Oh, I think we're—I think we're good on here. As people run in and out from the next meeting to the other, this room will start to fill up here, for the transcript, I suppose. My name is Tom Blakey. I cover infrastructure software here at Cantor. We're delighted to have the CFO of Informatica here with us, and IR in the front row, Victoria Hyde-Dunn. Maybe just without further ado, just—you just reported the fourth quarter earnings. You know, maybe for those who weren't able to listen to the call, what—you know, what were you pleased with and what did not unfold as—as expected? Yeah, sure. First of all, thanks for having us here. Of course. Your inaugural conference. Thank you. We'll be here many years. Thank you. Thank you for being so generous with your time. In the future from now. It was a quarter that did not meet all of our expectations, for sure. That being said, it was one that directionally was consistent with our strategy and gives us increased confidence that we're on the right path and that we have, in this highly dynamic and fast-growing space of data management, that we're well-positioned and have the opportunity to create a lot of value in the future. We delivered cloud ARR growth of 34%. We had called for 34.5%, so it was a little shy of that, and we can talk about it, but that's the largest dollar amount of Net New ARR that we've ever delivered cloud-wise in the history of the company and represented excellent execution on our part of our sales force and strong receptivity of our products by our customers. We delivered total ARR growth of 6%. Now, we had expected it to be closer to 7%, so not where we thought, but reflects the fact that we are managing the decline of our on-prem business while we grow the cloud business, and we're migrating a very healthy portion of those on-prem customers to the cloud. We delivered operating margin improvement, non-GAAP operating margin of over 400 basis points improvement year- over- year versus 2023, and our free cash flow, unlevered free cash flow after tax, exceeded the high end of our guidance. Mm-hmm. We felt good about all of that. We felt badly about not meeting our expectations. Mm-hmm. The places where we fell short started with renewal rates. We did not see the renewal rates we expected in either our cloud business or the self-managed and maintenance part of our business. Self-managed and maintenance are declined businesses. That is legacy on-prem software that we have sold in the past. The cloud business, of course, is the growth business in the future. Those decline rates were roughly 2%. Those renewal rates were roughly 2% lower than what we had forecast coming into the quarter. On the cloud, they are still in the low 90s. We feel those as a gross renewal rate is nothing to be embarrassed by, and we delivered a net retention rate of over 120%, 124% to be clear. It is 2% lower than what we forecast going into the quarter. That had to do, in our analysis, not with a change in competitive intensity, not that we're losing deals to other competitors, but rather more or less one-off idiosyncratic situations that happened in, you know, a handful or a couple handfuls of customers where they had bought software two or three years ago, and the use case was over-scoped, and they ended up not implementing as much as they thought they were going to, so they downselled that. They bought software two or three years ago, and the corporate mandate to conduct a global governance project, for example, shifted directions in terms of prioritization in one case because the CDO who sponsored the project left the firm. Mm-hmm. Another was an M&A situation where one of our large enterprise customers had a three-way spin, and our software stayed with two of the three, and the third one decided to go out to RFP. That customer is now part of our pipeline for selling them a new deal in 2025. Wow. It was—it was stuff like that. That's an interesting jump-off point there, Mike. What are these renewal trends seem to be spooked? The shares, obviously, we got some inbound on there, from questions from investors. What it seems like, if it's idiosyncratic, renewal rates are sometimes extrapolated in Excel, right? Talk to us about what you expect in terms of continued trends into calendar 2025 with regard to this metric. You talk about you could go back and sell that customer, or this was an idiosyncratic loss, or, you know, 'cause renewal rates are sometimes maybe even are, you know, unfairly extrapolated. Yeah, that's exactly what we've done in terms of our guidance forecast. Interesting. We have taken our actual 2024 experience and pushed that through into 2025 with respect to the cloud. For the on-prem stuff, that renewal rate is declining because it has been end of sale for two years, and so it is becoming more and more out of date. We expect that renewal rate to decline. We have also shifted that renewal rate in 2025 down by two points versus what we would have guided to prior to the end of Q4. In a sense, we have extrapolated everything into 2025. We are hopeful that it is better than that, and we have taken actions organizationally, in terms of incentive structures and some systems and processes that will allow us to do better on catching some of those idiosyncratic things earlier and addressing them with the right. Yeah. Teams to, you know, save and rescue more of those situations, but we haven't assumed any of that in our forecast going forward. Could you maybe double-click on that? That's an interesting point about—and maybe nothing even specific, just what—what can you do? Like, if I'm a customer, and you labeled it as idiosyncratic before, but now we're talking about the next customers, or maybe it's back to that customer, like you said, there's an—there's an opportunity at that existing customer. It seems like there's a few—few—there's always a myriad of opportunities to go back and try to, you know, change renewal rates. What—what—what are you doing precisely, or, you know, with the go-to-market changes there? It starts with awareness and rigor around catch—you know, identifying, catching, and acting on the early warning signals. For the customer as an example. For an existing customer, right? We have really good telemetry from our cloud products that tells us how they're using it, how many IPUs they're consuming, on what services they're being used on. We have data from our help desk. You know, we provide maintenance, we provide support and maintenance, and how many times they're calling in, what they're asking about. We have direct relationships with those customers on the field sales side because they're expand opportunities. We have account executives in there who should know what's going on and not only with respect to new business, but how's it going with the stuff you bought last year or the year before that. Yeah. That information is there, but sometimes folks do not focus on it early enough. Yeah. Making sure that we are surfacing that information not two, three months before the renewal, but six, nine, ten months before the renewal or more, so that we can see that there's a at-risk renewal coming up and then deploy the right team against it. That is the awareness piece and the focus piece. To get the right team deployed against it, you need incentives. Of course. Field sales, their first job is to sell new software. Renewals, their job is to renew what's out there. For a big enterprise renewal at risk, where it's underdeployed or the workflow or the workload has been stalled, it often requires field sales and technical sales to get in there and almost resell the deal. You got to make sure that the field sales team in the right situation is properly incentivized to work hand in hand with the renewals team to get the right outcome. We had a process in place for doing that, but it was sort of ad hoc, one-off, unpredictable. We have made that more formalized so that when the renewals team raises their hand and says, "Hey, we have a yellow flag," and it is nine months ahead of time, here is how we are going to incentivize field sales to collaborate with us and get to the right outcome. This sounds pretty real-time, if I'm understanding correctly, and these things are probably galvanizing. Yeah. Pretty quickly. Again, just as a remedial spectator here, what are you seeing? I mean, you'll give us some anecdotes in terms of what you're seeing. You know, "Hey, I've raised my hand. There's a flag. You helicopter in with me." What are you seeing? It's a little bit too early to. Okay. Declare victory. We're an enterprise software company with typical enterprise software linearity. The fourth quarter is 35%+ of our year, and first quarter is less than 20% of the year. That is a new business basis, which means since most deals are one-year or two-year, very few are one-year, two-year, or three-year or four-year, the renewals follow that. There have not been many renewals come up. Okay. In the months of January and February. That being said, I can give you 100% assurance that everybody is laser-focused on this because it was, you know, it was an impactful mess, and we have put all hands on deck to. Okay. Address it. Whether these structural changes that we've made, again, which aren't massive, we're not changing the deck chairs around, we didn't fire anybody, and we're not doing a massive change to compensation system. They're. Yep. Kind of around the edge of marginal things, but whether those work and we sort of have autopilot focus on this in 2025 remains to be seen. Let's shift back to something a little bit more, you know, fun to talk about in terms of your cloud business. Very successful. You talked about the fast growth rates. You talked about the solid NRR and the expansion rates therein. I've always been interested in the growth from expansion deals and net new logos. You know, we can talk about that as well, but just along the lines of that kind of color, talk about what you're seeing in terms of, you know, cloud migrations. We can start higher level and talk about what's kind of driving those, but I'd love to, you know, kind of double-click in terms of, you know, from a sustainable perspective, how that net expansion of that expansion business and new logo business has been growing? There's two or three levels to that question. Yep. Let me try to answer it from the top. If you think about our cloud growth, it's made up of big picture two components. One is net new customers or new workloads with existing customers. Yep. It's greenfield. It's not something that has to do with a legacy on-prem implementation that we may have with them. In the past, that's been about, to be precise, in the last 12 months of our net new ARR in the cloud, over the last 12 months ending December 31, 68% of that was brand new logos, Informatica, or new data workloads in the cloud. That's up. And that's 68% of the total. That's actually down. It was 75% of the total at the end of Q3 for the LTM, and we'll talk about that dynamic. Okay. It's an important one. At a high level, think about it in 2025 as being roughly 70/30. 70% new customers, new workloads, 30% modernization of existing cloud workloads onto existing on-prem workloads, sorry. Yep. Whether maintenance or subscription, into the cloud, 70/30, one or the other. Second big picture thing that I would add is that our logo growth in 2024, new logo growth in the cloud was about 8% to roughly 2,500 customers, 2,467 or 2,468. We feel very good about that, but some who focus on companies that have a different target audience than we do are not blown away by that number. We are not a new logo dependent company. We serve the large enterprises, roughly speaking, of Fortune 2000, and that is a land and expand business. Yep. We had 8% new logo growth in the cloud last year, but we had 124% net retention rate with our existing logos. That net retention, that expansion is more important than new logos. Both are important. We focus on both, of course. It is really important that you understand that when we land in an enterprise customer, that first use case is never the TAM in that customer. It is a small part of it, and there is lots and lots of expansion room. Once we get them on the platform, once we get them on the IP pricing model, good things start to happen. That is point two. The third point is the modernizations themselves, right? I talked about 30% of that cloud Net New ARR being from modernization. We have been doing that for three or four years. It's been accelerating, and it accelerated a lot in Q4. It was north of 35% of our total bookings in Q4. In fact, one of the reasons why our cloud ARR coming out of the year was not quite where we forecasted it to be, and part of the reason why we guided to 25% for 2025 in terms of cloud growth rather than probably, you know, several points higher than that, is because that mix of migrations versus net new is higher, so m ore migrations. That's because there's an accounting outcome of a modernization migration deal that in the near term, in the initial term of the cloud deal, yields less net ARR that we report than a net new deal. Wow. That mix matters. It's unfortunate, but it's just the way the accounting rules, and there's no two ways about it. What kind of relative difference is that? What kind of relative difference is that? It's about 20%. 20%. Wow. It's on average. You put those things together, and the dynamics underlying the modernization business, although it's growing really fast, and the contribution is valuable and has a really, really great net present value over the long term, masks a little bit the actual underlying growth in the total cloud business. Is there, you know, something that's happening, some dynamics happening in the market that's pulling in the modernization? It's simply put, the demand to modernize to the cloud by our customers. Is that okay? The pressure to do that just gets greater every day. Part of it is if we're ever gonna do Gen AI at scale, our data has to be in the cloud so it's accessible and governable. It is more fundamental than that. There's still so much on-prem and hybrid workloads out there that need to be modernized. That's what's driving it. Sure. Just as a quick statistic, if you look at the total amount of our on-prem base that's been modernized, it's less than 10%. We have still got $900 million of on-prem maintenance and on-prem subscription that are candidates to be migrated over time. That is not gonna happen all in 2025. It is gonna be a multi-year period because making the decision to migrate is a consequential one that takes a lot of planning, and people do not do it overnight. Yeah. It is a big opportunity that will remain ahead of us for a long time. One more comment on that, though, is that most of our cloud growth is net new, winning the marketplace head-to-head with the competition for a new logo or a new workload. Right. A minority of our growth is coming from modernizing our existing on-prem customers to the cloud. You should not take away the fact that we are simply mining our base. We are actually, because we have the best product on the industry's only platform serving as the switch from limited data, most of what we do is winning in the marketplace against the competition. That $900 million, a lot of custom—a lot of software vendors will give a statistic about moving, modernizing software. You get to get rid of hardware. You get to get rid of labor. Is there a money multiplier that you've offered in the past about the $900 million moving on-prem? And then related to that, I believe, why would you not, as a firm, as a vision, just change incentives there for the customer, you know, make it economic in some way or for the firm itself to kind of hasten that migration? There's no doubt that cloud software is more valuable to the customer than on-prem software. Yeah. Because they don't have to buy the servers. They don't have to buy the storage. They don't have to maintain it. They don't have to patch it. They don't have to worry about the security, etc., etc., etc. The uplift multiple in terms of what that cloud software is worth versus on-prem varies by type of software. Firm. Varies by firm. Historically, our uplift multiple has been two to one. Two to one. Now, we have actually guided that to be lower in 2025. Oh, we went down. We've guided it to be 1.5-1.7. It's really important to understand why we guided that down and why we expect that uplift multiple to go down. It's not because we're lowering price. We're not lowering price to incentivize people to move. The price per IPU, which is the Informatica Processing Unit, the fungible consumption token that is all we use to sell our software, is the same IPU per IPU for a new workload or a migration workload. We're not increasing discounting. It's not because we're lowering price. It is because the nature of those workloads that we are now addressing in that $900 million base are the ones that naturally generate the need for fewer IPUs to reproduce what you're doing. Initially, when we were migrating what was years ago a $1.2 billion base, we wanted the salesforce to focus on those customers that were using their software in a way and who were priced based upon historical purchases they made a decade or more ago so that it would generate the highest possible uplift multiple. Yep. Because we didn't know how the cloud contracts would behave. Would they drag additional sales? Would they have good utilization? Would they renew at a good rate? We focused them on those that went from one to two or one to 2.5, right? We put guardrails and incentives around to focus them on that part of the install base. We now have enough experience with cloud migrations that we know that once customers modernize to Informatica on the cloud, they drag a significant amount of expansion sales with it. Their utilization during the term of the cloud deal is excellent, and they renew at a higher rate than our average deal. We're now willing to open the aperture, if you will, for the Salesforce to go after that portion of the $900 million that will naturally generate the need for fewer IPUs and therefore a lower uplift multiple. Interesting. It's not, so put another way, it's not about where they land in terms of the number of IPUs—the price they're paying for IPUs or the number of IPUs they need. It's where they came from. Does their existing deal today? Yeah. Are they underpaying for value today or overpaying for value? It is an output of that, not because of price. We are lowering that to make sure we are allowing customers the opportunity to go, but we are not throwing incentives at them. Yep. Because incentives in our business do not work. Moving your data infrastructure from on-prem to cloud is a complicated, time-consuming, expensive process, and we are only a small part of it. A typical enterprise would have hundreds, if not thousands, of applications that are generating data, dozens, if not hundreds, of cloud repositories, analytic data stores, etc. You have to rationalize all those. You have to get a GSI in the middle to do all the implementation, and you have to do the Informatica software. Customers modernize when they are ready, not when we provide incentives. We are not doing that. Oh, very clear answer. Just double-clicking on the 1.5-1.7, I don't want to mischaracterize. Is there a, this is—this sounds like pretty in-depth research that you've done at the firm. I got to admit, is there a—the only word that keeps coming to mind, Mike, while you were talking was quality. Is there a different—is this—is this—you can characterize the word differently, please, for me, but is there a lower quality of workload coming onto the Informatica cloud at this particular juncture? And if that's the case, why? Yeah, that's an interesting way to look at it. The answer is no. Because I would think it's lower quality defined by me is just used less. Yeah. The lower IPUs? Yes, because they need less, but not lower quality in terms of what the utilization is going to be. Strategic performance. performance. Right, right, right. How much expansion they're gonna do and what their renewal rate is gonna be. Right. All of those are as high a quality as anything we've done in the past. It's just that from where they started in terms of how they're using our on-prem software today and what they're paying for it, they need fewer IPUs. Yep. Than the folks we've converted in the past. Maybe stop and pause here for the audience if there's any questions. Hey, Mike, thank you for presenting. I really enjoyed the presentation. Can I ask a technology question and a finance question? Let's start with the technology first. During Snowflake's Q&A in the past quarter, you mentioned about data integration. There's shipping more of that. Have you seen, you know, that coming in as part of the competition? I know you guys do backup, but was wondering the ETL side of things. And then for the finance side, I know you touched upon it earlier that customers will migrate from on-premise to cloud whenever they're ready. Obviously, your cloud business is growing really fast, 34%, guidance 25% on fiscal 2025. You have a, you know, a breakdown sheet as well as cash, free cash flow margin here. I was wondering, why didn't you just do the rip the band-aid approach where you're investing more in your go-to-market team, as well as your customers to pay? Can you migrate to the cloud this way? You know, it'll be better for both of us. Yeah. Let me try to answer those in order. Competitive intensity from folks like Snowflake and others that are, could be perceived creeping, trying to creep into our space in data integration. The hyperscalers, the cloud data warehouse providers have their own captive native tools to do some of what we do. Those tools are good enough in many cases if you're not multi-cloud, if you have no hybrid sources, and you don't need to connect to the broadest array of data sources possible. If you're comfortable as a customer with the vendor lock-in that using their data warehouse and their data integration tools provides, that's a fact of life. It is a competitive environment. It is a competitive environment out there. In those kind of situations, we generally don't even compete because they'll give their tools, their good enough captive tools away for free. If you have the appetite to sort of roll your own with that and live with the vendor lock-in, good for you. We will see you in a couple of years when you realize the downsides of that. It is important, though, to understand that some of the comments that folks in that category make about data integration in terms of its importance to their business create a misunderstanding about what is competitive with us and what is not. I have heard—I have not heard them personally, but I have been told that those companies cite some pretty big numbers in terms of the percentage of their revenue that they say comes from data integration or data management, like 20%, 25% of their total revenue comes from data integration. That is not what—that is not our TAM. When they say that, that is the storage and compute consumed by the data integration workloads, the transformations, the data quality, the governance and catalog that is being pushed down, and their compute resources are being consumed to do that. They do not have a data integration SKU. Little plus factor. They don't have a data integration SKU. They have storage SKUs, and they have compute SKUs. What is frequently the case is that that workload that is consuming compute and storage is being written and managed by us on using Informatica IDMC and pushed down. We don't do the compute. We don't do the storage. We design the pipeline. We design the transformation. We use our drag-and-drop tools and our recipes to, in a super efficient way, create the SQL code that's then pushed down to those platforms where it runs, and they generate revenue from that. Don't be confused by the big numbers they cite about how much data integration. That's not taking food off of our table. Now, with respect to your incentive question, to get people to migrate. Yeah. It is a fair—it is a fair question, and it's a—it's a net present value question, frankly, that we think about regularly is should we do something unnatural to accelerate this. I used to cover companies like Informatica, Rubrik. You know, they have the same on-premise thing. Mm-hmm. They do the rip the band-aid approach where, hey, look, we'll incentivize our Salesforce customers. Let's get it done. This way, it's app to app comparison. Then you could just, you know, cloud to cloud comparison. Yeah. Look, it's a reasonable thing to consider. We're a profitable company over 30% gross margin, and our goal is to deliver high single- digits and ultimately double-digit total growth in combination of our cloud growth and our declining on-prem business. That's the financial model we're working to. You can disagree that maybe you should sacrifice your profitability and take it down to 10% or 15% and go through, you know, 18 months, 24 months of the valley of death there, but that's not our strategy. Any more questions from the audience? Maybe we'll just shift to AI. I mean, you, Informatica, benefit from AI, being at the epicenter of data in general, but maybe just double-click on that kind of higher level statement. What—you know, what are you—you've given a lot of examples here in terms of the forensics, you know, in terms of the usage and the yellow flags of the renewals. I just, very impressed, with what you guys are doing to, to look inside, the usage of your product. Help us understand—take use as an opportunity to help us understand what, you know, Informatica is being, used for, or, you know, currently with AI and what the current trends you're seeing maybe heading into 2025 here. For us, AI means two things. One is what we call Gen AI from Informatica, emphasis on the word from. That's our CLAIRE GPT. It's a service on the IDMC that you consume with IPUs, which is our consumption token unit. It's a GPT-based interface that allows the user of our platform to be better, smarter, faster through all the benefits of natural language GPT, not only interpreting what you want when you type in a sentence and then figuring out what the next question to ask you is and refining and all the cool stuff that GPT does, but increasingly it has capabilities to use Gen AI technologies to look at your data stack and, in an automated way, build data pipelines for you and find data quality issues and so forth. That Gen AI from Informatica is a service. It's like a copilot, but supercharged. We're the only ones that have it. We're likely to be the only ones that are gonna have it for a good long time because you've got to have a platform that has horizontal visibility of your data for it to be of any use. It's an adoption. It's a user experience. It's a productivity enhancer. We're gonna win more business. We're gonna win more new deals because we have CLAIRE GPT, because if you buy us versus the competition, you're gonna be able to get more out of it and get more value. Their connectors to look at other platforms. Absolutely. Look at other data. Absolutely. We don't charge very much for it. In fact, we've announced that we're gonna continue to allow people to use it for free through the rest of this calendar year. Yep. Because we want people to use it to build more pipelines and to create more quality rules and to establish more governance on their data, which is what consumes IPUs in bulk, not just using our GPT, GPT agent. That is Gen AI from Informatica. Super important, differentiates it from the competition, but we are not going to monetize that, or the monetization of that is not going to be noticeable. What is going to be noticeable in the future in terms of financial impact is Informatica for Gen AI from Informatica for Gen AI, right? Right. This is using the IDMC platform, which doesn't require CLAIRE GPT, to manage your data. Yep. For a Gen AI workload. That is where the real money is gonna be. Y ou are right. We are in the middle of that based upon the importance of data for Gen AI. We are seeing it in terms of proof of concept and trials. We have got over 100 customers who have stood up orgs, which is a word for, you know, an environment in our cloud, platform that we can see from our telemetry are using Gen AI functionality like connecting to LLMs, doing unstructured data transformations. and so we know that those are Gen AI workloads. And in some cases, we have direct relationships, and we are tracking them directly, and we have case studies that we talk about publicly. But none of those have materially gone into production and started to consume a meaningful amount of IPUs. The test environment does not—does not generate much. Right. Furthermore, in our pipeline tracking, we see the increase year- over- year in the number of pipeline opportunities that are tagged as Gen AI related is multiples more than it was at this time last year. That's not the CLAIRE side. That's the—that's the GPT. That's the Informatica for Gen AI that's using Informatica for a Gen AI workload at the customer. That's where the money is gonna be. Now, we haven't baked anything really materially into 2025 forecast for that 'cause it's so unclear when those are gonna turn into big production level activities, but the signs are there. Not to be pedantic, you—you—you're saying Gen AI, but this is also related to agentic AI. Is that accurate? For sure. 'Cause you said that you—you have connectors and, you know, okay. Yep. Yeah. I don't wanna overstate. I mean, we don't do the agentic part per se. If you're using Salesforce's agentic model, right? Mm-hmm. We can be the data backbone to get all of the data from all of your stuff that is all over the place that Gen AI model—that Gen AI agent needs into the right place in their case in Data Cloud. If you're using somebody else's agentic platform or tooling, we can dump it all into Snowflake or BigQuery or whatever that agent needs to get out the data, and we can control its quality, and we can provide the access rights, and we can make sure there's no PII in it and that sort of thing. Okay. 'Cause from a strategic perspective, you know, we get a lot of questions from investors, and we think about it ourselves. Like, what—what does the AI data stack look like in the future? Will it be something on the hyperscalers and I'll be in still in S3 and Blob, you know? I mean, and there'll be some sort of layers. Yeah. We've been through, you know, 20 years- 30 years of software iterations here in middleware. It's an overused term that isn't really used anymore. You know, where—back to that forensics, where are you kind of seeing? You said you haven't baked any of this into 2025, so that's a positive. You know, what's the likelihood or where are you kind of seeing initial trials where Informatica is giving you the, you know, the confidence that they will be part of that future, you know, AI-related data stack? That confidence is based upon two things: complexity and multi-cloud. For those customers that are able and willing to stand up an agent that uses a limited and constrained set of data sources, and the data, once it's cleansed and merged and deduplicated and governed, is in one place with a big high ring fence around it, that's not our business. Right. That is not the way the enterprise works. Right. The enterprise has data all over the place. It's in all kinds of formats. Exactly. Those formats are changing every day. Enterprises are becoming more multi-cloud, not less multi-cloud. For that customer, you—it's just by definition, there's nobody else that can handle that the way we do. We feel very good about the durability of our relevance in that even as formats change and stacks may look different, somebody needs to manage that complexity. On the data side, that's Informatica. That's a great place to end. I—you might have to take. Okay. Next one is batching metrics and the net new metrics, 8%. Can you discuss, like, that 8% of the net new customer? Who do you guys face in terms of the, you know, the vendors and those RFPs? We do not share that specifically. Win rates are hard because is it versus top of funnel? Is it mid-funnel? Is it when there is an RFP? There is a very common. What are the type of customers? The type of customers, they're large enterprise, and they're dispersed across all the usual categories: financial services, healthcare, pharma, manufacturing, retail, federal government, state, local government. We're not excessively concentrated in any part of the economy. It's really quite broad. The common theme is larger customers with more complexity that values having the best-in-class products on a platform where they don't have to stitch together point products. It's future-proofed against all the conceivable changes and formats, and it works across all your clouds and your on-prem data as a Switzerland of data rather than a captive tool. That's where we win. That's expected. Great. Thank you. Michael, thank you very much for your time. Very much a pleasure. Thanks for having us. Thank you.