Good afternoon, I'm Samik Chatterjee. I cover the hardware companies at J.P. Morgan. We have the pleasure of hosting Luminar here for the next session. With us is Tom Fennimore, who's the CFO of the company. Tom, thanks for making it to the conference. Thanks for coming to the conference as well. I'll start out with more short-term or near-term questions before we dive into the long-term a bit more. One of the concerns we've heard from investors more recently is the resilience of volumes in the automotive industry, which is surprising given that automotive volumes have held up quite well in the first part of the year. How are you sort of consistently assessing the validity of your near-term forecast against what's the dynamic sort of production and demand forecast, even from third parties like IHS? Sure. First thank you, Samik, for having us here at your conference today. It's natural as talk of recession is in the air and automotive cycles tend to have a downturn when there's a recession, not surprising that you're getting those type of questions. For us at Luminar, what we do is we update our near-term volume forecast on a weekly basis, and that's really out over the next few weeks. Every quarter, we kind of reassess what our more medium and longer-term order books are. What we tend to do is we use IHS, which I think is probably one of the more traditional industry sources for volumes. As they update their forecast, we do, but I would say we tend to adjust the IHS and, you know, probably more of a haircut to being overambitious depending upon that. For us, though, what's really driving the growth here is Luminar, and what we're focusing on is this upcoming Volvo launch. For us, that's gonna go from 0 to a very large number. That is gonna be a very big number for us, whether there is a recession or not. People are gonna buy a lot of the next generation of Volvo flagship SUVs. I think you've heard that their initial orders have sold out and gone, or a lot better than that they were expected. Yeah, if there's a recession next year, maybe they sell a little fewer than they would've if there wasn't, but from our perspective, we're gonna sell a whole hell of a lot more of, you know, sensors on those vehicles, than what we're selling this year. Okay. Since you brought up Volvo, and I know- Mm-hmm. you know, I have discussed about this. post your earnings call, you did have the update about no changes to. Mm. -sort of guidance, even though there was a pushout in the timing of the vehicle from the customer that was announced post your earnings call. Maybe just go through sort of the dynamics of that, why doesn't it change your financial guidance? I think it also speaks to sort of how closely- Yeah. you're engaged with the customer, right? Yeah, look, we're in there working with Volvo and all our customers on a weekly basis. you know, we kind of set our financial guidance on a conservative basis. you know, so I would say when we built up not only our guidance for 2023, but also some of the more medium and longer-term guidance that we've that we shared at Luminar Day, we tried to build that up in a conservative basis. in the automotive industry, you know, any launch production is always very difficult. One of the things you may have noticed is we said we're gonna get to that 1 million unit run rate in the 2026-2027 timeframe. The reason why we gave a range there is it comes down to the exact precise time when each of those 20 or plus vehicle lines we are working on are actually gonna launch. We can't control the timing of when that precisely is gonna happen. We can control the timing of when we're ready to be, but we also wanted to leave a cushion in there because in our experience, sometimes SOPs tend to delay. Building a new vehicle platform and launching it's a very complex thing. From our perspective, the financial guidance that we built upon had some conservative bit in there, so that when Volvo did publicly announce their SOP, we didn't have to adjust our guidance accordingly. Okay. One of the other things that you've highlighted recently is the facility in Mexico. Mm-hmm. -that's, essentially ready ahead of what you had planned earlier. I think the expectations remain for revenues to ramp, starting this year. Mm-hmm. What's sort of the implication of the readiness of the facility in terms of your financial targets? Should we think about any changes in terms of margins, et cetera, overall from the outcome of being ready ahead of time? No. Look, I would say we're still expecting, as our new facility ramps up towards the end of this year, that there's two things that's gonna happen. One, our revenue is gonna ramp. I would say the real ramp is gonna be more tied to the Volvo start of production when you're gonna see that step function change improvement in it. The new facility is gonna bring some increased revenue. You know, we kinda shared that we're gonna, you know, at least double our revenue this year, which would imply an $80 million plus revenue for the year. Our 1st quarter was in that $14 million range. That would imply some ramp up towards the end of the year. But the other thing that's gonna happen is the cost should come down, and we're spending a fair amount of what I would call them launch related costs to get that new facility up and running, to get the CapEx finished out, to get the new facility build-out, to help our suppliers ramp up, et cetera. I think the benefit is, as that facility becomes ready, you're gonna see a lot of those costs substantially wind down. We shared some of that guidance on our most recent order quarterly call as well, where we expect to cut our quarterly burn rate in half or at least in half or approximately in half between Q4 and Q1. Okay. That's an interesting point because I think one of the key sort of investor takeaways from the 1Q call was around the gross margin. How do you get from the 1Q gross margin being negative to being breakeven by 4Q? Maybe just flesh that out a bit more in terms of how much of that comes from the launch cost coming down versus the volume ramp. I'll give you know, kind of quantify that a little bit. Our Q1 non-GAAP gross loss was a little less than $12 million. Our launch-related costs in COGS and other charges associated with that were about $11 million. We get our launch costs, you know, I would say, where they should be. As we successfully launch, you can see, you know, almost getting to that gross margin breakeven point just from, you know, having those launch costs dissipate. Okay. Got it. Your guidance for triple digit revenue growth in 2023, how much is NRE revenue growth contributing to it versus series production related revenue? How should we think about sustainability of the 100%- Yes ... plus growth rate in the coming years? When you kind of look at our implied growth in some of the medium and longer term financial products, I would say that, you know, triple digit or at least doubling our revenue, that's something that we expect for the next several years. You know, I think a lot of that's gonna come down to the precise timing of the launches, et cetera. When you look at the backlog and what we have in the hopper, you know, we feel very confident about that. In terms of the specific growth this year, I would say a lot of that growth is coming from sensor revenue. We've had a healthy amount of NRE revenue over the last two to three years because we're actively working on Volvo, Mercedes and other contracts where our customers are paying their NREs. NRE is still gonna be a healthy contributor of revenue this year. What's driving the growth, it's gonna be more on the sensor side, as opposed to the NRE side. Okay. Got it. On the Mercedes announcement, can you share more details there? What's the primary differentiation that drove that win? Is Mercedes sort of increasingly a customer that's appearing to hedge its bets with multiple partnerships across the ecosystem? How do you think about competition from, like, existing partnerships like Mobileye, et cetera? How are you looking at the competitive landscape, particularly with regards to that customer and whether the OEM is trying to hedge their bets on which technology platform to go with? What really drove Mercedes here was them wanting to take their next generation system to the next level. They have an existing lidar partner, which is a 905 nm maker. The issue with 905 nm is it, there's physical limitations because of the eye safety requirements of how much power you can put through the laser. For us, because we operate at a different wavelength, 1550nm, we're able to put out many more photons in the system because we have, we don't have those eye safety constraints. As a result, we're able to see further than a 905 nm lidar. That was very important to Mercedes. Their existing lidar maker could only enable autonomy, to a certain speed. With us, it's actually able to go at much higher speeds. you know, the Germans, they like to drive very fast on the Autobahn, so that's very important to Mercedes. We've been working now with Mercedes for a few years, and initially it was for, you know, a very small set of their vehicle lines. Then as we were in there working with them, continued to execute, they wanted to take this next-gen technology and really introduce it to more and more vehicle lines. The announcement we made with Mercedes earlier this year was really an expansion of that partnership to more vehicle lines and deploying that next-gen technology that we've been working on with them now for a number of years to more vehicle lines. I think that that's a trend you saw with Volvo, that's a trend you saw with Polestar, and I think that's a trend you're seeing with Mercedes. It's really because our technology enables that autonomy at very high-level speeds. Certain OEMs may be working with more of a legacy lidar maker, but if you wanna enable that next-gen technology, you do need to come to a 1550nm and with us. That's a trend we saw with Mercedes, and we would expect to see with other OEMs as well. Probably that sort of is a good segue to 1 of the questions, and particularly this topic came up after your recent earnings call, is 1 of your key 905 nm competitors on their earnings call announced a win with a on a light commercial vehicle, and they talked about multiple wins where they've looked at or being, are being evaluated to displace 1550nm, both in relation to sort of performance as well as cost. How do you I'm sure you track all your competitors, so it's not new news for you, but how are you looking at that competitive landscape? What's your reaction to being sort of, your competitors announcing wins, where they're saying we are able to displace Luminar because of performance and cost? There's, you know, we've gotten used to like a lot of FUD and noise out there from these other lidar companies. Some of that I would say is, we see a big difference between what people are actually saying and what's really happening. We're unaware of any of that happening. We're unaware. We are aware, quite frankly, of talks the other way, right? We saw with, the trend you're seeing is really the 905 nm going to the 1550nm. We only make customer announcements when our customers are ready. There's a lot of stuff that we're working on behind the scenes where quite frankly, we keep our mouths shut. Our other lidar competitors, you know, they're gonna say what they say. You know, we can't control what they say. We're just focusing on continuing to execute and doing what we need to do. The facts are gonna sift themselves out in the medium and longer term. Okay. I'll ask one more and then sort of switch over to, I see a lot of questions coming in over here. You had the announcement of engagement with Nissan in the past. Mm-hmm. That's from my recollection at least the highest volume automaker you've tied up with. How has progress been in relation to that engagement? How are things shaping up in relation to adoption of the product? I think you've talked about them potentially going standard fit as well. Just update us on that relationship. Well, yeah, to be fair, they've actually talked about it. I mean, what they've said publicly is that they're developing this next gen safety system. You know, they wanted to use lidar. They did an extensive research and ultimately decided to develop that system around our lidar. What they said publicly is they're gonna start deploying that on vehicles, their vehicles starting middle part of this decade, and their goal was to have it on virtually every vehicle that they make by the end of the year. That relationship that we have is continuing to progress. Nissan, a month or so ago just unveiled a commercial in the Japanese market highlighting this next generation safety system that they had and, you know, featured our lidar on it. We're very pleased where that's heading. I think that that's an example of as we build our order book, our forward-looking order book, where we're very conservative. At the end of the year, despite all that progress we made with Nissan, we had zero of that in our order book. The reason for that is we're still working with them to figure out what this is, you know, a system that we're developing, and then once it's developed, they're gonna deploy it to the vehicle platforms. We include the stuff in our order book when they make that conscious decision on the exact vehicle lines and entering into a specific agreement for specific introduction dates, pricing, et cetera. Once those decisions are made, that's when we include it in our order book, and we're still working with Nissan on a vehicle-by-vehicle deployment schedule. Okay. I'll move to this question that came in related to this topic. The question is: When will the Nissan deal be finalized? I mean. When will it be finalized? It's gonna be finalized on a vehicle-by-vehicle line. The development deal that we have with them in developing it together, that's already been finalized, been finalized now for a period of time, and we're working actively with them. It's just coming down to Nissan and when they make the internal decision on how they're gonna deploy that on a vehicle-by-vehicle line. Okay. Maybe let me ask it differently. When you take a 12-month horizon, is it something that- Yeah, I would expect the initial programs to be finalized, if you think about over the next 12 months. If you wanna start launching vehicles the middle part of this decade, you need to start making those decisions over the next 6-12 months. Okay. When will we see a Luminar Mercedes on the road? I think you're gonna start seeing a Luminar Mercedes on the road that a consumer can buy middle part of this decade. Okay. Have there been additional talks with Tesla? We're not gonna discuss anything customer related until our customers are ready to discuss it. We're not gonna do any speculation on anything like that. Okay. Moving to the next one. Last fall you spoke of wins with both new and existing customers. Since then, Luminar has only announced expansion of deals with existing customers. Did Luminar sign contracts with new automotive OEMs whose names have not been disclosed? Yeah. Once again, we're gonna make public announcements when our customers are ready to make public announcements, not beforehand. I guess then the next question is sort of on the same lines, but let me just ask you anyways. What are some of the upcoming partnerships for Luminar? Same answer. Okay. I got through that list pretty quickly. Let me go back to some of the questions I had. Update on some of the partnerships you announced at Luminar Day: the partnership with Swiss Re as well as I think Pony.ai. like, just sort of in terms of where are those? Yeah. It's been a few months. We're continuing to move forward on that. On the insurance side, we're continuing to build out the insurance partner, the insurance platform. We're working with Swiss Re to do testing and figure out the right way to price the insurance. We're building out the insurance team to support Alex Tsekounas. We're doing the appropriate state-by-state registrations, build out the legal framework for that. That's progressing. I wouldn't say, you know, nothing, you know, I would say major to announce at this point. You know, Pony, we're continuing to move forward with them on their next-generation platform and working with them to build it. You know, I think all the other stuff that we announced at Luminar Day, we're moving forward there and things are, you know, executing relatively well. Okay. I have questions on the sort of expense or the investment side of that, but let's get through some of the. Okay announcements around Luminar Day. Civil Maps and the mapping capabilities, obviously, I think now that we're seeing autonomous driving suppliers, everyone sort of looking at mapping being a critical functionality to have, it makes a lot more sense of why you would invest in Civil Maps. How are you thinking about monetizing it? How are you thinking about when that comes to the market? Yeah. I would say we've already started to monetize it because we're collecting mapping data with some of our development vehicles that we have. There are avenues that we've had to start to monetize that. I wouldn't say it's in a large scale, but it's, you know, it's putting some wins up the board there. I think what you mean by monetize is when are you gonna see an announcement with a, with a large OEM to do this cooperatively. Look, I think that that's something we're working towards. You know, just to remind everybody of what we're doing here, you know, most of the mapping data that exists today is more 2D maps, right? You're kind of, you think about the Google Maps or the TomTom of the world, that's what it is. There's a good mapping system based on that. What we're trying to do, particularly with what our lidar enables, is 3D mapping data. That's data that you kind of collect that's in 3D image, which has a lot of value to it. It has value to it, for autonomous driving and when that's gonna come here, as well as for passenger vehicles, also other applications as well. What we bought with Civil Maps is really a 3D mapping engine, where you can take our lidar data and create 3D maps. Our goal is to ultimately work with our OEM partners and potentially even some of the legacy mapping companies to really, you know, capture that data that our lidar collects and to construct those 3D maps. You know, that's what we're working on real time. We're trying to figure out the right partnerships, both with the existing mapping legacy as well as the OEMs. You know, when we have something ready to announce, we'll let you know, we'll make that announcement. That's our strategy and that's what we're working on and, you know, we're making progress there. I mean, just to follow up on that front, do you see the primary target there being the OEMs themselves or the mapping companies and helping them? I think it's both. think it's both. Yeah, it's both. If you actually think about it, that 3D mapping data that you're able to capture, it's very valuable. It can be very valuable relative to where the 2D maps are there today. I, you know, I'd be surprised if we ultimately decide that, you know, we wanna be the next Google Maps. I'm not too sure that's the right strategy for Luminar. Yeah, I think in the near or medium term, finding the right partners is gonna be the right strategic path for us. Okay. Got it. Let me just check. Yeah. Questions, please go ahead. I have 2 questions. Thank you. Let's say fast-forward 3, 4 years or so, do you think each OEM is likely to stick with one technology or they are likely to have multiple, you know, they can have lidar or radar and other emerging technology? How do you foresee this play out? Yeah. It's a good question. I think if you look over the medium term, which you're saying over the next 3 to 5 years, I think you're still gonna be in the phase where the OEMs are gonna be making multiple bets. You know, I would say there are some OEMs like Tesla, which think they can do a camera only to build these autonomous systems. I think most OEMs would admit that they need a lidar in there to give them that 3-D capabilities, which is ultimately gonna be very important to assessing the environment. OEMs, you know, there's been one supplier in particular more on the camera side that has 70%, 80% market share. The OEMs are gonna do everything they can to prevent that from happening on the lidar side. They're gonna try to keep, I would say multiple bets open. Also there's gonna be some OEMs like Mercedes, where made an initial bet on one technology, maybe a 905 nm, which ultimately be in the transition to go into a 1550nm. Over the longer term, et cetera, to build these software systems in the full stack for autonomy, those are gonna be very, very big investments. I think ultimately it's gonna come down to, can you plug and play a lidar? Once you develop those systems and put in place the time and the money necessary to develop, are you gonna be able to swap out the lidar and have what we call point cloud equivalency? If you're able to do that, then you can have multiple lidar suppliers. If you're unable to do that, because each lidar is very different and the point cloud you're coming out is get very different, then if you swap out a lidar and put in a new one, you may need to go back and do a fair amount of revalidation and redevelopment of your system, which is gonna be very timely. It's gonna be very expensive to the OEM. What we're seeing as we're working on our next gen product is that point cloud equivalency is very important to our OEM customers. For us. It's not a de minimis task for our next gen to make sure that that point cloud looks like the current one because they're building all their software systems around it. I think the ultimate longer term answer, call it over 10 years to your question, is gonna come down to, can you create point cloud equivalency between the lidars to allow them to swap out? If you can, I think there's a chance that you can have multiple lidar suppliers. If you can't, and I think that's a very difficult task to make work, then you're gonna have to have your autonomous system over who you develop that lidar supplier. There is, you know, there's gonna be a fair amount of stickiness. Just, lastly, how should we think about the cost decline of a lidar over a 3, 4, 5-year period of time? Our upfront cost, what we've said for our initial generation today, is about $1,000. A little less in scale, a little more in lower scale. That's the cost there. The question is, what value is that creating? What Volvo has said publicly is that just for the safety improvements alone, that they can reduce the, you know, severe forward collisions by at least 20%. That's gonna manifest itself in a fair amount of insurance savings. In addition, it enables, you know, highway autonomy, you know, that trim package where you can upsell the consumer. When you look at some of the take rates and the package prices and other, that can be a very valuable stream to them. You know, that upfront cost can create a lot of value through the insurance savings, and it could create a lot of value through upselling the customer to higher-end trim packages for, you know, call it L3 and L4 systems. When you kinda talk about the differences in efficacy between 905 nm and 1550nm, is that kind of particularly relevant in L2 and L3 cases, or is that mainly in eyes-off cases? As a bit of a follow-up, like, it feels like a lot of the kind of, you know, regulatory or liability-based hurdle to getting to full autonomy is sort of the comfort that OEMs feel kinda bearing the liability if an accident, if you kind of advertise a fully autonomous system. What's your sense of what has to change either from a regulatory perspective or a legal perspective before that barrier kind of clears a bit and you see more? Right ... kind of, you know, acceleration there? The answer to your first question, it's less, the... You know, stepping back and thinking of these definitions of L2+, L2++, you even see some now L3, L4, we kind of look at it differently. There's the... You're either helping the driver, right? Assisting the driver, however you want to talk to, or the driver's completely in and out of the loop, right? It's those two things, right? There's different aggregations of this, but the whole thing is the driver in control or is the system in control? Then it comes down to just your domain. For us, we're focused, the reason why our application is highway autonomy is when you think about driving on a highway, Dramatically oversimplifying here, but the objective is you wanna stay in your lane and don't hit anything in front of you, right? There's less things. It's more predictable on the highway than, you know, going out here on the city streets, right? You shouldn't have children playing on the street of I-95. You shouldn't have, like, dogs running out in the middle of the roads. It's relatively predictable. The issue is you need a sensor that can see 250 meters, and basically see any object. Why 250 meters? If you're traveling at highway level speeds, that gives you 7 seconds of reaction time, which is typically what you need in order to bring the vehicle to a full stop. Our lidar sees that far, which enables the highway autonomy. For us, it's... that's what we do. The 905 nm, because you can put less photons out there, it's much more difficult to see that. When you see for like vehicles like Mercedes, they're only enabling that, call it autonomy at a much lower speed, which is somewhat useless if you're traveling at highway levels. You know, you can't go 30, 40 miles an hour on the Autobahn. You wanna go real fast. That's really the difference in what we can enable with our technology relative to a 905 nm. The second part of your question is you're right. You know, ultimately an OEM, Western OEMs, are not going to put any system like that onto the road until they're absolutely confident that it's going to work, because ultimately they need to stand behind the system, and there's certain liability that they need to incur as a result. On the regulatory framework, there are certain jurisdictions where it's allowed but not allowed, you know. Once the technology gets there, yeah, I think what you're going to see is more of the regulations open up. I think the, you know, the obstacle today is less the regulation. There are in certain jurisdictions. There's also certain jurisdictions where they allow it. It's less the sensor hardware. You know, we're kind of ready to go today. It's more getting those software systems and the testing and validation to the point where the OEM is comfortable of deploying that technology and taking the associated liability. Moving on, a few questions have come in. Let me just quickly run through those. Has there been any communication with the government regarding lidar system from a military perspective, defense applications? Are you pursuing any defense applications? You know, there is some defense applications that we have on our LSI business. There are some componentries that go into there, but the primary end use markets that we're focusing on today and where we see the biggest application for us is the passenger vehicle and the commercial trucking side. That's where we put the vast majority of our resources on it. The other question is $1K too expensive for a $50K car? $1K, I'm assuming, is referring to $1K, the price of the lidar too expensive for a $50,000 vehicle. You know, I think that that's a good question. You know, certain OEMs have that point of views. Other OEMs, like Nissan, have a different point of view. It all comes down to how important is safety to you. You know, look, ultimately, you know, our plan over the medium term as well as the longer term is to bring that cost down, right? We're at that cost point today, and there's a reason why our business tends to be on those higher end price point vehicles, and that's part of our strategy where it is. As we said, our next gen product, we expect the cost to produce that in roughly in half, which is gonna give us more flexibility to lower price without sacrificing margin to accelerate the adoption. Okay. Got it. The announcement of the facility in APAC with TPK- Mm-hmm. How do you envision that facility being different from the one you're building in Mexico? Yeah. How should we think about difference in cost per unit, as you ramp that facility up? I have follow-up, but let's go through that first. Okay. I'll answer the second one first. I don't think that there. The actual cost to produce a unit all in between the BOM and the conversion cost, I don't think it's gonna be a big difference between the two. I think the upfront cost and the capital we need to invest to get TPK up and running is gonna be substantially, it's gonna be a fraction of what we did in Mexico. A couple reasons there. One is Mexico is actually a new dedicated facility that we're building from a brown shell. So we needed to put in a level five clean room. We needed to develop the automation line. We needed to, you know, reinforce the floors to handle the automation equipment, put in all HVAC, all that. TPK has an existing facility with, you know, some available floor space. A lot of those upfront costs we don't need to replicate, and that's gonna be substantial savings. In addition, look, we learned a lot doing this the first time, and we're gonna apply those lessons to the second time, and it's gonna be more efficient in terms of building out the, you know, the automation line and the manufacturing process to build that. I don't think all in there's gonna be a substantial cost difference between the two, but substantial savings in terms of the upfront capital investment we need to make to get it running. Going back to how they're different. The plan right now is Mexico is gonna be producing our Iris product, which is initially gonna go to Volvo, SAIC, Polestar, and those customers. The TPK facility is gonna produce Iris+, which is gonna be, you know, the initial customer there is gonna be Mercedes-Benz. That may evolve over time, but that's how we kinda see the difference between the two for now. Okay. How does the $20 million investment from the supplier fit into sort of overall your thinking about how do you scale manufacturing from here on? Is this part of a longer-term strategy to have more engagement with- No, I would say that the two are unrelated. This is something where, you know, TPK wanted to be a strategic partner to us on the manufacturing side. Them making an investment in Luminar was a way that they kind of wanted to, you know, symbolize that strategic relationship or to, you know, at least give a vote of confidence in terms of how they wanna operate together going forward. Okay. Okay. Last couple of questions. An update on the balance sheet, how you're managing the balance sheet. I think that is often a question on the lidar companies in general, but what's your cash outflow for quarter right now? How do you think about the cash needs for the company? Yeah ...through to series production? Do you at all see a scenario in which your capital raise would be required? Right now, we continue to believe that we have enough cash plus cushion to get to profitability. As we said during the most recent earnings call, our goal is to cut our quarterly cash burn in half between where it was in Q1 and Q4. For us, a lot of that comes down to taking a lot of those launch and other one-time related costs out of the system. As a team, we have, you know, those costs identified on a line item by line item basis. Look, we're not gonna take those out too fast so that we put the launch at risk, right? Getting this launch right is the top priority. There's also, you know, once that launch is successful and you see that path to being successful, the next thing we're gonna focus... Well, you know, the next priority becomes getting on that path to profitability. I'll give you an example. Right now we have about 300 contractors that we're working. You know, they're helping Celestica get up and running, Fabrinet up and running, some of our critical suppliers up and running, helping out the engineering team to get all the last minute validation done. You know, that number is gonna be substantially reduced by the end of the year. Okay. Got it. Sure. Last one, acquisition strategy. I mean, you've been acting as a consolidator acquiring Velodyne's assets, Argo's assets and employees. Is that sort of what we should expect? I mean, I'm sure the market would consolidate more in the coming years. How do you think about acquisition strategy and is consolidating some of the existing competitive landscape a part of it? I think the word consolidator may be a little too strong for what we're doing. I think what we're seeing is an environment where a lot of our competitor, other lidar companies are struggling. It's not only other lidar companies, but other software companies as well. We wanna be in a position to do smaller, bite-sized, opportunistic activity. We talked about SimpleMaps, right? That was an opportunity where they developed a good software mapping engine code. They were, you know, struggling to raise their next round. That was an opportunity for us to take them in-house at a very modest price. We got a good team, good code there. You know, we talked about Velodyne. We wanted to build out an India engineering footprint. That's a place where we're a heavy user of contractors. Mm-hmm. There we, you know, after Velodyne and Ouster came together, they decided to free up some of their engineering resources on the ground in India. That was a great opportunity for us to hire a team and start accelerating the reduction in some of the contractors that we've had. The other thing that we did recently was the, you know, the Argo. I think we all know what happened there. They had a good laser team that was part of the business and, you know, we kinda took them on and it's helping some of our LSI efforts. Those are all, you know, very small, bite-sized opportunities, and I think that that's something that we're gonna get continue to be active in. I wanna consider those consolidation, just more opportunistic. Look, I don't wanna rule out doing a big deal, but I would say that anything there is, you know, would need to be extremely compelling. We think we have the right technology to win here, and so we don't have the reason or, you know, the inclination to do anything big. You know, I think, if we were, it'd be more likely to be as a result of on the software side to build out some of our software capabilities and get a core business there, or at the encouragement of, you know, one of our customers. Great. We are out of time, so I'll wrap it up there, and thank you for coming to the conference. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.