markets are driving the early international growth and what additional adaptations do you need to make? And then back on this spread point, with capped interchange or rates in a lot of places, we often get the question, how does that, as international grows as a proportion of the business, how should we think about that potentially impacting spreads, etc.? Yeah, sure. So, when we talk international, it's deliberately vague. So, this is a business that's grown phenomenally well for 25 years, and we weren't outside of the United States up until November of 2023, less than 18 months ago. We literally had zero presence outside of the United States 18 months ago. And so, when we think about international, just enabling Canada was a big move for us that was kind of an organic set of capabilities that we built out, and now we're adding merchants in Canada quite nicely. Europe's been a main focus for us, mainly because the market's large. We see a lot of the trends that fed the U.S. growth for over a decade, and we want to capitalize on them. You do have to pick your countries more carefully, and I think you alluded to this in your question. There are fiscalization rules. You have to customize software for the countries that you serve. We have this very kind of crude, but makes sense for us approach of beer drinking countries before wine drinking countries in our European expansion. That's led us to Germany, the U.K. These are climates that are really favorable to business. The rule of law is also quite established, and the fiscalization rules are generally easy to understand and manageable. Got it. Got it. So, one of the other things you guys always talk about, but I found that at the analyst meeting in particular, a reminder of a few things you look at operationally, and let's start first with customer acquisition cost, and when you talk about that, you've said that you try to have a sub-12-month payback period and an almost double-digit LTV to CAC. How do you maintain this efficiency as you scale, move into different verticals, and even expand internationally? Yeah, it's a great question. I think it's probably the most rigid discipline we have in the company is that acquiring customers outside of this range feels in some ways risky to us. And that comes from many decades of serving the restaurant vertical where the best technology in the world won't fix bad pizza. You have to make sure that if you're identifying a customer and you're spending any amount of money, risking any capital to get into that location, that that business will survive. And so, our financial discipline's there, but it also does tend to lend us to M&A being a really interesting way to get to it. If we can buy a restaurant software company, I'll use the hypothetical Revel, that's in 18,000 locations that have already gotten through all that, and we can cross-sell payments, that is a much cheaper way into those customers as long as you have price discipline around what you're willing to pay for the asset. So, I would say that discipline's incredibly important. Interestingly, we don't change the math much, whether we're buying a company and cross-selling payments and delivering incentives, or if we're just hiring a sales team and doing it that way as well. So, it's a rigid amount of discipline that we have in this. It serves us quite well. I think it yields those kind of free cash flow yields on dollars invested, and I think it's prudent. I think we've seen, generally speaking, a decade or more of pretty decent economic growth. The pandemic spared a lot of businesses that otherwise might not have survived, and so, in times that are more normalized, where interest rates are higher than they've been for a while, you want to make sure you've got a really disciplined kind of unit economic model and customer acquisition model. Got it. And then, so CAC to LTV, that's been a key part of your financial discipline for a long time. You've talked about that. But it really struck me as well as at the Analyst Day. I hadn't heard you talk about productivity and productivity per employee as forcefully as you did at the Analyst Day and quoted that as a key metric that you plan to continue to drive up. What are the initiatives that you have in place? And this is something that is obviously harder for us to see from the outside, but talk a little bit about how you drive that productivity per employee and try to get leverage on the employee base. Yeah, so this is going to sound overly simplistic, but think about a period in our lives where we've done a handful of M&A transactions. We've grown our employee base by, call it 35% in a year, and we're operating in lots more geographies than we ever have. Are we doing it right? And there's a lot of different rabbit holes you can go down to assess whether you're doing it right. I personally like to go down to EBITDA per employee. Are we going down the right path? Is this number growing or is it shrinking? And if you just added a lot of employees, are you doing it for the right reasons because you actually have a better combined offering, or are you doing it because lots of employees sounds like you grew? The statistics for us are that we kind of have about 3x the number of employees that we had at our IPO, even larger today if we think about recent acquisitions, and productivity per employee or EBITDA per employee is 2.5x higher than it was at our IPO. That is at least a guiding point as to whether you're going in the right direction. I wouldn't encourage you to measure it every month because it can get a little wacky, but if that's not growing markedly over reasonably measured periods of time, you're not doing it right in our own opinion, so that's kind of like the starting point, and then we go down into a pretty rigorous and constant resource allocation management exercise. Despite kind of whether we've recently acquired a business or whether we're operating in new geographies, there's only a handful of kind of real needle-moving priorities inside the business, and everyone needs to be working towards those priorities. And if there's parts inherited as a result of M&A that aren't aligned with those priorities, you need to delete them very, very, very quickly because the number of employees kind of maintaining those parts and processes will manifest itself in decreased productivity per employee over time. So, this is highly simplistic, but it certainly makes us rigorous about where people are spending their time and, quite frankly, unapologetic about parts that we've gotten through M&A that if they're not contributing to the kind of North Star, then you got to get rid of them pretty quickly. Got it. Last question here in the last minute and a half or so, AI. At the Investor Day, multiple members of the management team highlighted some initiatives, including things like AI-enabled auth rate optimization, fraud prevention, report builder, etc. Where do you see AI really differentiating Shift4's offering or at least driving the most ROI for the business? Yeah, and I'm not sure those two are the same answer. What I would say is we believe that there's a baseline of investment into AI that every company should be doing because it's going to make the bar for service delivery and sales that much higher. And so, if you're not investing in these capabilities, you have to. Where have we yielded the most short-term success? It is analyzing large swaths of data that is otherwise difficult to get our heads around and identifying themes for us. So, feed it every customer service call and see what AI thinks is the biggest problem versus what your head of customer service thinks is the biggest problem versus what your product lead thinks is the biggest problem. By the way, they all yield different results, which is kind of what makes the exercise that much more fun. And so, we're really taking it kind of inside our own walls to make us a better delivery company against our objectives as opposed to trying to radically innovate products as a result of it. I'm not sure we shouldn't be doing both of those things, but there is a cost focus inside the company. But we've found tremendous success at making us challenge assumptions that you otherwise have to make in the absence of good data and analytics, and it's incredible. That's great. Well, that's all the time we have with Taylor and Nancy. Thank you so much, everybody, for joining us. Thank you.