Okay, hello everybody. Thanks for joining us this morning in our fireside chat with Nick Kormoluk at Magnite. You know, Nick, your title is a unique title. You're Head of Investor Relations and Real Estate. I think everybody knows you as Mr. Magnite. Before we dig into it, tell us about this real estate empire that's falling apart while we do this conversation. What do you manage there? Yeah, so you know, it's not as glamorous as it might seem. I'm in charge of where we have and where we operate all of our global offices. Whenever there's a time that we either do acquisitions and need to shed space or sublease space or find new space or grow into new space, I'm the one that makes the decisions. I think that Michael and David were very, very keen to put me in that role. I'm generally good with people and kind of managing people's expectations. They also know that I'll never screw things up, meaning that I'll never get a real estate space or an office that causes expenses to run too high. It's a kind of a self-correcting circular reference. It's pretty easy to sign leases that I put in place because it creates very attractive space for investors to come and visit, as well as our employees to work at. It's never going to break the bank and never going to create a P&L or a margin hit that nobody on the street likes to see. All kidding aside, our offices are in the largest global financial centers. You think about London, you think about Sydney, you think about Paris, you think about New York, you think about L.A., San Francisco. It's in many of the places in the world where large marketers are based, as well as investors are based. Anytime I go out to help find office space or renew leases, et cetera, I also go and meet with investors. There's a lot of synergy with my travel. It's usually dual purpose from that regard. Okay, all right. Thanks for answering that question that I've had really since I met you. I appreciate that. Just to level set here, I cover Magnite. It's actually my top pick on our top picks list for the firm. I have a $30 million price target, elevated from where the stock is currently trading, predicated a lot on our optimism that there is a good argument for some good things to come to these guys out of the Google antitrust remedies process that'll be kicking into high gear here in September with the trial and hopefully a decision shortly after that. Leaving that aside for the moment, we'll talk about the antitrust here at the end. Nick, what would you say is the investment case for Magnite? What is it? Why should investors be interested right here? Yeah, no, it's a pretty compelling story that, you know, the macro and the overall ad environment has not been a massively positive one in the last kind of two to three years or so. That environment's actually been very healthy to us. We've been kind of slogging through that environment and putting up respectable growth numbers, not phenomenal growth numbers, but, you know, good growth numbers. On, you know, 10%+ revenue growth, we've been able to grow EBITDA 15% and free cash flow 20%, you know, in each of the last, you know, this year for kind of what we guided, as well as the last couple of years. Being in that position, I think people are being paid to wait. What we've demonstrated is in both sides of the business, CTV as well as in the non-CTV pieces of the business, the profile, both the growth profile and the margin profile of those businesses are getting better and improving. I think you're seeing a momentum, at least from press releases we've been putting out and a little bit of pickup that has started in the revenue lines in both businesses. You're starting to see an acceleration and a pickup of the growth rate that's directly attributable to some of these new wins that we've put on the board. We can talk about kind of each of those businesses separately. I think there really is, you know, there really is scale and advantage and being a trusted partner and monetizing for people that now, you know, previously thought walled gardens who only transacted their inventory on a first-party basis are now hiring us to do so. I think that's a change in philosophy. You've seen a lot of that momentum take place. We are inside the walled gardens in CTV. We've even won business with folks like an NBC and an Amazon for their owned inventory that we never thought would happen since they have fully integrated stacks. They've come to us to also be able to assist in that. The wins that we've put on the Board and the complexity with some of these have happened and our role that we've been asked to play, I think, has even surprised us a little bit. The momentum continues. I don't think we're done making announcements. We're definitely not done ramping the customers that we've announced already. Some are starting to contribute. Others are yet to contribute. It's a pretty exciting time. I think there's better growth ahead for both sides of the business. Okay. Just stepping back here for a little bit, I mean, Magnite's credited with being the second largest SSP with about a 6% share after Google with 60%, but ahead of publicly traded peer PubMatic with about 4%. What has Magnite done well to achieve this prominent share position in this market that Google's been monopolizing? Yeah, I think it's a lot of different things. There's not one lever that you pull and all of a sudden daily spend goes up, you know, $500,000 or $1 million a day. It's a lot of little things. Some of it's on the product side. We continue to invest in the product side from other formats and other inventory sources and how people bid across different device types and different formats. Some of it's been that. Some of it's been our wins. In the past, I would have told you in DV+ that a win in DV+, for those of you that aren't as familiar, DV+ is non-CTV, is how we describe it. In that side of the business, if we won a publisher historically, then there was nothing really to get excited about. If we won a publisher and they used header bidding and they used many other SSPs, what happened is we would get our 6% share and another public competitor would get their 4% share and Google would get their 60% share. Even that one publisher, we didn't know if the demand coming through Google and The Trade Desk and Amazon and Mountain and others, if it was incremental demand or it was simply coming from one publisher and flowing into the new publisher that we signed. It was kind of a yawn when we'd sign a new publisher on the DV+ side of the business. The reason that's different now is a lot of these wins, especially in the commerce media space that we've put on the board, are exclusive. These deals now are not our 5% or 6% share. It's a 100% share. They're premium publishers. If you think of this, you think about an X, a United Airlines, a Western Union, a Pinterest, a Redfin, a REMAX, a FanDuel. There's a lot of these players that all of a sudden now they matter. The demand that comes through isn't the same old DSP dollars. There's incremental dollars coming into the ecosystem that we never touched before. That's why I think that growth rate is really starting to inflect and they're choosing one partner. Why one partner all of a sudden? Why are they not as promiscuous as they used to, as other partners used to be, you know, two, three years ago? What they've seen in connected TV is a heavy guarding of user IDs, meaning they don't want the buyer to get that user ID, build an ID graph off of there, and then never buy on their property again. If you found out Barton's email address and you were, you know, you were a Netflix viewer, you could buy off property and never send another dollar to Netflix, buy inventory, buy you as a potential, you know, customer much, much cheaper than $50 on Stranger Things. You could get you for $8 on LG or, you know, Tubi or Pluto, or even buy you in open internet. The role that we play in guarding IDs is now a similar role that these walled gardens want us to play on the open internet. That's why they're not willing to share with everybody. They want one strong monetization, strong trusted partner to be able to monetize for them and also guard and protect against their IDs leaking out to the buy side. That's a little bit of the reason for the change of how the industry's embraced SSPs differently. I think the other important point on CTV that I'll just call out is the market is much less fragmented. Today, most of our CTV partners think of themselves as walled gardens. We tend to think of them as hedged gardens. There are 30 partners that represent 80% of the world's inventory, and we work with all of them except for YouTube. They now have already worked with us. The buy side, when you move to the SMB market, is exploding. There are tens and thousands of new buyers that are coming in. That'll come through a variety of DSPs. Even the DSPs that come in, we are the access point for the publisher to manage all of them. Most of them are running any biddable inventory that they do through private marketplaces. You don't need two SSPs to run your ad stack, your complex rules, be your ad server, as well as manage a certain amount of finite demand and not just open unlimited demand as you're running auctions for your inventory. The other thing that we do is we provide the full ad operations, including ad serving and all the complexities, and not just a bid and not just, you know, getting paid by winning a bid. Okay, all right. Now we'll drill into some of that a little bit more here. Just stepping back again on, you know, one of the things that I find interesting about your sector is that there are all these kind of secular trends that seem positive, right? There's this secular trend of people watching more streaming television versus linear. That seems to be a tailwind for connected TV. There seems to be a tailwind behind programmatic, people wanting to get more kind of targeted. What would you describe as your level of exposure and your level of growth in those kind of secular growth areas like CTV and programmatic? Very high. Programmatic was not seen as being kind of mainstream or the preferred monetization path up until two, three years ago. Even in open internet or even in DV+ it probably gained its prominence to really touch and sell premium inventory three, four years ago. That's now moving to CTV and we're in the right place at the right time. Remember, not too long ago in connected TV, the largest two players where streaming was viewed never even had ads. Instead, it was against their religion almost to run ads, which is Disney+ and Netflix, which have now massively embraced, first of all, connected TV, now moving more and more towards programmatic. That's the way that they prefer transacting because it's the most economic path to unlock the next $10 billion, $20 billion, $30 billion of spend, which is going to come from small and medium businesses. Live sports is one of those other factors that's still in the front view mirror where we've got a lot of space in front of us. A lot of that has been very prized inventory that salespeople have sold and really tried to hold on to it. Now that is starting to open up with the people that are owning sports rights. They really want to use programmatic to squeeze every revenue dollar out of that, not just use it as an offset for subscription fees or customer retention. Okay, all right. Now we'll go more to that also in just a minute. Just to level set here, what would you say is your percentage of revenues at this point from CTV? Last quarter was 44% CTV. It was 39% mobile and the remainder was desktop. Just to remind folks, our 44% that was CTV, that is only large screen, large format TV. So 55 in glass in your living room is what that's defined by IAB standards. We do have a significant amount that runs through that mobile and desktop channel that is streaming on mobile or streaming on desktop. That CTV number or that streaming TV number, if you include OTT, would be even higher. Okay. Your CTV is growing, I think, in share, right? What would be some sense of the relative growth for that versus your overall business? Yeah, the share, you know, our share growth in CTV is, you know, we were probably post-acquisition four years ago at about, you know, a mid-teens market share. That number's migrated in the programmatic side to probably mid-20s. We've said that, you know, there's no reason that shouldn't grow 30%, 35% and higher. We feel really good about where we're positioned, the wins that we've had, some of the new ramping partners that are very, very early days as a percentage of mix in the market. We've got the largest growth players as our largest customers. Yeah. Now, just on the other side, there's a lot of concern now about websites. I think you kind of alluded to this, but the notion of declining click-through rates because of the embrace of large language models by Google and others. What's your exposure to that behavior and how do you see that evolving? Yeah, no, it's clearly been something that started back in the fourth quarter. It's a very clear, observable trend that search traffic is being diminished by AI-powered search, right? There's no question. That generally would manifest itself in mobile web as well as in traditional desktop business. I would say that affects lower quality publishers in the ecosystem, right? People that are really search dependent. If you look at a part of our DV+ business, what I mentioned is a lot of that is all, or a good portion of that, it also includes streaming on those devices. Those are logged in users. If you think about our mobile business, well north of half of that business is mobile app, right? Which is completely unaffected. People are going to an app, either a travel app or a news app or a content or audio or video or other content that they're directly going to in-app. In-app really isn't affected by search trend. Long tail, we think, does consolidate. We think long tail might become the dead tail. I think the number of publishers that really survive, they're going to have to reinvent themselves. I'm not sure if getting some fees for scraping their sites is going to be the savior to be able to save them and kind of change their monetization path. Today, if you step back and we use some of the stats we apply to some of the Google math that we do for people, we take in trillion and a half numbers that we kind of laugh, formally reported. I'm sure there's some days where we're at 2 trillion ad requests that we receive from publishers a day. We throw out 70% of that every single day. Think about long tail. That is the long tail. We immediately cut out 70% of all inventory as a long tail that never even sees the light of day of an auction that we take to market. In those auctions that we do take to market, it's not like our win rates in those auctions are 50% or 60% or 70%. You even have a massive amount of that inventory that is out of that 30% that is not monetizing inventory that we're not generating revenue from. I would say that we are fairly insulated from that perspective. I think that there is a future in which the gold rush in AI does change and subscription is the easy button. When something's hot and something's new, when everybody wants it and everybody's chasing subscription dollars right now, I do think it may not be in 2026, 2027, or even 2028, but I do think there's a point in time that a lot of the AI players together, either with browser or stand-up through app or on their own, do use advertising as a monetization vehicle for monetizing what they're doing in AI-related search. That may be a point in time. In the meantime, what we do is we believe the more premium publishers with user IDs that have good data against them that aren't seeing that decline, there's a move to inventory quality. One of the big things that's happened and the reason people buy long tail is it's been cheap and it's a way to show that you're buying at relatively lower CPMs by averaging that out in your overall campaign buy. You're probably removing what your CPM criteria are by buying further up ad quality if you're getting the performance that you're looking for. That's at least what we're observing to date. There's no reason to think that would change. The trend of lowering search traffic is absolutely honest and something that is very visible. You've seen our DV+ growth rates and they've been doing nothing but inflecting during that same kind of three, four quarters that we've experienced those trends. Okay. Now I want to pause here for a second. If people want to put questions into this conversation, there is a chat function. I should be able to see the questions here on the screen as they come through. I can try and work them into the conversation if you'd like us to cover some things here. Turning to SpringServe, tell us a little bit about what this is, why it's important to you, and how it's differentiated in the market. It's really table stakes of what you need to really be the true ad operations for a streamer, a TV OEM, a virtual MVPD, or a broadcaster looking to run their ad operation. The value that we bring in connected TV to a partner is overall yield management and optimization, following all the complex CTV rules and getting the best type of inventory sold to the best parties and configuring it quickly and doing it at scale to the broadest set of approved buyers. That is really, really hard to do. If you don't have an ad server and you haven't put those two pieces together, meaning the ad server and your supply-side platform into one, first of all, you've got great inefficiency and you've got multiple vendors and partners that you have to manage and multiple interfaces to go to to do similar and combined work. First of all, you log into the new SpringServe platform that went to general availability. You have one interface and you see all the tools and all the different services that Magnite offers in one platform and one interface versus going to two separate systems. That's the first advantage you have. You then can have an advantage of when you'd like to get a call. Do you want to get it early from the ad server? Do you want to get it from the streaming platform? Do you want that to happen to you multiple times? Do you want it both times? To us, we're indifferent, but you can actually reduce your overall cost. We can reduce our cost of sending that ad call to a buyer once versus twice. There's an efficiency there. If you still want to see it twice, some publishers want us to send it multiple times for different price floors. Start at a high price floor, if you have no takers, wind that thing down, and then send it off again and see if you get a bid on it. There's a variety of reasons why you might want that to happen. Really, it's streamlining your operations. It also becomes more sticky. If you're on one platform, you're less apt to go out there and say, "Hey, I'm going to go look at different ad serving platforms and different exchanges." It really makes your workload and your life easier. It makes the product more sticky. That's not to say it hasn't been sticky already because since we made our first announcement entering into the CTV space, we've not lost a single customer. Over that time, our crossover of customers between streaming and ad serving, after picking up the SpringServe acquisition, our crossover is 75%+ where both customers use both sides of the house. That also made it really, really obvious and easy to say if we've got that much customer crossover and we've done so well at cross-selling each, it makes sense to simplify and ease the platform for them. Okay. All right. That's been an important part. Now, is this a lower margin business for you? How do you guys kind of manage that implication? No, I would say now SpringServe is the brand name for our entire platform, right? Now it's just one. Ad serving is a lower take rate business, but make no mistake, lower take rate does not mean lower margin. We are priced extremely efficiently there. Not only do we want to go to market as we're in this market share up for grabs, tying up largest customers out there, we want to be best tech, best performance, best monetization, and best price. We deliver on all those to make it a no-brainer. You see that in our win rate. There's not a big chunk of business that's gone out and that we've not won as it's been up for grabs. We feel really, really good about our position. You see our margin profile. It's not like we're pricing at a point where we turn to investors and say, "Hey, just wait for it. At some point, we'll make money in this business." CTV is a very, very good margin business even at lower take rates across our rate card. Okay. All right. That's an important thing. Now, let's talk for a minute about your, I think it's ClearLine, your direct kind of initiative and this idea of, you know, does this open the kimono for DSPs and SSPs to be more competitive with each other where before you were more kind of complements? What do you see happening there? I mean, how does, you know, is this something that is a change in the nature of what's happening in the marketplace? What does it mean for you guys? You know, the supply path optimization. I think these are at the edges that you've got different use cases and dollars that are very sensitive to price that want an execution path, especially if there's not additional work done. In connected TV, which is really where ClearLine is pointed, if there's a programmatic guaranteed deal out in the market, and the buyer, publisher, and the buyer are arranging the price and sale or the agency is involved in negotiating the volume and the price of that inventory, and then Magnite's executing it, why do you need to pay a full-fledged, fully functioning DSP for your checking account at a 20% take rate? It's like paying your bank 20% for every transaction you're doing. You probably would find a more economic path for it. To the extent that you're doing fully decision programmatic, it makes sense to use your DSP. If you're doing it in a PG world or even in a private marketplace world where most of that is predetermined and the DSP is not bringing the same value that they bring in open biddable, there should be different economics there. ClearLine provides that solution. The way to think about ClearLine is a lot of these buyer marketplaces that we set up. We set buyer marketplaces either individually for a publisher. Think of it as like a Roku or Warner Brothers Neo. Or you think about it from an agency perspective, the marketplaces that we stand up across lots of different inventory, like we do for a WPP Media or a Dentsu or Horizon. In those paths, every one of those marketplaces has asked us to include ClearLine as the way in which to be able to transact that inventory. The reason for that is a Roku and a Warner, they would prefer brands come to them directly because if you're buying on your DSP and a brand's buying through a DSP, you enter your criteria. You're looking for people like Barton and Nick. You don't know which deal IDs you get. You don't know what inventory you're buying. You know that your spend was committed and you hit your price thresholds and you reached the users that you wanted. You don't have control to say, "I want to buy on Roku. I want to buy on Warner specifically." What happens is you just get deal ID shared with you and you really want to do that directly. Roku and Warner are interested in doing that. The agency is saying, "Hey, if you want to pick Disney and Netflix, we have it available for you. You can choose just those two. You can choose everything. You can deselect or select the ones that you want." What happens at the end of that transaction process in their marketplaces is you go through, find what you want, buy what you want. While you're exiting, you choose your payment method. Your payment method is either your Amazon DSP, your Trade Desk DSP, your Google DSP, or your Magnite ClearLine path. Effectively, you choose which way you're going to actually deploy your spend and how you're going to pay for the inventory that you just selected. That's what these marketplaces are. That's how ClearLine is a very, very easy choice depending on the level of service that you're requiring in order to make that work. Okay. I want to ask a couple of quick questions about the marketplace right now. Then we'll talk a bit about Google antitrust. I'll work on some of the questions. We've got at least one in here that I want to work in. In terms of the current market conditions, you guys at the high end, you guided for the third quarter kind of contribution ex-tac growth of around 10% consistent with what you did in the second quarter. You've got maybe a little bit of a political comp, so arguably ex-political, it's a bit of a couple of points of strengthening. You've kind of brought back the full-year guidance that you had for contribution ex-tac growth over 10% this year and ex-political mid-teens. It feels like you're seeing an okay marketplace out there despite all the noise. Is that correct? Yeah, I would say the marketplace is still okay, way better than feared, but it's just okay. Some of the reasons for the inflection in growth are some of our kind of unique deals and partnerships we've announced that are additive at any level. Could they be more additive if the market was stronger? Yes. I think it's more things in our sights. The overall market has been, again, better than it was feared. We're definitely not off to the races in what we've seen in the market thus far and it still leaves us a bit cautious in what we put out there. A bit cautious, you know, okay. That's certainly a little bit of a different story than what we've heard from one of the other, you know, the other SSP that's publicly traded, PubMatic, you know, on their second quarter call talked about an issue with a DSP that was unnamed that was making some changes that was, you know, a meaningful kind of negative inflection in their revenue trajectory, at least in the near term as they work through this. That follows a year where they've had a DSP client that had, you know, transitioned from, I guess, a second auction to a first auction, which seemed to, you know, hit them by, you know, 15% or so. What are you seeing, you know, they talk about these as industry-wide changes by major DSPs. Are you guys seeing this? Is this impacting you? The same DSPs made the same changes, and no impact to us. Okay, how could that be different? It depends on how you're signaling first or second price auction. If you were signaling in the same way in the auctions prior to the change, it would have no impact on you. I know in this latest change, we had heard from the DSP was Trade Desk that they were making some changes in how they were looking at direct inventory versus indirect inventory. When we talked earlier about kind of AI-powered search trends and that affects more of the long tail, and not that certain publishers are not good versus good or the top tier publishers, the largest publishers are any better than others. In the top tier customers, they all have direct relationships with you because they have scale, they have size, and they have their own internal teams to be able to create APIs and manage them to different SSPs. If your general customer set tends to be longer tail, and there's a reason to be there, you generally get higher take rates from longer tail inventory. In some cases, those smaller players just don't have size and scale. They have to kind of partner and get together in order for them to be able to have resources by which they can sell their inventory. In some cases, that looks like an ad network, right? You have a handful of guys that are together. Then it looks like it's multi-hop inventory or indirect inventory where there's one party involved and there's a second party stacked on top, which is the SSP. What Trade Desk change says is, "Hey, we're only doing and buying and transacting in direct sold inventory versus this indirect inventory." I think that's the other change that's being made. It's just not a big part of our business. We tend to work with more of the premium pubs that are all direct relationships. I think that's really the latest one that, again, we heard from them earlier in the year that they were making these same changes. It's not something that's affecting or disrupting us. I think overall, as I talked about, there is a higher, there's a tendency to move towards higher quality publisher inventory with what's happening in AI-powered search trends as well. I like where our position is. I think this DSP issue, as well as AI-powered search trends, puts us in a pretty good part of the ecosystem from where we are and how we're positioned at DV+. That's also the addition of these new partners. They're all super premium, previously determined to be walled gardens that are now striking direct relationships and exclusive relationships. That's also helpful and additive to what our growth rate is relative to industry. We're pleased that this is driving share gains for Magnite during this time. Okay. All right. Now I want to switch to a little bit about Google antitrust. I'll work in one of the questions that we got over the transom. We're looking for the remedies trial. Google is found to have violated antitrust law in ad tech following finding that they had violated antitrust in search. The ad tech trial about remedies is going to start on September 22, 2023. The question that I have here is, can Google start to bleed share prior to remedies, prior to the ruling, and just give a little bit of explanation like why would that or why would that not happen? We've seen none of that. Remember, the linchpin in the monopoly is the ad server. There's nearly 100% market share that Google has on the ad server. When we quote 60%, that's in the SSP. As an ad server, publishers use Google, and by using Google, Google's able to control how much market share they have. They're able to control essentially what take rates they have without a publisher having any choice. Google hasn't started not renewing ad serving relationships or changing economics or changing behaviors at the moment. I think part of that is Google still doesn't know on structural remedies whether this is an asset they're going to own or not own. They're heavily, heavily motivated to preserve the best economics they can, especially if they have to sell these assets, right? If you show a massively declining business from a revenue perspective in advance, you're not going to get top dollar for moving these assets or spinning these assets in any particular way. I think that's the challenge. We've seen no behaviors today. We are very clear that some of the market share movements that we've seen are related to customers and some product work. I would say that if this was Google market share that was starting to shake loose, you'd see it not just with us, but you'd see it in the other public peer and seeing numbers really start to inflect or starting to turn up if there was any Google benefit that was coming in the market. You've not seen that from us or from our other public peer. Okay, to just push back a little bit on that, the Google network line that they report publicly has been flat to down a little bit. Certainly, well underperforming you guys. I think in general, your peer set to the extent we see their numbers, wouldn't that be in some way tied to antitrust? Or is there something else that's driving that? No. I mean, with their size being 10x our market share, it's still not enough to move the needle. Truly, if the market was becoming more fair and some of these practices were changing, you're talking about a lot more movement than us going from a 4% or 5% growth rate to a 6%- 8% growth rate. That type of move just doesn't make sense from how fair or open the market or the ecosystem would be transacting. We've not seen, and some of these practices, like, again, have we seen Google's DSP all of a sudden stop buying from us intra-quarter like they used to? Yeah, we probably haven't seen that happen where they just shut down the top line from all others at a point in time because that's probably the most egregious one. That's probably not the biggest market share driver. It really has to do with the rules. Nothing has changed from when we're seeing auctions, what win rates we're seeing in Google traffic and inventory. None of that has changed. That's where you would start to see it even incrementally in your market, in your win points. We're just seeing our growth coming from new publishers. We can deterministically be able to connect those dots or new formats that we launch. Some of these are $10,000 in spend a day. Some of these are $30,000 in spend a day. We can tie it directly to others as opposed to our general auction rates going up. Okay. You guys have spoken about an opportunity for potentially $50 million of incremental revenue for each percentage point of share shift and at a very high contribution margin. You guys are at a 6% share right now. Google is like 60% roughly. How much share do you believe, if we actually got behavioral remedies that are effective, how much share do you believe could shift to Magnite? A lot. The way to think about the behaviors that they've put in place to support market share, it's not just one item. It's not just sending the auction out to people. It's not just sharing data on the price floor. It's not sharing the clearing price. It's not DV360 giving away some free YouTube credits if you buy on their DSP. It's not just the AdWords data benefit buying for a public. It's all of those things. Think about a pool net, right? If you take out like a pool safety net that's kind of holding their share up and propping their share up, if you take out one of the ropes, the baby's still not going to fall into the water, right? You're still supportive enough that all these things together and combined are holding things together. That's why getting rid of Last Look two years ago didn't do anything to shake out market share movement because the other factors were still all in place. It was probably the easiest one for them to remove. I think it's very, very hard to say how and when the share will move. We can't be as prescriptive as we are to what one market share point means. It's easy to do to start with total ad spend, look at what our, you know, take rates are, look at, you know, how much, you know, how much market share we have versus them. It's pretty easy to get to the 1% equals $50 million in revenue ex-tack. Understanding what the judge says after the Remini hearings conclude and the judge rinkham rules, knowing what all the behaviors are is helpful. Knowing the timing of when those behavior changes will take place is also helpful. It's massively helpful that the judge said, "We are not treating both of those separately," which has informed us and given us confidence to say that behavioral remedies are very, very likely to start going in. Even if appealed, which we almost guarantee will be appealed, will start to take place next year. The amount of changes, the pacing of those changes, we're waiting to hear just like everybody else is when those might take place. To your original question, if the judge is successful at truly making a more fair and open marketplace, there will be meaningful share that moves. It depends on are they and will they be successful. What other countermeasures would Google try to take to try to protect share? We're not, you know, we're not naive in thinking that they'll try to do as much to protect this as they can. I think the judge is committed not just to rule that a few things need to happen, split the baby, and then there's still a safety net in place that protects Google to a large degree. There is high intent to truly make it an open and fair marketplace, which I think as the proof point of that happening is publicly reported companies like us and like our peer who you would see the share shift happening. You would see truly the market opening up. That's the evidence that actually shows that there is a fair and open operating marketplace versus any other fact and any other stat that can be shown to the market is that. I think the judge, the DOJ, even Google, you could argue may have some incentive to show that they're playing fair sooner if they don't, if they want to win an appeal potentially on structural remedies and not have to spin off the assets. Could they also be aligned to show that and get out of the front page news and be on back page news where people care less about it and they've actually shown that they're operating a fair ecosystem? Okay. All right. We've just got a couple of minutes left here. One of the things that's related to antitrust, there's this share shift opportunity. The way we thought about it is if you're 6% share now, you're maybe 15% share in the ex-Google market and in a fair market, maybe that could be your total share. That would be theoretically nine points of potential times $50 million at some point in the future with a big discount rate for being wrong. That gives us $10 of our price target. We have another $10 of our price target and the idea that that also gives you guys grounds potentially to pursue civil litigation, which would be a little bit longer term, but happens in antitrust outcomes like this. How are you guys thinking about that potential? What is your thought process at this point? Yeah, doing a lot of work there. I think you heard at least a change in our commentary around that this quarter on our earnings call. We said that in order for us to be able to be awarded civil damages, it's an action that we would have to bring separately from the actions that are in place now. We believe, without saying more, we believe that there is a lot of merit to bringing an action. I'd probably leave it there, but it's very, very compelling. I think a lot of people are doing very good math at trying to understand what that could look like. There are certain timing windows that make a lot of sense and make more sense. There are obviously venues that are more supportive or less supportive of doing that. We're kind of doing that work right now and more to come on that front. All right. I think we just got a couple of minutes left here. Nick, if you could just kind of wrap up, if you were to leave people with the closing kind of thought here, what is it that's interesting about Magnite across everything, your fundamentals, Google, everything you're doing? What is it that you guys are doing that's interesting and why should investors be thinking about Magnite right now? Yeah, I think there's, you know, you probably hear a lot of excitement in my voice. You heard a lot of excitement in Michael's voice in the call. We're happy to be kind of past the worst risk of the macro and tariff-related concerns that were out there that I think overall kind of swamped the industry a quarter or so ago. I don't think all right now are created equal. I think there's a lot of choppiness in the market that people are trying to understand, like who's an outlier, who's able to navigate the environment a little bit better versus not. That's across the landscape. I'm not just talking about one kind of direct peer out there. We feel really good about the wins we've put on the board, the fact that some of those are making it through to revenue and starting to help growth rates in both sides of the business. When we say acceleration, we really see it from wins that we've put on the board and customers that we're ramping. We hope there's more of that. By no means are we done putting logos up on the board. I think there's a lot more to come. It's for us to continue to kind of ramp those post-announcement to get those converted into revenue and continuing to push the growth rate. We certainly hope that there's better growth ahead. The environment that we've lived in almost kind of pays you to wait and gives you pretty good stability. In the last couple few years, including this year's guide, at about a 10%+ growth rate, we've put up mid-teens growth in EBITDA and 20% free cash flow. Pretty healthy financial fundamentals. The changes if our growth rate goes to 15%+ or 20%+, if we get some good movement and share movement from Google or CTV growth rate and partners continue to grow, that means a lot more to EBITDA. That means a lot more to free cash flow. We really like how this business would perform in that environment. We're seated in a very strong position that when the market's not great, a lot of partners in order to push their growth rates higher and get through an environment like this one tend to hire us for additional growth. That's what's shaken loose some of these walled gardens that really are seeking more revenue growth. We're able to provide that solution for them. I feel pretty good for what our outlook looks like. I would ask you one question that I get asked a ton. Given what you said earlier and your price target math kind of answers a lot of that question, investors ask me, I'd like your expert outside opinion. Investors say, "Hey, how much of this Google potential outcome is priced in?" How would you answer that question for folks on the line today that I think is valuable for people to hear? Yeah, I mean, look, we have to cut off here, but we've got $20 of Google antitrust in our $30 million price target. That tells you that not much is in, and that's part of our enthusiasm here. Great. Thank you very, very much. We really appreciate it, Nick. Thanks everybody for joining us. Thank you, Bob.