Hello everyone. Thank you for joining us for this session with Luminar Technologies as part of Deutsche Bank's Global Auto Conference. My name is Winnie Dong. I'm a senior associate here at DB's U.S. Auto Research. Luminar is a LiDAR company that was founded in 2012, and has partnerships with many of the top global OEMs, and major series program awards with Volvo, Mercedes, Nissan, and more. The company has recently started production for Volvo recently, and also showcased your next-gen LiDAR product, the Halo, at your Investor Day. Very pleased today to be joined by Tom Fennimore for a fireside chat, and Q&A. The format for this session will be a fireside chat around some of my prepared questions, but also if you have any questions from the audience, please feel free to raise your hand and we'll bring a mic over to you. So with that, Tom, thanks for being with us. Thanks for having us, Winnie, and good to see you again. Any sort of, you know, beginning remarks that you wanna make before we get started? Well, you know, I'll be brief, and we'll get right to the Q&A because I know that's the part that most people find helpful. For Luminar, we've been public for a little over three years at this point. We've met recently one of our primary milestones as a company, which is to enter into high-volume series production with Volvo on their flagship SUV, the EX90. And so our LiDAR is gonna be standard, i.e., on every EX90 that Volvo starts selling this summer, so we're very excited about that. It was the end of the beginning in terms of our first stage of industrialization. It took us a little bit longer, a little more money, a little bit more blood, sweat, and tears to get there, but we're there. And now we're focused on ramping that up, at the same time, ramping our costs down. We've taken some initial steps with that. And then really, over the next three ± years, we have an additional 20 vehicle lines that we're gonna be launching with Volvo, Polestar, and Mercedes. And so this is really in the ramp-up stage here for Luminar, and we're excited about it. Perfect. Thank you. So I guess before we dive into, you know, milestones and operational type of questions, can you provide us with maybe a state of the industry with regard to the appetite for LiDARs from both a safety standpoint, but also in the context of autonomous driving? I know we sat here exactly a year ago, in the same spot. So what has changed? Yeah, what I would say is, the amount of interest and dialogue that we're having with automakers continues to increase. And yeah, you know, I would say there's two primary functions of the LiDAR. One is really enabling that next-generation safety. You know, that's what Volvo is initially using our LiDAR for. You know, Nissan, who is developing their next-generation safety system, is incorporating our LiDAR into that development system as well. One of the things we released a few weeks ago is we partnered with Swiss Re, one of the leading global insurance companies. What they did is they took a vehicle equipped with our LiDAR and ran it through their few dozen scenarios that they'd built over the years and with billions of miles of real-life data, and says, "These are the scenarios which typically you know cause accidents. Which of those can LiDAR avoid?" Relative to the best vehicle out there, a vehicle equipped with our LiDAR, relative to the best vehicle, not the average vehicle, but the best vehicle, can avoid nearly 30% of the accidents. And for the accidents that you can't avoid, will reduce severity or the amount of energy in that crash by nearly 40%. So that means instead of hitting something at, like, 30 miles an hour, you're hitting it at a much lower speed. And so the amount of safety improvements here can be immense. And then the other thing that LiDAR can enable is what I would call that L3 or higher autonomy, whether that's highway autonomy or lower-speed autonomy. And having that LiDAR and that 3D sensing technology, I would say almost every automaker would say that you really need LiDAR to do L3 or higher levels of autonomy. Okay. So the... I think, you know, just drilling into that a little bit more, there's been ongoing debate in terms of the requirement for a LiDAR, depending on the self-driving approach. You know, Tesla is infamous for saying they don't need a LiDAR. Right. So I guess based on your conversations with your OEM partners, you know, what are you hearing in terms of, the approach that they may be biased towards? Sure. And then for some of the OEMs who might be on the fence for it, what are some of the pushbacks that you hear? Sure. So let's start with the safety system. You can design a good L0 or all the way up to a good L2 plus system without LiDAR today. There are systems that work. They can be camera-only or camera and radar. What LiDAR enables for those system is really a step function, improvement, and change, and I'll refer you to, you know, the preliminary results of the Swiss Re. Really takes those systems to the next level, but you can buy a good enough system today. Now, NHTSA, a few weeks ago, introduced some rules for AEB braking and other safety functionality that, they expect to be, standard or mandated on vehicles in the U.S. starting in 2029. Our system with our LiDAR will allow you to meet those rules, and we believe you're not gonna be able to meet those rules without a LiDAR. And so from a safety perspective, while you can buy a good enough system today, that system won't necessarily meet the new mandate in 2029, and you get significantly better results. Now, going to L3 plus autonomy, Tesla, particularly Elon, you know, he has been very public in his remarks, saying that he can make an L3 system or can do autonomy with camera only. His argument is we humans drive only with our eyes. We don't have laser shooting out of our heads, and so thus, you should be able to develop an autonomous system with camera only because it- we're able to work with a human. I'm not gonna get into a science debate. I would say almost every other automaker has a different point of view. And what I would say, if there's any technology company that should have the skill set and should be motivated to make a camera-only autonomous system work, it's Mobileye. You know, they're one of the best, if not the best in the industry, developing these software-based systems. And what they've even said publicly, you know, based upon everything they know today, you can build a good up to L2 system with camera only. That's their Supervision system. But if you want Chauffeur, which is L3 or above, you need to use a LiDAR in. You know, as today, they're designing our LiDAR into that system. And so, you know, Mobileye, they're pretty smart people and, you know, if they should be motivated to make a camera-only system work, but, you know, their designs have LiDAR incorporated into their system for anything L3 or above. And most automakers feel that way as well. Yeah. I think, in a market like China, for instance, there's increasingly this notion that, you know, you have to equip your vehicles with advanced features, safety features, to even compete in the market. Mm-hmm. And so there's this, this narrative going around where, you know, is LiDAR being commoditized over the long term? So, do you feel like this is the case, and is there a potential that, you know, OEMs become even more cost-conscious towards this, this system, you know, over time? In our experience, the automakers are always gonna be cost conscious, and they're going to be always asking us for lower pricing, cheaper pricing, et cetera. And that's just the nature of the automotive industry. The way that we prevent that is by continuously to innovate. We introduced our next generation product, which is Halo, which is about half the cost of our initial version, Iris. Not only is it cheaper, it's a lot smaller, integrates into the vehicle, et cetera. So, you know, we're taking proactive approaches to really, you know, bring the cost of our system down. However, what we're also trying to do is instead of just having the traditional OEM supplier relationship, where it's just transactional, bring us down to the price, let's talk about the value being created in the ecosystem. So our LiDAR, with those safety improvements, if you look at a 30% reduction in accident frequency and then a 40% reduction in accident severity, that can reduce your insurance cost by up to half. And so if you're spending $2,500 a year on insurance for a Volvo SUV, and you're able to reduce the insurance cost by a significant amount, well, that's gonna be, you know, multiple thousands of dollars over the life of the platform relative to our cost of the LiDAR. That's a good investment. If you're able to upgrade the consumer to L3 or other autonomous functionality, you know, that can be a lot of value that also resides to the automaker as well, from selling the consumer, either at the time he or she purchases the vehicle or any time over the cost of ownership, upselling them to autonomy. And so instead of looking at it as just the cost of a LiDAR, which can be expensive where it is today, but going down over time, looking at the safety improvements, the insurance savings, upselling the consumer autonomy, then it becomes, while a costly relatively costly addition, it actually becomes a very good investment, given all the different ways that you can kind of monetize the ecosystem that LiDAR can enable. Yeah. So what is the competitive landscape right now, I guess? You know, like when you bid for RFQs, you know, who do you run into? Yeah, and I would say that, you know, the competitive landscape is winnowing. I mean, there's been... I've lost track, you know, 10 or so LiDAR companies that have gone public over the last three or four years. We're now at the stage where if you haven't industrialized your product and have multiple wins, you know, that raises some question marks, and I think there's only a handful of companies that have been able to do that. You have to have the balance sheet and the technology roadmap to not only be around for the next several years, but to really bring the technology and your cost point to where it needs to be. And so when you look at all that, there are only, I would say, a small group of companies that meet that bill. I mean, I think out of China, you've had Hesai and RoboSense that have done that. Velodyne, we're seeing more, you know, out there because I would say they've done a good job of industrializing their technology. It's more at a 905 wavelength. And I think Velodyne is a company that's gonna be around, for a while as well. The other, I would say, new factor that has been introduced here, probably over the last few months, has been the geopolitical concerns, right? There's been some public headlines about, U.S. banning China LiDAR. If that happens, you know, how's China gonna react? And so I think everybody is looking at their supply chain and making sure that if these geopolitical winds continue to blow in that direction, you know, how can I continue to produce vehicles that will have LiDAR, that doesn't violate any of the laws out there? So I think that's also a new factor that's going in, where you take potential bans into account. How does that impact everything? And so I would say it's becoming more narrow. We're now at the point where automakers don't wanna look at PowerPoint presentations. They wanna look at real-life products, results, and then look at everybody's technology roadmap and make sure that, you know, it's gonna continue to evolve with their ongoing needs. ... Yeah. Let's dive a little bit more into the operational progress- Mm-hmm. -that you guys have made. And I mentioned in my opening remark that you recently commenced the start of production for the EX90. Can you tell us, you know, more about the ramp as it currently stands? Mm-hmm. You know, what kind of visibility do you have in terms of ramping up volume for the rest of this year? You know, that your Mexican facility is, you know, being brought online recently. You know, should we expect some sort of, you know, full utilization of that, you know, in the next, let's call it, you know, 12-18 months or so? Yeah, I think that's the right time frame here. I would say we're in the early stages of this ramp up. You know, particularly with new technology, the automakers tend to, you know, wanna keep volumes low initially, work out the kinks, and I think that's what you're seeing with Volvo. The initial SUVs, I think my understanding of what Volvo has said publicly, are expected to hit the showroom floors at the dealers later this summer. When you look at IHS, I think you're familiar with IHS, but for those that aren't, it's- Mm-hmm. It's a third-party forecaster, which I would say a lot of people use in the industry. You know, right now, I would say Q2, they're—what IHS is forecasting, it's not a material amount, and then it kind of ramps up for Q3 and Q4 of this year, around in that 15,000-unit, plus or minus range, and then really ramping up even higher there towards the, the middle, part of next year. The other thing for us is, you know, right now, Volvo's initially producing these things at their Charleston plant. The second plant that they're making, the EX90, is over in China, which is expected to come online later this year, and then shortly after that will be the Polestar 3, which we're also on as an option, not as standard for the time being. So I think that that is in the process of ramping up. You know, I think a little bit Q2, more Q3 and Q4, and then higher there next year as Polestar 3 and their China plant starts to ramp up from there. Yeah. Let's talk about your, your order book for a second. Mm-hmm. You have, I think you last updated $3.8 billion. You're also guiding to, you know, softly growing this order book this year. Mm-hmm. So I guess as we stand, you know, midway through the year, any sort of color you can provide us in terms of, you know, the growth trajectory for that for this year? Yeah, it's still gonna continue to grow. We haven't given any formal guidance yet. The reason for it is we've seen some headwinds recently in terms of automakers making decisions on what their, you know, the next wave of LiDARs or, you know, vehicles that they're gonna put LiDARs on. My personal opinion is there's two drivers for that. One is, with the slowdown in EVs, a lot of automakers are revisiting their future product planning cycle. How many EVs do they wanna make relative to hybrids or internal combustion engines? We are powertrain agnostic. We work on any vehicle type, whether it's EV, hybrid or internal combustion engines, but we need the automakers to make formal decisions on what that product cadence is gonna look like. They need to make that decision, then they'll, you know, decide what vehicles we're gonna put LiDAR on and, you know, ultimately decide the RFQs. And so that's been a little bit of a slowdown in the decision-making, and that's kind of why we've been not giving any formal guidance on what the order book growth is gonna look like. The other thing here, and we've seen this with Volvo, but we've seen this with almost everybody we're working with, is getting the software ready to fully unlock what the LiDAR is capable of. It's taking not only the automakers, but some of the technology providers, longer to do that. Now, once they do that, then it's very easy to replicate that autonomous system to other vehicles, but given that that's taking longer, that's also been a slowdown as well. So we will have order book growth this year, but I think what we wanna do is see some of, you know, the delays that those two things have been happening, you know, causing. We wanna see that a little bit more visibility into the timing of those decisions, before we start, you know, forecasting order book growth. But we are confident, this year that we will have order book growth, both from existing customers as well as new customers as well. Thanks for that. So, you know, just maybe go in, into that a little bit more. So, you know, higher autonomy is often talked in tandem with electric vehicles. Mm-hmm. But actually, as you mentioned, right, ADAS and autonomy can go either EV or ICE, you know? So do you think that for the industry as a whole, that, you know, eventually higher ADAS adoption might really have to go hand in hand with, like, EV adoption? And then do you see that sort of reflected in your existing order book? Yeah, I would say our order book today is probably a little overweighted to electric vehicles, and the reason for that is, less you need EV to enable autonomy or to fully unlock the LiDAR, my impression of why that is, is as the automakers were allocating their new technology dollars, they were allocating them more to the EV budget, particularly at the higher end, because you needed to compete against Tesla. And one of the ways that you wanted to do that was by putting as much new tech on those vehicles as you can. And so what we've seen is, I would say, an overweighting of LiDAR to those EV vehicles as a result. Now, some of our order book will be on every variant of a vehicle, whether that's an EV, HEV or internal combustion engine. So as more ICE engines are sold relative to EV, the order book will naturally weight itself there. Going forward, what we're seeing now in our conversation with customers is, as I mentioned before, the powertrain agnostic. They want to build the flexibility to sell vehicles in the near term, which I think are expected to be more hybrid and internal combustion engine-weighted, but still, at the same time, you know, continuing that longer-term investment in EVs, because I think that's how they kinda see the world continuing to move. And so as we're working with our automotive customers, it's gonna make sure that we can be on every variant that we have. But luckily, as I mentioned before, we're powertrain agnostic, and what we need is, you know, once you have the LiDAR and the software system that works, we can go on any vehicle that an automaker makes. ... So now that, you know, Volvo is in start of production, what's, what's sort of next? Right now, what we're working on is, as I said, ramping up with Volvo and ramping our costs down. Yeah. You know, we, I would say, spend almost all of our engineering resources up until recently, making sure that we're ready for Volvo SOP. We needed to make sure that we were ready to go, and we were able to make sensors at that volume and that quality, and that's something that we've proven that we can do. What we're focused on now is you know, bringing our costs down. You know, now that we've kind of reached SOP, we have a lot more credibility with our suppliers, so we're meeting with them and you know, I would say, looking at entering into longer-term strategic relationships, bringing the cost down. You know, we're going from really a startup company to, I wouldn't necessarily say a mature company yet, but a maturing company. We are in that high volume start of production now. We've reached that, and that gives us the credibility to go in and get, you know, better deals from our suppliers. And so that's what we're focused on now. You know, we're also looking at what are called in the industry VAVE, the value-added, value-engineered changes. So how can we kinda take cost out of our product through design changes, which don't materially impact the performance of the product? And so, what we're doing now, and I would say over the next few months, is really focusing on bringing our unit economics down to where they need to be, to reach, you know, profitability on a unit economics level. You know, in addition, we're focusing on, you know, Volvo's one of 20 coming over the next, you know, 3 ± years. Now, your first one's the toughest and, you know, the industrializing that first product gives you a lot of experience to do the next 19. They won't be as difficult as the first one, but, you know, there's still a fair amount of work that we need to do there. And as part of that, it's really bringing our next generation product, Halo, to the market, as soon as possible. And we've really moved up the timeline of that, and really having that, you know, ready to go with our initial customer in the second half of 2026. Yeah. So yes, you recently unveiled the Luminar Halo. Mm-hmm. I guess as we think about the composition of the order book, how fluid is it? Like, in terms of... You know, if I'm your, one of the customers- Yeah -that's in your current order book, and I'm looking at this product that's, you know, at a much less cost, would I want to wait for that, you know, to- Well, you know, I think we're now at the point now, and part of the reason we brought that up, you know, typically, anytime you win an initial customer, it's gonna take you three years from when you win it- Yeah ... to when it's ready to go. So if we're sitting here in the middle of 2024, any new piece of business that we win today with a new customer is likely gonna be ready to go sometimes in, you know, call it 2027- Yeah On average. Maybe a little bit sooner for certain OEMs, maybe a little bit later, but, you know, that general magnitude. Now that Halo is kind of ready to go on that time frame, there are some new customers we've been talking about, which we're gonna use Iris or a variant of Iris for a year or two before transitioning. It's now moving to the point of: How can I transition right to that one? You know, we didn't bring it here, but we have from one-on-ones. But when you kinda see the, you know, the size of that relative to Iris, when you look at the cost, the ability to more easily integrate it into the vehicle, it's, it's very clear what the new investors or new customers want. And it's kind of aligning naturally with that as well. Now, the question is, for the existing customers, how do we get them to Halo as fast as possible? And that's something we're working with each of our customers, you know, I would say, on a real time with. It's not as easy as just saying, "Okay, we're gonna switch over now." There's... You know, I'll give you an example with Volvo. You know, when you do switch over, one of the things that's important to them is make sure that the point cloud output- Mm-hmm ... is as equivalent as possible to Iris, because that allows them to put it in and minimizes the retraining, if any, that needs to be done with the software. And so while we can make the point cloud better, they're kinda like, "No." Like, "You know, if you make it better, it does everything we want to today, but, you know, we want to minimize the retraining of our software, 'cause that was very difficult to kind of build out initially, so we don't want to necessarily want to go back and, and retrain that." You know, in addition, you know, you got Iris is kind of designed to fit into the roof line. If you go with something smaller, you gotta change the roof line around that, et cetera. So you have to work with each automaker on a, on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis. You know, the natural point is when you have a platform, you know, the platform turnover, where one ends and the new one begins. That's the easiest point. Next easiest point is a mid-cycle refresh, which is another good entry point. And then the question is: Is there more creative stuff you can do in the near term? Because the best way to get, you know, the cost reduction that everybody wants from us is to let us beat us up on pricing for Iris, but to convert to the next generation as soon as possible. Yeah. I mean, you mentioned costs, right? How should we think about, I guess, gross margin for the rest of this year? Because, you know, now that you've successfully launched the EX90, you know, on one hand, your ASP will be lower- Mm-hmm ... because you're now moving to a series production type of pricing versus prototype before. Yeah. On the other hand, you're executing on cost, and then ramping up higher volume in the second half. So sort of like, how should we sort of view the balance there, and then I guess, what are the differences in pricing as you move into C? Yeah, and, and so I think that this is one of the things, and we talked about it on our last earnings call, is I would say over the next, you know, 2 to 3 quarters, what you're gonna see is some gross margin headwinds. Because we are going from, prototype pricing with Volvo to series production pricing, and so that is a lower ASP than what it's been historically. At the same time, while our costs are coming down, they're not coming down at the same pace. Mm. And so it's probably gonna take us, you know, to the middle of next year to start getting to- Yeah some of our cost targets, and I think in the meantime, that that's gonna produce some, some gross margin headwinds. You know, we've said historically that it's gonna take us kinda that first full year of series production to get to scale, work out the kinks, and, you know, get to our, our supply chain to where it needs to be in order to kinda see what those unit ec- some of those unit economic targets that we've talked about. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. So in your Q release, you know, you've indicated that, you know, Tesla was one of your top customers for the quarter. Anything to say to that regarding that relationship? Nothing really that I can add. You know, we needed to disclose that because they- Yeah ... were north of a 10% customer. I've said on the call that their sales have been lumpy, right? They haven't recurred every quarter, although, you know, and that wasn't the first time that they bought in to that. And, you know, look, they haven't shared with us specifically of what they're doing. It's nothing related to series production. It's not gonna be- Mm ... you know, recurring on a quarterly basis, and I can only speculate what they're using it for. So I, I really can't say anything in addition to what I said on the quarter when it, when it comes to that. Yeah. Okay. So from a industrialization perspective, it seems like you're opting for some of a different approach going forward, right? Maybe can you talk about that strategy there, your relationship with TPK? Yeah. You do have an existing relationship with them already, so how is that different? Yeah, we've had a relationship with TPK for over a year now. Yeah. There are. The initial relationship is they're our contract manufacturer over in Asia. One of the things is, as we spent the last four years industrializing our product, we realized, we stepped back, and we looked at ourselves and did an honest, honest assessment. What are the things that we're good at, and we do better than our partners? And what are, what are some of the things that, quite frankly, we, we, we could have done a better job at, and some of our partners can, can do a better job than us at that? Mm-hmm. One of the things we did once we formally started production was take the first step in outsourcing more of the industrialization functions to some of our partners, you know, of which TPK is one. And that could be everything from, you know, I'll give you an example. We did prototype manufacturing in our Orlando manufacturing facility. I think we're gonna be, you know, transitioning most of that to TPK. A lot of the supply chain or quality management of our suppliers, we did a lot of that ourselves. I think we're gonna be outsourcing more of that to TPK. A lot of the design validation testing, you know, a lot of that we did ourselves, we're gonna be outsourcing more of that. And so a lot of those industrialization activities, we're gonna be outsourcing it. You know, I would say the core engineering, the core product development, the core R&D, that's something that we're gonna continue to do and will do in the foreseeable future. But this will allow us, we believe, to move faster, more efficiently, and more cost-effectively. And part of the reason why we were able to bring the Halo product development timeline in further and accelerated is because we are, you know, A, we learned a lot from industrializing Iris, and thus, we think we can do it a lot faster the second time. But because we're relying more on our partners, we think that that's gonna give us the ability to move faster as well. Yeah. What is the current status of partnership with Mobileye, NVIDIA, Qualcomm, and all? Yeah. I mean, look, we're all moving forward with them on a variety of projects- Yeah ... right? You know, the Polestar win we had with, Yeah ... Polestar 4 win we had- Mm-hmm ... that is actually off. It's a little bit different than Polestar 3. Polestar 3 was off a Volvo platform, the same one that they're using EX90 for. Polestar 4 is off a Zeekr platform, where they're actually using, you know, Mobileye to do a lot of the software. So we're working real time on that. You know, NVIDIA, we're continuing to work real time on the Mercedes as a, as a joint customer together. So, you know, right now, I would say the relationship with those continues to move forward, and we're neck-deep, working together on execution to jointly serve our customers. Yeah. Maybe talk about the role of AI in the Luminar LiDARs. Mm-hmm. I think you had touched this during your Investor Day. You know, you have a partnership with, you know, Applied Intuition, for instance. Mm-hmm. What is the goal there? And, you know, how are you looking to leverage AI? Yeah. So, you know, what we're doing in-house with AI is really on our software side, trying to take what we call our Proactive Safety software to the next level. So, you know, some people call it geometric-based or rules-based perception software is. And probably, if you just looked outside in the street of, Mm-hmm ...... Manhattan, that's probably a good example. The way that a lot of the rules work today, particularly with our LiDAR, is our LiDAR is kind of measuring the objects in front of you. And ultimately, what you wanna do to build your collision avoidance software is, if my vehicle is on a collision path with the path of an object that I don't wanna hit, then I need to either stop the car or change its course, right? That is ultimately the problem that you're trying to solve. Now, if you're on a highway, and you're having a car that's kind of moving straight, and you know, you're looking at a vehicle, the path of that vehicle tends to be predictable. If it's driving on a highway, it's probably gonna stay between the two white lines- Mm ... and it's gonna move at, you know, forward at the velocity that it has. Where things get a little bit more tricky is when you have a more complicated environment with more unpredictable objects, right? And probably the streets of Manhattan are the perfect case study of that, where you have, particularly when you start introducing people that are, like, crossing the streets or walking in Manhattan, those tend to become unpredictable, and a lot of the rule-based predictive algorithms go out of way. And so one of the things that we're doing is kind of building AI into it to do a better job of predicting the path of objects to make your collision avoidance systems, I would say better, right? As opposed, instead of assuming things are gonna continue to move in a linear fashion, adding more, I would say, predictability, and using AI-based algorithms. So that's one example. I would say the more advanced example, and this is part of what we're doing with Applied, is one of the areas that I would say a lot of the software providing is with sensor fusion. A lot of ADAS systems that are built today are built off camera, and what you're doing is you're kind of appending the LiDAR onto that, and you're taking the output of that sensor, and then you have to fuse it with the other sensors. Mm. If all the sensors agree, then you really don't have an issue. Where you have the issue and what you need to figure out is, when the sensors don't agree, which one do you believe? One of the ways you do it is you just drive the vehicles around, identify the scenarios where the sensors don't agree, and then kind of tell the system which sensor to believe in certain scenarios. That is a very, I would say, burdensome and time-consuming way to build your sensor algorithm. What we're doing with Applied, and the other way to approach it, is instead of appending it on there and kinda driving around and doing, you know, figuring out the tiebreaker for each scenario, is you drive it around, and then you have an AI algorithm that kinda does the sensor fusion naturally. And there, you're kind of starting more from scratch, as opposed to appending it to a pre-existing code. And so I would say that that's another example of where we're using AI to do the software in a different approach, and partnering with some, you know, I would say, newer companies like Applied to do that together. Yeah. So we do have a couple of minutes left. Wanna see if there's any questions from the audience? Yes? Oh. Thanks for the presentation, and just a quick comment. I think, you know, if you think about safety, Volvo, you know, it doesn't get too much more of a brand than that to be tied up with, so I think that's great. I had a quick asking question for clarification, and then one question just for you to opine on. One, when you said that you were running the simulations, that I think it reduced the accidents by 30%, or was it 30% of the accidents? If you could just repeat. Yeah, so I think the exact number was 28%, 27, sorry, 27%. And so that's not relative to the average car. What they did, I'll go through. So, and I'm happy to go through. Swiss Re took the 15, looked at the 15 global OEMs and took the safest car of each of them. And then what they did is they ran through a series of over 35 tests, which, based on their experience, you know, caused the most accidents. And then they did it with the cars that are on the road today, and they took a vehicle equipped with our LiDAR, and relative to the best car that they tested of the 15, there were 27% fewer accidents in those scenarios where they tested. And then, the severity was reduced by close to 48 - 40%. Okay, and so, you know, they published a blog with all this, and we can send you the exact stats and everything. But it's... Yeah, so the way to think about it, relative to the best car, nearly 30% fewer accidents, and then, you know, approximately 40% for the accidents you don't avoid, fewer severity because you're just hitting it at a lower speed. That's really powerful. Do I have time for- Yeah ... quick, quick questions? Of course. Okay. Just, you mentioned a little bit the, you know, kind of fear around China and maybe like a little tit for tat, trade war there. I think you guys are building on a second facility in China, has really great efficiencies, but you're also working in a plant in Mexico. Could you just maybe take us through kinda how you're hedging against that risk, you know, a potential trade war- Yeah ... and kinda what the exposure is for the company? Yeah. So, you know, one of the things we're doing is exactly as you said, which is we wanna have a plant in China and a plant in Mexico. Mexico will, you know, plant in China to serve the China, maybe other select Asian markets, a plant in Mexico to serve North America, and, you know, the rest of the world. So that's one way we can do it. Where it starts to get a little trickier for us is if they start banning, you know, Chinese LiDARs made in China, but, you know, anything American related to it in there. I think that that's something that we're looking at. Are there, you know, clever, you know, strategic things we could do, whether they're joint ventures or something like that, to mitigate it? It's tough to really think about what that is until you see, you know, what the final rules are. You know, the other thing that we're doing is really looking at our supply chain as well, and really taking this to the next level, which is, does it just stop at lidar, but are there other sensitive components? And so we're also looking at our supply base and making sure that for each of our suppliers, we have a China and a non-China solution in case the world continues to move, at least in my opinion, this, you know, in the wrong direction. You know, one of the questions we get is, now that we did expand our relationship with TPK to rely more on the industrialization side, does that introduce more risk to us? And we purposely structured that deal so that if, you know, God forbid, we need to, you know, it limits our ability to operate in China, TPK is a global company. They do have operations outside of China, and we have the ability to kind of pivot to, I would say, jurisdictions that we don't believe are gonna be, you know, impacted by, you know, China bans or, or whatever bans that we need to see. So it's something we're monitoring. Has it had a direct impact on our business today? Not necessarily. But what I would say is, it has the focus of our automotive customers, which means it has the focus of us, and we're just trying to build the flexibility into our business model. We don't know which way the world's gonna go. We're engineers, we're not, you know, diplomats or, you know, statesmen, but we just need to be prepared. Perfect. It's always a pleasure. Thank you so much. Thank you, Winnie. Good to see you again.