All right, we'll go ahead and get started here. Thank you very much for joining us at the Morgan Stanley Financials Conference, U.S. Financials Conference. I'm James Faucette, senior fintech analyst here at Morgan Stanley. Before we get started with Amir and Ofer, CEO and CFO respectively of Global-E Online, I do have some important disclosures to read. 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 representative. Maybe I'll start with the big questions, just really kind of in the order we get them from investors. Growth durability. 2025, the business grew 35%, you had 122% net dollar retention, implying low double-digit contribution from net new GMV, even in a year when you did not have as much contribution from massive enterprise merchants like you did in 2024. Now the business accelerated incrementally in the first quarter, growing GMV 40% year-over-year, and for the full year, we're still looking for low 30s. That's how we have you guys modeled, and roughly 30% revenue growth to go with that. What is driving all of that durability of growth, and how does that really confirm and speak to Global- E value prop as a key enabler for cross-border e-com? It's a big question, just what's happening here? Sure. First of all, thank you for having us, James. It's a pleasure as always, and thank you all of you for coming. I think, actually, the answer is probably in your question. Okay. It's thanks to the value proposition that Global E brings to the table. I think when we look at our prospect for growth, first and foremost, we're looking at a massive TAM. Right. Let's not waste time here doing calculations. The way we look at it, we don't mind any kind of 1 trillion, 2 trillion numbers that are floated out there by the Gartner of the world. We look at real addressable TAM, so we can probably spend a few hours debating on whether it's $200 billion or $300 billion, but that's kind of the area code of the real accessible TAM that can benefit from a full end-to-end merchant of record solution like ours. Out of that, we've guided the market for just short of $9 billion this year. The next competitor in line does a quarter of that. Then the one after does a quarter of that. The market is still heavily in the greenfield territory. I think the value proposition that we're bringing to the table, which is kind of a way for merchants to capitalize on that international- Yep opportunity, in a way that is risk-free and basically have Global-E as the merchant of record, take care of all the headaches, all the risks, all the compliance issues, and just let them concentrate on their main business, which is building a brand, product sizing, marketing and so on and so forth. I think that our unique ability to do that based on the scale that we have, based on the data that we have, based on our unique infrastructure and- Right ecosystem of providers that we orchestrate to bring that to market, that's the only sustainable strategic solution that these merchants can have if they want to capitalize on that international opportunity. For any individual merchant, they're either too small to even try and do something on their own, and even if they're big, they cannot systematically handle that because it's so fragmented. What you need to do in order to capture the opportunity in market A is completely different than what you need to do in order- Yeah To capture in market B. The only durable way and strategically sound way to do that is to utilize an expert like us that has, I would say, a platform that takes it at a platform approach, and handle this for multiple merchants at scale, with the expertise and the know-how that comes from the level in which we do that. I think that is what stands behind our ability, and we are very much, as you know, we've put out there, in our last investor day, some long-term targets that we very much stand behind. We're even slightly ahead of our plans to continue and grow at kind of the high 20s, low 30s in GMV, and not too far from that in terms of revenue. While keeping high margins in the low 20s and to mid-20s. That, I think is, as I said, that's thanks to the very unique business model that we bring to the table that is fully aligned with the interests of our merchants. It's interesting, a lot of times when we talk to investors and they become very preoccupied with the addressable market. To your point, I think there's an important thing that we like to call out, which you mentioned, which is, A, you have a small portion of that market today. The second part is that it's worth reminding people is that cross-border commerce generally is a high-friction transaction. With Global-E or the work that you do is you're reducing friction. Which by definition will grow that addressable market. Right. It kind of feeds on itself. Right. Another key point or question that we often engage with investors on is take rate. Because we can start to forecast what the volumes are and we can forecast what those GMV growth rates could look like. Another part of the equation is obviously take rate. This is a key line of questioning that we continue to get from investors. I think that uncertainty around that probably creates volatility in the stock even when we see good results. I think people are worried about the perception that take rates are under pressure. You had a lot of idiosyncratic and one-time issues that were almost entirely out of your control last year in 2025. The multi-year trend in revenue take rates still has been somewhat down. There's an element where you're winning share with larger merchants, the pricing maybe is a little bit different and it's dollar accretive, but it impacts the percentage. One thing that I think is probably underappreciated in your business is that you look at the business on a gross profit take rate basis with that metric really being pretty consistent. Help us think through and contextualize what the take rate narrative should be, what matters, and how do you think about how you run the business vis-a-vis take rates? Yeah. Sure. While we definitely understand that take rate is an issue of interest to the investor community, that's not a main concern for us the way we look at the business. The way we look at it very simplistically is we need to create value for the merchants in order for them to stay with us, grow with us, and to add new merchants, to have them coming in and generate volumes on the GMV side. We need to monetize on those volumes. Basically, we are looking at GMV growth, and we are looking at bottom-line growth. In the middle, I'll talk about take rates in a second, but in the middle, there are different sort of motions and different business models that come into play, and sometimes the mix has an impact on take rates or other dimensions, while we make sure that whatever business or sort of business model we have with the merchant, the bottom line will be healthy. We look at volumes and bottom line as sort of the main KPIs that we manage. Of course, revenue is extremely important, so we're not neglecting that. Basically, that's the way we approach it. Getting to take rates more specifically, I think there are two different stories around take rates. On the service fee side, although there was some noise mainly related to the rise and fall of Ted Baker for us. We were working with the European franchisee of Ted Baker, and they had quite a unique model where we also ran marketing or demand generation for them. That contributed significantly to our take rate, but we also had cost associated with that. Once that went away, there was some noise, a decrease, but since then, things have been very stable. For the last six quarters, we are around 6.8%, 6.9% in terms of service fee. The way we view it, at least on the enterprise side, we expect service fees to continue and remain fairly stable because we don't see any significant change in market dynamics. We do see some other impacts, which on the one hand, on average, we have larger merchants, and we do price based on volume, so that weighs a bit on take rates. On the other side, we have value-added services that are gradually kicking in and sort of compensating for that. To make a long story short, we expect to remain quite consistent in terms of enterprise service fee take rates. We might see a certain reduction. Not might. We will see a certain reduction in Managed Markets service fees just due to the sort of the structure of the agreement that we struck with Shopify that basically impact the way we recognize revenue on that piece of the business. Other than that, things will remain stable. On the fulfillment take rate, it's a different story. First of all, it's not a direct take rate play because we provide merchants rate cards, and we generate revenue based on those rate cards. It's not a pure take rate play, and it's impacted by average order value and other parameters. The main sort of dynamics around the fulfillment take rates were the introduction of multi-local services. Basically, multi-local is a service that we've introduced a few years ago, and it enables us to serve merchants that carry inventory in different destination markets. It actually expands our TAM. It's targeting mainly consumer electronics merchants, but also very large legacy merchants that typically have inventory in different destination markets and want to utilize or leverage that inventory in order to serve those markets, but they still want to do direct to consumer and leverage our services, and basically multi-local enables that. The only thing is that once the inventory is already in market, either you have a very low fulfillment take rate, or the merchant just chooses to sort of do the shipping themselves because now it's pretty straightforward. By sort of definition, the multi-local piece has very low fulfillment take rates, and that sort of has an impact on the average over time. It's more a question of mix, we view multi-local as a very positive story because it expands our TAM, it enables us to work with very large merchants, and it has a very healthy bottom line associated with it. On that point, how should we think about what the realistic pace of multi-local migration is? You indicated that, and correct me if I'm wrong, that a lot of the multi-local adoption has actually been on consumer electronics. Are we going to see that be true for consumer electronics generally as you continue to expand that? Should we expect multi-local adoption in other categories? we see multi-local adoption in consumer electronics due to the nature of that segment, because. Okay it's very difficult to do self-importation. in consumer electronics, so you typically do B2B. this type of merchant typically, traditionally had distributors in end markets. they already brought the inventory in, and that's the way they work. in addition to that, there are some very large global brands. For example, someone like a Disney that carries inventory in different markets. basically, it's these two segments. It's consumer electronics and large legacy brands. That would be the target segment. In recent years, actually, the share of multi-local out of our business has grown from 0 to around 15%. it outgrew the entire business and hence had an impact on fulfillment take rates. at least in 2026, we see a more balanced growth. While multi-local is still growing very nicely, it's not outgrowing the business significantly. we'll see less of an impact in 2026, but we believe that going forward, multi-local still presents a large opportunity. We might see a slightly higher or a gradual higher share of multi-local over time. One question we also get, particularly in periods where fuel prices are very volatile, is how well are you able to protect gross profit dollars when carrier fuel or surcharge costs are moving around? That's part of our contracts. On the fulfillment side, we have the mechanisms in place to basically transfer these price hikes if it's the GPI, as they call it. Right the annual indexing, or we treat it as an increase because it doesn't ever index down. Also changes in fuel and other surcharges. We have the ability, and we do pass them onto the merchants. We don't do it one-to-one, because we do take into account kind of relationship considerations with the merchants. Right. As an example, if a merchant just went live and got a rate card from us, and two months later, there is an update to the surcharges or so, we will discuss internally and take a decision, kind of a case-by-case decision, whether we immediately pass it through, or typically what we would do is we would wait a quarter or something before we pass it through to them, just from a kind of experience or relationship point of view. Because fundamentally, when they come to work with us, they are looking for both the increase in performance, in the ability to convert on that international traffic, but also on us simplifying and de-risking the whole international experience for them. That is part of it. Plus, in addition, thanks to the scale that we work at with these carriers. Take DHL, for example, who are a longtime strategic partner of ours, even a shareholder in Global-E historically. Even irrespective of that, we are one of DHL Express's top five clients in the world. Interesting. Right. Interesting. Right. when it comes to B2C. That means that even when they employ rate hikes or surcharges, we have kind of preferential terms in many cases, and we are able to pass some of these benefits onto the merchants by them not having to incur the entire kind of market-level cost hike. That is part of the value proposition for the merchants, which is why on a long-term basis, yes, everything is transferred. Right to the merchants, there might be some timing delays, which we do for relationship purposes. Got it. Let's go back to service fee take rates and that kind of thing. You mentioned the dilution from Managed Markets, but at the same time, for example, as in the case of Ted Baker, even though they're really not a customer now, but you did indicate that you got some benefit from things like demand generation, et cetera. How do we think about those two dynamics and what that should mean for service fee take rates? Yeah. You're right, that's the two types of dynamics that we see around the service fee take rates. On the one hand, we do price based on volumes. As the merchants grow or the average size of a merchant grows, we see some sort of on average slightly lower service fees. We also have the impact of the sort of what we call the V2 of Managed Markets. Right so on. On the other side, we have been seeing gradual contribution to service fee take rates from the different value-added services that we offer. Some of those or the ones that are worth noting are duty drawback. which is a service that enables us to actually pick money off the floor for merchants because, basically, when products go into market, you pay the duties and taxes. Then, on average, in 10% of the cases, the product is returned. It varies a lot depending on the type of merchant and on the destination market. On average, it's around 10%. Then you're not able to retrieve those duties and taxes while your shopper expects to get the full amount refunded and a good experience. In order to create a good experience with the shopper and get that shopper continue buying in the next time, typically we'll pay the full price back. You have a problem. 10% of the transactions you got hit by approximately 20%-25%, so you just lost 2.5% on your PNL. We are able to retrieve that in many cases. It's a destination country by destination country exercise. We have quite a decent coverage these days. Basically, we're able to bring that money back to merchants or at least part of it, and we take a certain cut out of it, typically up to 20% of the refunded amount. We've also added another duty drawback service lately. It relates to U.S. merchants, which import goods into the U.S. from their manufacturers in Asia or any other location and pay. When the product is exported- Right when it's sold cross-border, they can get a drawback for the importation duties. We received the authorization to do that for the merchants a few months ago. Now we're sort of processing the first application. That's another piece on duty drawback. In addition to that, as you mentioned, we are also active on helping or supporting the merchants with the demand generation, mainly based on the Borderfree platform. We have a few hundreds of merchants that join this platform. Actually, on average, we are already able to contribute approximately 6% of sort of their traffic that is converted into sales. It's not huge yet, but it's becoming significant. We didn't charge on this service because we wanted to sort of create a network effect. Right. We wanted more merchants coming in and more shoppers signing up for Borderfree.com. We've recently started to charge for that. Not the significant contribution yet, but over time, we believe that this could also add a bit to service fee take rates. While Ted Baker is gone, we do see some opportunity to actually duplicate this model- with additional merchants. Just lately, we've sort of launched one of those. It's smaller, significantly smaller than Ted Baker- Yeah We see an opportunity with that as well. Got it. I want to shift to demand, but before I leave, let's just make sure if there are any questions in the audience. One up here for Michael, please. Hey, guys. Is there any way to frame how broad-based the demand is for duty drawback? As I think about a U.S. merchant, why would they not want to be using this and what's reflected in your pipeline? Yeah. Generally speaking, you're right. As Ofer kind of framed it, this is picking money off the floor, and I think for both types of duty drawback, we expect the kind of the attach rate to be very high in those cases where we can actually support it, and we're constantly enlarging that envelope. I think that the one thing maybe to call out is that on that part of the service for U.S. merchants that enables us to kind of draw back the original duties that were paid on the import when the products are exported, on that too, we expect very high attach rates. This specific service, we expect it to take slightly longer for the actual volumes to pick up for the reason that unlike the kind of, call it regular duty drawback, where we export the goods and then the goods return, and we draw back the duties on the return. In those cases, we did both sides of the transaction, we have full information and we have everything we need, essentially, in order to make that submission to the authorities. When it comes to drawing back duties on commercial imports, the original importation into the U.S. was done by the merchant sometimes a year ago, even more than that. It's been sitting in inventory. They haven't really thought about actually collecting all the information that we need in order to make that submission. We need it from them. Now, it's not rocket science, they need to gather that information, and there is an incentive for them and for us, specifically for the first submission, to collect all the information they can, because only on the first submission, you can actually submit three years in arrears. You can collect back on three years' worth of imports or on re-exports. From the second submission onwards, it's just on the ongoing business. We work with the merchants, we try to find ways to make it easiest for them, but at the end, they need to open their drawers and the archive and get those documents out and provide the information for us. As part of that, they also learn what they need to provide. From the next submission onwards, we expect that to be fairly easy. This specific offering for the initial submissions of all these merchants, we expect it to take a bit more time. That's the only kind of nuance. Overall, long term, we expect the attach rate across the board to be extremely high. Got it. Last few minutes here, want to hit at three key things. First, demand. Where are you seeing strength geographically in demand and are there any. Consumer demand. Consumer demand, yeah. Actual GMV and volume. Where are you seeing consumer demand strong versus where is it weak or changing for better or worse? Yeah. Happily, in the last few months or even towards the end of 2025 onwards, we've seen very healthy consumer demand almost across the board. I think that the type of consumers that our brands are targeting, which is typically sort of, I would say mid to high, and sometimes even very affluent, those are doing pretty well and we've seen very healthy consumption patterns in the last few months. As I mentioned, it's been across the board, in most destination markets. There was some interruption in the GCC, in the Middle East region, due to the Iran conflict. For a few weeks we have seen some decrease or significant decrease in specific markets in that region. That came back as well. All in all, we see good consumption patterns lately. Got it. Let's talk about a key partnership that has been developing for years now, and that's with Shopify and what you're doing within Managed Markets. How should we be thinking about what you're seeing with respect to Managed Markets specifically, and how have you built in a Managed Markets ramp within second half 2026, and can that accelerate in 2027? Yeah. Basically, as you know, one of the main rationales behind our kind of newer, what we call it, 1P, or kind of Managed Markets part of our new strategic agreement that we signed with Shopify last year was around our understanding from the first iteration of the lessons learned from the first iteration of Managed Markets that on the one hand, it kind of fortified our belief, our joint belief. Ours and Shopify's in the massive opportunity that lies ahead in a service like Managed Markets. On the other hand, we realized that we needed an additional build. We weren't done, because we kind of simplistically saying we nailed the onboarding piece. We had to improve the ongoing experience. It wasn't good enough. We underestimated the effect of the changes that going on Managed Markets required from the day-to-day operations of these merchants. Because on average, merchants on Managed Markets tend to be on the smaller side of the scale, it turned out to be more difficult than expected for them to adapt to managing now a different kind of stream of business that is international. Right. We went ahead and we spent a lot of work on both sides, on our side and on the Shopify side. Got to a place where Managed Markets is now fully integrated within Shopify Payments and the operational processes, the money flows, all the reporting, all of that, the day-to-day of the store now works basically just the same as the merchants are used to when it comes to managing their domestic store. That is the essence, plus a few other things around applicationless onboarding and some additional features that were the basis of the new build of Managed Markets. In terms of what that translates to in terms of a ramp-up in volumes, we're still in pretty early innings. Yeah The new version went live late last year in Q4, but still we're before the kind of marketing push, I would say, from Shopify. Work continues, and we've recently launched Managed Markets in two additional markets, in Canada and the U.K. for Canadian merchants and British merchants. Work continues on additional features. We do expect, and Shopify is planning to start to more actively push it. Currently, it's in general availability, but it's not being actively promoted. The plan is for them to start promoting it as part of the next editions, the next Shopify Editions, which has been pushed out a bit. It was originally supposed to be a spring edition, now it's more of a summer edition. Right. It's supposed to be at the end of this month. On the back of it, start to more actively promote Managed Markets. That translates into our original assumptions that we're going to start to see a more. We are already seeing a ramp-up. Yeah Just the product is out there. It's doing well. We're getting good reviews in merchant forums, et cetera. It is growing by itself. We do expect to see an inflection point in the second half of the year. I would say we're currently solving for a good offering, a solid offering, and growth in the run rate to exit 2026, hopefully in a much larger run rate. It will not have too much of an aggregate impact on 2026, but we're solving for already a meaningful impact and contribution to our top and bottom lines in 2027 onwards. Last question. We're over time here, we're going to keep it really short, but we've got to ask the requisite AI question. You called out AI benefits across R&D, support, monitoring, compliance, and prospecting. Excuse me. What is the single case that you're most excited about where you're seeing AI returns and productivity gain? I would say there are two, if I may. Okay. If I may go for two. One of them is on our ability to harness and put into action the massive proprietary data asset- Right that we have and that we continue to accelerate because we've already seen with proprietary tools that we've built that are AI-based, that gives us a huge leverage that it doesn't just accelerate our efficiency and effectiveness, it is also something that competitors cannot replicate because Got it With all due respect to AI, you need to feed it with relevant data and know-how in order to get the benefits. I think that's one. The other one is on the R&D efficiency. There are efficiencies across the board that we can get. I think what we're seeing already in the use cases that we've already put into play is that there are massive R&D benefits to a point where when we look at our growth going forward, we think that we can become much more efficient all across the board using AI. Specifically on R&D, not only do we not see a reason to grow the headcount despite the growth that we expect in the coming years, we'll probably be able to scale it down by quite a bit and still be more effective in the total outcome of our R&D. Right. Great. Well, Amir, Ofer, thank you so much. We'll leave it there. Thank you. As always