Thank you very much. Joe Spak, our host at UBS. Very pleased to have with us General Motors, Paul Jacobson, Executive Vice President, CFO of GM. Paul, I know a bunch of news over the past couple days, and you wanna make some opening comments, so let's start there, and then we'll dive into the Q&A. Yeah, sure. Thanks, Joe, and thanks everybody for being here and for tuning in on the webcast. I have a couple of announcements this week. I knew we were gonna be here today and wanted to make sure that we had a chance to talk through those and provide a little bit of color. Talk about the first one, which came out on Monday, the news about the Ultium Cells Site 3 with LG. We reached a deal to essentially sell our interest in that plant back to them. You know, as we talked about at Investor Day, you know, we currently with our two pouch plants in Lordstown and Spring Hill. Lordstown running about 80% capacity, Spring Hill running about 40% and ramping up. We felt we were very good with pouch capacity, and we've been talking with LG for a few months, I would say, about, you know, their capacity needs, our capacity needs, as well as our shared interest in prismatic cans, which Kurk Kelty spent a lot of time talking about at Investor Day. This was a really good opportunity to really, as we keep talking about, be agile as we go through EV adoption and see what's coming up, as well. I can show you this had nothing to do with the election. We've been talking about this for months, as I said, but, you know, really looking forward to continuing that partnership. It doesn't affect anything that is related to our first two cell sites. As we said in that press release, looking to partner with them on prismatic cans as well. So this was a really good example of both our flexibility as well as the quality of the partnership that we have with LGES, to be able to structure this deal that I think is gonna be beneficial for both of us, each in our own ways, as well as together, for our partnership. So, looking forward to move forward with them, excuse me, on the prismatic cans as well, and still moving forward on our SDI work. So, that's the update on the cell plants and the cell strategy, and then I'm sure many of you saw this morning, the announcement that we expect to take a restructuring charge in China. As you've seen in our 10-Qs and with our performance, this is something that we've been expecting, as we continue to go through and look through the impairment analysis. Understand that the China business was put on the balance sheet back in fresh start accounting more than a decade ago on a much, much bigger company than what it was. And as we've talked about before, we've been in pretty substantial, good, I would say, conversations with our partners over at SGM, and have worked through a restructuring plan, and that ultimately triggers the impairment analysis on that balance sheet. A couple of things on the restructuring. I can't go into a lot of details on that other than to say that, you know, some many of our main goals are still very much intact. Number one, not to inject more capital from the U.S. into China. That's been an imperative for us: that the business has to stand on its own, and it can't take a significant amount of investment. So that principle is going to, we believe, hold, where the restructuring is not gonna require us to actually put any capital over. We'll restructure some of our agreements and make sure that we can manage with the cash flows, as we right-size that business to a much smaller demand set. The second principle is, we expect that we'll be able to put in a position where we're continuing to target being profitable again next year. Like I said, much on a much smaller scale than what we've been, and that's okay. The real challenge, as we've seen for China, is if it were to become a significant capital draw to try to keep the business going. But I think we are very close to finalizing everything with our Chinese partners, and I think it's progressing about as well as we could be expected. Some tough decisions obviously have to be made in that space, but it is something that you know preserves not only our ability to be profitable on a smaller scale, but also not to do it with incremental capital into the country. So the team has been hard at work, especially our team on the ground in China. I made a trip over there as well, and I think they've done a good job under the circumstances. Great. Maybe just to start, we'll start with the first announcement on the battery side. So, can we sort of confirm any sort of amount of cash you're getting back for that sale? We haven't disclosed that, but what I can tell you is it's a transaction that's really representative of value that we put into it, as well, but it's a good transaction for us. Okay. And then, so now that that plant is under LG control, exclusively, per se, I think there has been some equipment put in place there. Are they gonna use that equipment? Is it still gonna be pouch? They'll just, they could just sort of sell to anyone they choose? Like, is it the Ultium form factor and chemistry that's still gonna be made in that facility, or is that up to them? It's really up to them. You know, it is set up for pouch, but they've got many other pouch customers as well. So that's something that, you know, rather than us being in it and trying to balance, you know, what is the chemistry that goes in specific to customers, the easier solution, I think, for both parties is just turn that over to them. Okay. and, we're gonna move forward with them on a prismatic can solution. So this will be good for them as well. So that was the second part. So 'cause you also had that announcement about working with them on Prismatic. That's not necessarily from that facility. Correct. Okay. And I think we sort of briefly touched on this topic at your analyst day in October, but is it possible that some Prismatic cells end up in the two plants that you still have a vested interest within Ohio and Tennessee? I would say it's possible down the road, that we could do that. Obviously, that might, that would be more capital efficient. Yeah. than building an entire new plant, but that's gonna be a balance of both the pouch needs, which we think are going to carry on for a while. Mm-hmm. As well as the growth in the prismatic as we go forward. So, you know, the key in all of this, as we said, is just make sure that we're flexible. Mm-hmm. as we flex to EV demand and where it's going. Mm-hmm. So, this is gonna help preserve that flexibility. Yeah. You know, we'll stay nimble as we think about how to schedule those improvements or changes. And then moving over to China, again, as you sort of said, I don't think this is sort of a big surprise that there was a charge coming on the restructuring. Are those plans actually set? The release was a little bit unclear. It seems like maybe there's still some stuff to be worked out. I know you can't say a lot about the restructuring. Sure. But what, what stage are we at, I guess? I would say that we're in the finalization stages. Okay. With our partner. Obviously, as we get closer to year-end, you know, the reason we wanted to come out with that today is we obviously didn't want it to be a surprise at. Right. At earnings. Mm-hmm. But, like I said, we've kinda telegraphed that, in the Q's as you look through that, because we do have to do this annual impairment test anyway. Mm-hmm. So as the business is smaller and we're close enough to where we think the end goal is on restructuring, you know, we put a range on it 'cause there are still some moving pieces. Mm-hmm. But, you know, we're confident enough in getting it done and what that landscape's gonna look like that allowed us to go ahead and disclose the charge. By your comment about not having to commit more capital to that business, or at least that's the goal, this can all be funded with what's held on the JV balance sheet. That's our expectation, yeah. Okay. So we, you know, would defer some payments, obviously, and, you know, we've deferred some of the dividend payments. Mm-hmm. Which is the right thing to do. Yeah. but, you know, the whole goal for us is not to have to inject a lot more capital into it, and, I think we're gonna be successful with that. Okay. Great. Let's sort of turn over to, you know, the core business, if you will. And you know, we had another sort of, you know, sales data point last month. It seems like sales remained strong, pricing remains strong. You know, we only have, I guess, you know, less than a month left here in the year. You gave some guidance. I mean, any sort of major surprises you've seen, either from a demand or output or sort of pricing perspective? I wouldn't say any major surprises. I think November was a strong month for us and for the industry. Mm-hmm. As well, but that's generally in line with our expectations. So, you know, we had a little bit of insight as we were preparing and went through our last conferences. But, you know, November performed well. We're continuing to drive more EV momentum. Mm-hmm. I think we'll probably end up in a, you know, around a 12% market share in EVs, for ourselves. So we're outpacing the general adoption rate. We were well over 17% market share overall. Mm-hmm. for the third consecutive month. So, you know, what we have said before is that we actually think we can grow EV penetration while at the same time preserving or growing our ICE market share. And that's kinda what's holding. Mm-hmm. As well. So it was a good month on the retail side. Also a good month for fleet. You know, I think our GM team beat Ford Pro, I think, for the third month in a row, on fleet. We'll see that as the numbers come out. But, you know, the team is really, really, performing well for the month, but, you know, generally in line with our expectations that we put out. It also seems like you're probably on track to sort of hit your inventory goal, at least sort of maybe, you know, at least we'll be calculating maybe more towards the high end, but you don't see any significant growth. Some of your peers panic about it. You don't, but I, I'm quite comfortable, you know, with where we are and we've set up, and as we said, we were gonna be a little bit higher going into the fourth quarter. Mm-hmm. 'Cause we lose so many production days. Mm-hmm. Due to the holidays in the fourth quarter. Yep. It's also a pretty big selling season. Right. for us. So I think, I think we're positioned well. I think we'll be right in that 50- 60 day range. Mm-hmm. And, you know, just kinda continuing to watch the market. I guess the last part, just sort of on the very near term, and then we can sort of talk about the bigger picture business. You know, you had the variable profit positive target for EVs here in the fourth quarter. You just mentioned sort of another good month. So is that still on target on plan? We still are on track for that. Mm-hmm. That's been a great effort by the team. I think, as we've kinda set it up, for the year, a really important milestone for us. Mm-hmm. Because we've gotta get those vehicles scaled up to the point they're contributing to their fixed costs. Mm-hmm. Now, obviously, the next step is EBIT profitability. And as we said at investor day, that's gonna be a real function of where the adoption rates are. And obviously, there's a lot of uncertainty as to administration's priorities, as we see turnover in the White House. But, you know, I think when you look at our EV products, we're actually stimulating demand at a higher rate than where the industry is. Mm-hmm. That's a good thing for our progress. As we get into the 2025 guidance, you know, we still expect to have that $2 billion-$4 billion of profit improvement. Mm-hmm. In EVs, and ultimately, we'll see where the volume settles out. Is that irrespective of what happens on EV policy from a consumer credit or? Nothing is irrespective of everything. Okay. Let's be clear. Okay. You know, just, just on those trends. Mm-hmm. You know, I won't speculate on what policy's going to do other than just to say we've gotta remain agile. Yeah. I mean, we've done that for more than a century across. Mm-hmm. More than 20 presidents. Mm-hmm. things change. Mm-hmm. And, while there might be some changes that are pretty big shifts, we've always endeavored to say we want the products to sell themselves. Mm-hmm. And we wanna deliver value to the customers. And certainly, as we've shown with our EVs, they're coming towards us at a faster rate. Mm-hmm. So, we've gotta just stay focused on the customer, and I think things will work out, but it might mean we have to change tactics a little bit. Right. You know, and I think on that front, you know, and I think immediately post the election, you know, you made a comment that alluded to sort of still a need to continue to sort of invest because the directional arrow on EVs, even if the slope might change or even flow a little bit, right, is, you know, up and up and to the right with a little bit more time to sort of reflect. I mean, any sort of changes to that view, or do you still see the need to continue this push, at the pace you're on on electrification, or if the customer does change next year because certain incentives are pushed back or pulled away, that you'll have to retain that flexibility? I actually think we're probably better positioned than we've been, since the real advent of the. Mm-hmm. Electrification initiative. I mean, for so much of the early parts of it, we were chasing it from behind. Mm-hmm. Trying to scale up. Now, we made a lot of deliberate moves, and I think they were all the right ones to take our time and to do the platform rather than rush vehicles to market 'cause now scaling actually provides benefit to us versus just scaling a product that isn't making money. So, but as we've caught up with manufacturing and gotten our battery cell production up, we're finally at the point where I think. Mm-hmm. We've got enough capacity to just maintain above kinda where the industry is. That gives us a chance to flex up if we need to, but it's. Mm-hmm. Much easier to flex up than it is to flex back. So, you know, the decision on the LG site three, that's a function of maintaining that agility going forward, and it gives us time to digest that. So, I think, you know, it is still very much a part of our long-term future. We might see a time where ICE might be more profitable for longer. Mm-hmm. We'll have to see what happens with the regulatory environment, etc. Mm-hmm. But clearly, we've got two lines of business, one that is mature and doing really, really well, and we have full-size SUV refreshes coming very, very soon. Mm-hmm. We've seen the order of magnitude improvement that we've had in the mid-size and the small crossovers. We think that can continue in the full-size SUVs, and then we've got an up-and-coming EV business. Mm-hmm. We sold more than 15,000 EVs in the month of November. I think we're only the second company to Tesla in the U.S. to do that. So, that's a good expanding business. We gotta get it to that core profitability. And I think we'll be fine, and it'll give us time to balance as the consumer response. Understanding there's a myriad of ways that sort of policy can evolve, but, you know, there's already been suggested reports, right, that a consumer credit gets pulled. In that world, how do you think about and I think even before that, I think you were sort of expecting EV pricing to be a little bit more challenging maybe than ICE pricing. But in that world where sort of government help is pulled, how do you for GM think about that price versus volume lever? And the reason I ask is because it seems like there may be some point where you are willing to give a little bit on price just because there are still other profit and/or cash savings to GM from being able to, you know, from the battery production tax credit if that stays in, but the consumer goes away, or even from selling the EV and less of a need to go out and buy a credit while that's, you know, and that's a sort of a whole separate conversation whether that remains. But at least in the near term, you know, how do you, in that specific scenario, how do you sort of think about price versus volume? I don't think we can look at the consumer tax credit in isolation. I think we have to figure out what, as a matter of policy, will the administration do, and like I said, I don't wanna speculate on it. Mm-hmm. But, you know, a change in that consumer tax credit alongside a change in regulation, I think changes the marketplace completely. Right. Right. 'Cause you've got a lot of people in the market selling EVs at incentives in the 30%-40% of ATP range. Mm-hmm. We're hovering around 10- 12. So while we're well above where we are in ICE, we're actually much, much wider to the industry in terms of the gap, versus what the industry is doing to incent EV sales. So I think the marketplace could change, but we've tried to maintain a level of consistency about that and not get into the dynamic pricing game, not overinflate incentives to try to push that inventory out. And, and I think it's served us well. It may take us a little bit longer in that world to ramp up, but I'd rather ramp up from a position of strength than make it artificial and then have to dial back profitability. So when you ask about, yeah, I think we are advantaged by the production tax credit 'cause we've made the investment. Yeah. We've built and deployed the capital into U.S. production, which I think is wholly consistent with what the incoming administration said about U.S. manufacturing jobs, etc. We've made those investments. Yeah. So, but we're not in a position where it's like we can deploy that in the form of incentives to try to win share. Mm-hmm. We're still using that, at least in the short to intermediate term to get to our profitability targets. Mm-hmm. So that ultimately, long term, we can get EVs to parity with ICE, which has always been our goal. You have though. I believe you used at least sort of the leasing channel as a means to sort of get more EVs out there. And that, particularly especially for some of the more expensive vehicles where maybe either the vehicle or the consumer would not have qualified either. I don't know if you could give sort of a percent mix of EVs that are sort of released, but I guess is that irrespective of that, is that less of an issue going forward just because the more affordable vehicles are starting to sort of scale more going forward versus that initial wave that tended to be more expensive? I think when you look at our portfolio, I think we probably have more entries that are eligible for the full. Yeah. $7,500. You know, obviously, the gross income limit aside, but on an MSRP basis. Mm-hmm. I think we have more vehicles eligible, more models eligible than anybody else that's out there. I wouldn't say that we're using the leasing market to drive demand. I think we've got the leasing market available to those customers that wanna choose it, and they're choosing it at a much higher rate than traditional ICE vehicles. And I would say that a lot of that is probably driven by still early adopters of EVs that are buying an additional car for their household or choosing EVs probably skewed towards higher income levels. Mm-hmm. That otherwise wouldn't be able to take that tax credit. So the question is, without the consumer tax credit, do they lease the vehicle, do they buy the vehicle, or do they walk away? Right. And I think there's still a proponent to say that they're still interested in the vehicle. They're choosing the leasing option because, well, there's a lot of incentive for them to do that that's not always otherwise there. Mm-hmm. So I would expect that that might normalize a little bit, going forward, which I don't think is a terrible thing. Just on the leasing front, I mean, how does, assuming GMF handles it, do they sort of approach the lease for an EV and the residual value different from sort of some of the more established mature products? Like, how much risk do you think there is on that, the EV residual side? I think we're managing it well. I mean, there's an element of conservatism in the residual value assumptions, but, you know, we partner with the ALG guides and others to look at what our residual value assumptions are. We certainly don't wanna book a lease only to have a massive impairment at the end of it. Right. You know, I think we're trying to shoot right down the middle with, you know, likely is going to be some conservative EV residual values, at least until they mature. Mm-hmm. A little bit, but they're certainly coming in lower than, you know, where ICE counterparts would be. Right. That's okay. Yeah. Look, irrespective of, you know, who was going to win the election, you had already sort of, you know, moved down this path where, you know, you're gonna look towards, you know, hybrids or sort of plug-in hybrids and sort of more multi-energy, you know, type of platforms and plans like you showed us in Tennessee. Are you reassessing at all the pace or the percentage of the portfolio that might look to some of these other sort of non-BEV type but electrified type vehicles in the portfolio? I think we've always said that the plug-in hybrids were really the way I looked at it an option for you know compliance with the regulatory standards. So in the event that those change and you don't need that or they're lessened, then maybe that could be something we could look at. Mm-hmm. is skinning down some of those models. Actually, if you look at from a performance perspective, we have many vehicles out there today, in both our truck and crossover portfolio where, you know, our diesel power units are cheaper, get better mileage and better performance than some of their hybrid competitors. Mm-hmm. So, you know, I think we've got the product out there for what the consumers are looking for. Mm-hmm. They don't meet the regulatory test, so we'll just have to see where that is. But in a world where compliance is eased, you could see where you don't necessarily need as much plug-in. Right. You might not need as much BEV as well, but, you know, we'll cross that bridge. What we don't wanna do, and I know this is tough for this audience that's listening today, you know, the market hates uncertainty. Right. I don't like uncertainty either. The problem is I have to wake up with it every day. Right. I can't go on the sidelines and wait it out. So, you know, we're trying to not overreact. Mm-hmm. To anything out there in the short term. I understand the rhetoric that's out there, and some of the unease that results. But what we've gotta do is just say, "Look, our path forward is still very consistent with where we were going. We've made these investments. We still think that the road is right. It might have to pivot a little bit. Mm-hmm. and respond tactically, but I'm not gonna overreact to a tariff if I don't know that. Right. It's not gonna be traded away. Mm-hmm. In 90 days for something else." So we just gotta make sure we don't overreact to what's out there and model the business appropriately. I know. I think what the team has really proven over the last three to four years. Mm-hmm. Is that really sort of unique ability to be agile through a lot of changing circumstances? I see this as another one of those. I wanna get to tires in a second, but just last point on the portfolio and the powertrain options. There's two main things, right? There's EPA, and there's California, both which are, let's just say uncertain. And DOT. Right. Okay. Fine. Three, but you know, at least one of those might be a legal challenge, and the other one is just sort of has to work through sort of the legislative process. So that could take a while. So as it stands now, you're saying you don't sort of see meaningful changes from sort of the path you were on, on how you're attacking the portfolio, but is there an ability to react more quickly if you sort of start to see some signals and signs that things may move one way or another? I mean, I'm not sure what you mean by move quickly 'cause if you look at it, we've got a really well-established ICE business. Right. You know, in a world where compliance requirements are eased, that's probably going to be more profitable longer. Okay. Net of the regulatory charges of producing it. So, you know, that's a business that we can keep up. We can extend. We're, as we've said pretty repeatedly, about a third of our program capital is still going into ICE program refreshes. So we have an opportunity to pivot that if we need to. You know, as far as electric vehicles go, we still see that as the future long term. I mean, and you can see the trends globally. And, you know, many of the customers that are new to General Motors are coming in through the EV channel. And so I think that's an opportunity to have a successful business there. That's in a sort of nurturing stage where we've gotta get it to profitability. Mm-hmm. That doesn't change if the regulations ease. Mm-hmm. You know, we might have to focus on taking costs out faster to do it on lower volumes and not take advantage of scale. But those are, I think, tweaks to the strategy rather than, you know, a full-blown pivot. Mm-hmm. So we're gonna comply with the regulators. Mm-hmm. I mean, we can't take the risk of not complying, but I'm not gonna speculate on how that's turned out. We're just gonna make sure we look at the landscape and we continue to march forward for the best of GM and its customers. Let's turn our attention to trade, and I guess, you know, the big focus obviously has sort of been Mexico to date. You know, we saw the stock reaction on the date of the tweet or, whatever, you know, social media posting. There's no. There were multiple social media postings. It wasn't just one. There's no hiding behind the footprint for GM or really even, right, the industry at large. Obviously, a good chunk of the supply base is in Mexico. So, you know, it based on your comments, it sounds like you're not overreacting one way or another, but clearly, knowing you and knowing GM, there's some planning or at least thought going on behind the scenes, you know, in Detroit. So maybe you could just sort of shed a little bit of light on sort of how you even sort of think about that problem, maybe even, you know, the likelihood of sort of tariffs. Yeah. I'd love to stick my head in that sand and say, "Let's just wait for this to go away." That's not the reality of the world. So yeah, we do have to plan. And that really involves, you know, a short-term scenario, a longer-term scenario, and what would you do? And, you know, clearly, as we're thinking about investments down the road, we've gotta make sure that we maintain as much flexibility as possible. We don't wanna make a bet on a short-term tariff environment that turns into a long-term. But likewise, we don't wanna, you know, set off the business on long-term decisions that don't actually make. So, you know, we kinda catalog what are those things that we can switch with low cost, low friction. Mm-hmm. What are those things that are gonna take a little bit more investment and a little bit more time? And then how do you, how do you stair-step into those? But the key in situations like this is just not to overreact because, you know, as, as we've seen, you know, the industry doing the heavy pivot to EV and then back and then dipping your toe in the water, etc. Mm-hmm. That just burns a lot of capital and it. Right. It creates inefficiencies. It's better to be a little bit patient. If that means we have to incur some costs in the short run, that might be the better long-term solution. Right. So we just don't wanna overcorrect the business. But we do have multiple levels of plans depending on how this might go. It would be quite inflationary, right, for the consumers. So is there, like the part of your thinking also has to be, right, like what can you sort of pass on at the expense of sort of volumes? Is that sort of the. Yeah. I mean, our costs would go up for sure. Right. You know, we actually have to just figure out where the market is and. Yeah. I don't wanna go out on a limb or I don't wanna we be quoted as saying it's going to be inflationary. It's not. We don't know. Right. We don't know how the consumer will respond. The consumer has been very resilient over the last few years, especially with new vehicle purchases and what we've been able to do with pricing. It doesn't necessarily imply that there's a lot more. Right. It doesn't imply that there's less, etc. So there's so many variables to this. I just don't wanna get into specifics of how we might address it other than to say we're planning and we're trying to make sure that we've got scenarios in place to act for the best interest of the business. I've got one more on trade and then we'll see if there's anything in the audience. And, you know, when I know they're not sort of it's a smaller number and but there are some vehicles that are, you know, made in Korea that are brought over. If there are tariffs on other countries, also for, you know, export to the U.S., is reallocation of some of that something that would also be under consideration? I guess now it's I just, as I'm thinking stream of consciousness, I didn't even think about sort of some of the other stuff that was going on in Korea as well, which I guess wasn't on my bingo card. But how do you think about, I guess some of the international production that's destined for this market? Is that something that you would reconsider? Well, I mean, it all falls into that category of how much, how long. Mm-hmm. Etc. Okay. Because there are decisions that you can take that, like I said, are relatively low friction, low cost. Mm-hmm. There are other things that are pretty highly capital intensive that if you felt like the trade environment was permanently shifting. Mm-hmm. You know, you might make some of that investment, but if you thought it was going to be temporary or just over an intermediate time period, there's degrees here where you don't wanna go and spend a lot of capital that five years down the road you wish you had never spent. Mm-hmm. from that because that feels like an overreaction. So where we can adjust the business to a higher cost environment. Mm-hmm. We need to do that. Where we can't, we need to think about, you know, do we make a pivot? Yeah. Sorry. I can't hear you. Sorry. Yeah. At Arlington, you talked about, you mentioned the large SUV refreshes. Could you talk more specifically about that as we head into 2025 and how that could help you positively with pricing? And related to that, as you're rolling out the IQ, what's in GM's control there, you know, in terms of just managing the cannibalization if you're marketing more to the coast? But just talk about how you think about that playing out, in 2025. Yeah. Sure. So, you know, I think we've got high expectations for the refresh of the full-size SUVs and, you know, which you see typically as a little bit of a bubble. Now, how that manifests itself, I'm not exactly sure because we're already at a level that is well below industry incentive levels and much stronger pricing than what we've got. Whether we can take a little bit more or not, I'm not sure. The market's gonna determine that, but we're excited about our products. And so far, over the last few years, we've had a pretty good track record of rolling out those new products. You know, interestingly, our incentive environment today after the month of November actually looks a lot more like Toyota than it does Ford or Stellantis. I know that comes as news if you followed, you know, the industry, historically. We almost always matched them and Toyota was always kind of floating along the bottom. But we look a whole lot more like Toyota now, which is a great thing. I think it's a great testament to the sales and go-to-market team that we've got in North America and what they've been able to do with the products. So there's some optimism with that. We'll have to see how that goes once we get it to market. When you look at the Escalade IQ, I mean, so far, and this has been one of the things that I think the market was really skeptical on, and, you know, it's, we can't declare victory yet because it's still relatively early. I mean, we're selling more than 15,000 EVs, but you know, so far the preponderance of those sales have been accretive to our share. And you can see it in our total share numbers. So this hasn't been. I think the fear of the market was it was a zero-sum game and every EV was gonna cannibalize an ICE vehicle. I think we've seen examples and a good bit of data where many of those are additive. And I think the same can be for the Escalade IQ 'cause you have many customers out there who have been environmentally footprint conscious that would love to have a full-size SUV. There hasn't been anything in the market that they would consider 'cause they don't wanna V8, etc. So I think there's an opportunity to bring that to a whole new set of customers. We're optimistic about what it can do and not really worried about any material level of cannibalization at this point. Anything else in the audience? Quantify the revenue. Just so they can hear you on the webcast. Sorry. One last question. Did you fully quantify the nine points of margin improvement with the, you know, smaller and mid-size? Mm-hmm. truck portfolio? Did you quantify the revenue number that that's over? I don't know if it's $20-$30 billion. What is the number there? We haven't quantified that, but obviously, you know, when you look at the pricing environment over the lifecycle average of the prior models, we're actually in a much better pricing environment both in terms of industry but also in terms of our own go-to-market approach, where incentives are quite a bit lower. So we haven't broken that out, but I would say it's a decent split between revenue and the cost side, in terms of what we've been able to do. Just talk as it sort of relates to pricing and as I'm sort of thinking about some of your comments on the IQ, customer versus the, let's say, you know, Escalade customer. If we are in a world next year where EV pricing is more challenging because a credit is taken away or some support is taken away, do you think that has the potential to bleed over into ICE pricing or do you sort of view them as sort of two different consumers at this point? I think they're still kinda two different consumers, at this point. Like I said, either somebody is really focused on being an EV household. Mm-hmm. Or somebody's buying an EV to supplement their vehicle portfolio and add to their garage. So I'm not sure that we would see a lot of bleed over in that, but you know, I don't think we can take anything for granted in the market. Right. That's why, you know, I really commend the team at, you know, building this share from a position of strength. Mm-hmm. Which I think is somewhat of a unique accomplishment in this space. And I think, hopefully that's gonna continue. That's our expectation. You know, one other area of update that you sort of have sort of promised the market that we haven't gotten yet is Cruise, and obviously there's been a lot of EV and AV enthusiasm in the market of late, you know, even certain hopes for maybe some you know federal framework. Can you just provide the latest and greatest on sort of where we stand on Cruise, their need for funding and what the plan is there? We already gave you two big news items for the conference, and, yeah, we're still working through that, as we said at Investor Day, we expect to have more clarity on that before we get to the end of the year. Mm-hmm. So, we're gonna continue to work through that, but more to come. Okay. Anything else in the audience? I guess just, you know, while we have you, you know, I think this is, this has been pretty clear, but, you know, just one on, you know, cash flow and sort of the commitment to sort of return cash, and now it seems like maybe there's a little bit of capital inflow as well from sort of the LG agreement. Is this continued sort of steady return of capital what investors should come to expect here or like what would sort of cause that to change one way or another? I think in the past you mentioned you might relook to sort of dividends as a way to sort of supplement some of the capital returns. Yeah. So I wouldn't say that there are any major changes. You know, we have been much more deliberate about following the company's capital allocation policy. And I think that's paid, you know. Yep. significant. I was gonna say dividends. Yeah. Paid significant benefits. Right. to shareholders, this year. We did, you know, say that, you know, we've completed the ASR. So that's. Yeah. Clean. That actually gives us a much clearer market to be able to go and execute, and you know, I would say under sort of current conditions, we would expect to exhaust our $6 billion authorization we did earlier this year, before we get to the end of the first quarter. So, you know, I think we're making good progress on that. You know, the goal's still out there to be below 100 million shares outstanding or be below a billion shares outstanding. That would've been breaking news. A billion shares outstanding by early next year. Yeah. So, the team's progressing. Cash flow, you know, remains strong as we would expect it to be when you combine the performance with the capital discipline that we have. Mm-hmm. No reason to believe that's gonna change. Would you wanna? I mean, I know you've talked about this $18 billion level before in light of maybe some of the political and geopolitical developments. Is there any change to that buffer? You might, we might wanna keep a little bit more until sort of some of that uncertainty clears or you feel comfortable at that level? Yeah, I would say maybe a little bit, but that targeted range already contemplates a buffer. And remember, we've got $16 billion of liquidity facilities if we need it. So I'm not overly concerned about the ability to pivot the business if we need to. Okay. And I think we've got strong liquidity across the board. And you asked about the dividend as well. And, you know, I think what we've said about that is, you know, with the valuation where it is, we've seen a little bit of uplift in the multiple, not a lot. But, you know, we still see share repurchase as a bigger value add for our owners. But, you know, we're gonna continue to tilt into the dividend as you saw us do a year ago. We took the advantage of retiring some of the shares and raised the dividend. And, you know, I think there's opportunities to do that, and potentially a little bit more in the future. Okay. Maybe if we could end just on a fun one 'cause we did miss one piece of news, which is GM's entry into F1. So, maybe you could just talk a little bit about, you know, the rationale and maybe the commitment that's required for that. You know, I think GM has a long tradition in motorsports. I think F1 is a really, really great business. Obviously, they've been on a tear lately. You know, the opportunity to be a U.S. flagship team in that sport I think is really good. The structure, I think that with our partners going in there is gonna help us do it in a manageable way, but also help to get the benefits of what we think can be a winning team down the road. I was at a conference in Washington yesterday. I mentioned, you know, I've done two training sessions at Spring Mountain, so I might, you know, submit my name as a driver, but I'm not sure I'm gonna make the cut. Right. It certainly is something that's exciting and one that we think can actually be a good financial investment for us down the road. All right, so future Analyst Days in Monaco. That's, it's a heavy competition with the Indy 500, so we'll have to see. Okay. Thanks, Paul. Really appreciate your time. Thanks, Joe. I appreciate it. Appreciate it. Thank you, everybody. Thank you so much.