Hi, all. Thanks for joining, and welcome to the 2025 Rothschild & Co CEO conference session with Insight Enterprises. My name is Harry Read. I'm the IT Services Analyst here at Redburn and delighted to be joined with CEO Joyce Mullen. I think just a couple of things before we get going. There is a Q&A function that you can answer or ask questions in, and I will pick them up as we go and make sure that all investor questions are answered as they are asked. Joyce, thank you for joining. Thanks for having us, Harry. It's a pleasure to be here. Nice to meet you all. Maybe just to kick off for investors, could you just outline the role of a reseller in the IT procurement ecosystem more generally, and then I guess how Insight differentiates themselves versus competitors in the space? Sure. Harry, as you know, we've been working really, really hard to redefine this capability in the market. A traditional reseller for a very, very long time has been the partner who integrates all different technologies from many different sources and delivers the product, including hardware and software. We have worked very, very hard for the last five years or so, but it's really been going on for a long time, long before I joined Insight, to redefine that role and make sure that we were building up the appropriate services capabilities to make those investments work for our customers. We've defined that as a solutions integrator. Instead of merely reselling a networking set of hardware and software or a storage array or laptops, we work very, very hard to wrap services around those products and capabilities to deliver the outcomes that our customers are looking for and get the most out of their technology investment. Simply said, we have 6,000 or so portfolios. We understand those products really, really well. We understand the lifecycle of those products, and we understand how to match those products to the needs of our clients. We supplement that hardware knowledge, that software knowledge, and those relationships with the biggest publishers and OEMs in the world with a strong set of services capabilities that allow those technology investments to come to life and deliver outcomes. We have made very significant progress in building out our services capabilities in the last several years. If a customer has a need for a cloud solution or a data solution or now an AI solution or simply a software license, we can serve those customers and make sure they get the right technology to deliver the outcomes that are most essential to their business. That makes sense. Maybe just to dig into that a little bit further, could you give some examples of the new services that you're offering to customers? Are you building these out organically, or is M&A help to fill the gaps? Yes. Let me just give you an example. For a long time, companies like Insight were very, very skilled at selling software licenses or access to Microsoft's various products, as an example. We have built out a strong array of services around those licenses capabilities, around those either AI or data or cloud or Office 365 capabilities so that we can deliver a cloud solution that is not only a set of licenses, but it also includes the deployment or the optimization of those cloud licenses. It includes making sure that the Office 365 deployment is on every device and that every user knows how to use those products. We structure our services around solution lines, around cloud and data and analytics and ServiceNow workflows and storage and data center on-prem capabilities and on workforce productivity solutions. We have specialties in Microsoft, which is a longstanding strength of Insight, but also in Google, which was supplemented via acquisition, to your point. We have recently acquired a company about two years ago with very strong capabilities in ServiceNow because that is a defining workflow that kind of permeates almost every one of our customers' environments. We also have AWS capabilities as well. With these services, are you expanding, I guess, your competition base to more traditional consultants? That's an interesting point. I would say that, first of all, many in the industry are sort of doing the same thing that we're doing. I think that's the most sincere form of flattery when people copy your strategy, which is great, and building out solution capabilities because the market is changing, customer expectations are changing, and no longer are they satisfied to buy a storage array. They're really looking for that storage array to deliver an outcome, and it requires some combination of hardware, software, and services. We compete with traditional resellers, as you described them, by supplementing that resale capability with strong services capabilities. We now also compete with services companies who specialize only in the services, but we compete with them by being able to bring together the hardware and the software and understand end-of-life change management and understand how to maximize and optimize the use of those technologies in a way that I think has really been foundational to Insight because we've been working with those technologies for so very long. Makes sense in helping capture more customer wallet. Are you seeing traditional consultants go the other way and try to break into reselling, or is it something that's unique to what you offer? No. You know, one of the reasons we came up with this solutions integrator strategy is I spent 21 years or so at Dell. My last three years were focused on the channel. I led the channel. I could see partners who had traditionally been services only, the big SIs are really obvious examples, who were saying, "You know, we need to deliver solutions. We got to figure out how to deliver outcomes. And in order to do that, we have to have a better understanding of products." So all of the big SIs would come to us and say, "Hey, we need to build a product practice." But the fact of the matter is that that's a very different skill set. By the way, we had the same problem going from the other direction. If you're a traditional reseller and you're trying to figure out how to grow a services business, if you're not careful, it's really, really hard to make money in services because you can't treat it like a product business. We are sort of combining two worlds. I think that's because customers demand the outcomes, but it's not an easy feat. From a solutions integrator point of view, you know the margins are decreative, and all of a sudden, you got to figure out inventory and things like hardware and shipping and logistics and things like that. That's not a natural thing. If you're a reseller, as I said, you really got to figure out how to make money in services, and that's a different motion. That's why it's tricky. I'm pleased that we're well on the way. That leads on quite nicely to my next question, where obviously you've done acquisitions and services. It seems like the focus is building more of a services offering also organically. Will that be accretive to margins? Absolutely. The way we benchmark and set our internal targets is we look at the best of the best from a services point of view. Think Accenture-type capabilities. They've been very well established, but the big SIs help us understand what good looks like from a services margin point of view. That's usually in the high 30s, mid-high 30s. We think we have some more room to improve margins there. When we look at hardware, software, reseller margins, we study all of our competitors who are public. CDW is probably the biggest. We benchmark ourselves against that by customer segment because margins do vary based on customer segment. We have a little bit more room to grow there. I'm really proud of the margin expansion improvement that we've delivered at Insight over the past few years. That's a result of really two efforts. One is on the product side, benchmarking CDW, understanding kind of how to improve margins at a transaction level, supplementing that with some investments in e-commerce capability, et cetera, et cetera. On the hardware, very specific pricing programs that have been quite successful. On the services side, that was a very deliberate set of activities that started with hiring people who were expert in services, like Adrian Gregory, who is our leader of EMEA, our President of EMEA. I mean, he came from a long-time services background. Understanding the economics of the services business and then making different decisions around utilization and execution has really driven the margins up there. We will always have a blended margin. It's really important that we manage those margins a bit separately so we maintain our competitiveness and make sure we continue to improve where we can. That makes sense. It seems like that would improve the stickiness of the relationship as well if you're branching into managed services. Yeah. You know, I think that so there's a couple of things about that. Yes, stickiness is one of the things, but also it's generally relevance to the customer. They are looking for, I mean, technology is becoming a bigger and bigger part of everybody's spend, every customer's spend, and that's not going to diminish with AI. It'll just move a bit. As they're trying to figure out how to make the right investments, they need to make sure that they drive adoption of the technology that they invest in. That requires optimized execution. It requires managed services. It requires change management, as I mentioned. You can only actually execute those services if you really understand the products very, very well. I think that helps us. You mentioned earlier that services are in part of the margin expansion of Insight. What would you see as the longer-term steady-state margins for the group? Will it just be services that are contributing to dragging that up on a mixed effect, or are there other targets? Yeah. You know what? There is a mixed effect, but let me break it down a little bit more because there's a couple of things that are happening inside the product margins. The cloud margins are very, very important to us because they basically are netted revenue. That's why we ask everyone to look at the gross product line, gross product dollars, I'm sorry, GP dollars, yes, as a rule instead of revenue, because as we sell more cloud software as a service, the revenue and accounting treatment is netted. Those dollars show up, obviously, as margin only, so 100% margin on our margin line, and they are showing up in GP. The cloud mix continues to increase, which also contributes to the margin expansion. Margin expansion is a result of the efforts that I talked about, but it also is a result of mix. Our services mix has grown, and our cloud mix grew dramatically up until about this year when the programs changed for Microsoft and Google at the exact same time. We have basically had to reset this year the GP dollars associated with cloud, and we have quantified that as about $70 million of gross profit this year that came out of the P&L. Most of that drops to the bottom line, by the way. That cloud will now continue to grow, but off of a smaller base. In essence, what happened there, just to be preemptive on the question, is Microsoft and Google both said, "We really, really, really want you, all of our partners, to focus on selling our products, consumption and adoption of our products to the mid-market, and we want you to focus on services up and down the stack." Basically, the large customers are now being served direct from a resale point of view. Those changes really kind of encapsulated they do still want to outsource the services to the VARs in the mid-market, whereas they've taken some of those services more in-house with larger customers? They want partners to provide services to customers big and small, but they do not want partners in the transaction to sell cloud licenses to large customers. The logic there makes perfect sense is they have large sales forces, and they expect their sales forces to serve the largest customers. That makes sense. That pertains to Microsoft, but I think you also had a headwind on GCP product as well. Was that a similar? Microsoft and Google, exact same story from Microsoft and Google, yes. Okay. Are there any other vendors where you'd expect a similar kind of changing commission structure? You know, we deal with changes in partner programs all the time. Normally, they are well within a manageable rate. The effect of this was significant because the impact for Microsoft was so dramatic, and it was a step function. Normally, it just is a slight decrease, and we make up for that with selling other things, et cetera. We had to call it out this year because it was such a very, very, well, frankly, a cliff event, and it was not metered in any way. We've been working with Microsoft for a long time. This is a direction they've been heading for a very long time. However, my read on it is AI drove a very significant recalibration of the partner program that forced a very dramatic change instead of a sort of a slope, a downward curve change that we've been seeing for probably the last 10 or 15 years. When we look at other partners, we have anticipated that we will see program changes every single year. We adapt to them. Cisco's changing their program next year. We know all about that. We've contemplated that in our numbers. There is no partner that could have the impact that we saw this year because of Microsoft and Google doing this at exactly the same time and, frankly, right after we invested pretty heavily in the Google relationship. That makes sense. You mentioned AI in that answer and obviously quite a nice segue into another major topic with the VARs. I think with conversations with investors, it's been quite unclear what the net impact will be on the reseller space with AI. There's a lot of negative sentiment in the pure consulting space. Just any thoughts on how AI will impact yourself and the general reselling ecosystem would be really useful. Yeah. You know, it's not a simple answer. Let me start by telling you what I think the opportunity is and then also where we are anticipating potential cannibalization and where we are already changing our offers to make sure that we are leveraging this. At a macro level, AI is not going to execute itself. For all the hype and all, we just were at Microsoft Ignite two weeks ago. I mean, it is not when you try to think about a school administrator or a mid-sized corporate customer trying to figure out how to optimize their technology spend, there is a significant role for partners because there is no customer who is dependent only on two or three partners, vendors. Almost everybody has a complicated environment. They're trying to figure out how to make the trade-offs. There's a lot of overlap. We believe there's still a very significant advisory capability and a role to resell and deploy technology. That is not going away anytime soon. We also believe that the complexity associated with AI execution requires deeper knowledge of even more partners. Think about the LLMs, for example, and how do you figure out how to optimize your spend across those things? I think this gets more complex, not less complex. There is a very significant opportunity to disrupt the traditional services environment. We think we're in a great position to do that because we've got nothing to lose compared to the big SIs. I mean, I'm very glad we don't have a million people in India that we're trying to keep busy on time and material because I think time and material deployments are going to go away over time because people will expect outcome-based provisioning. They will expect shorter-term contracts. They will expect to, yeah, and this is how we've been marketing our services forever. They would expect a partner to deliver results, deliver the ROI, and earn the right to do the next project and the next project. That does not lend itself well to a seven-year contract that's $150 million or something like that. I feel like our approach is very, very well aligned with the AI world. I think there are some services that are traditional services that we're already cannibalizing. We're saying, you know what? You used to pay 10x for this. Now you're going to pay 1x for this because we've figured out how to build AI into the execution of this managed service, for example. We think there's an opportunity to take share that way because we, as I said, it's a little bit the innovator's dilemma for big SIs. We don't have that same problem. I'm very excited about it. There is disruption to some traditional services. We're contemplating that. There are also enormous, enormous advisory requirements. That's why we've made a couple of advisory acquisitions, one about a year and a half ago in the U.K. of NWT, a small advisory company. We've just repeated that same strategy with Inspire11 in North America. What we have seen in our EMEA business is an ability to start with those advisory services and then pull through the other solutions that we offer: cloud solutions, on-prem solutions, workspace solutions. We think that is kind of, that's the winning formula. Again, being very, very clear about setting up projects that are outcome-based, delivering those results very fast, and then earning the right to do the next one and the next one. Is that how you're structuring your services offering with customers, very much outcome-based as opposed to time and material? Not 100% yet because we have time and material work as well. That is the direction we're going to travel for sure. Not every customer is ready for it, but that's where it's going. Okay. That makes sense. I suppose that as a reseller, you're in some ways kind of the gatekeeper of an IT budget with a customer in the conversation. You know what I need to do to get you to call us a solutions integrator, Harry? I'm sorry. As a solutions integrator, you are the gatekeeper of the budget. I guess that you have quite some quite interesting insights on how people are thinking about IT spending. Could you characterize, I guess, both as a starting point, the level of IT budgets versus, say, the last couple of years? Then I guess within that, how CTOs and CFOs are thinking about AI within that budget? Is it incremental? Is it driven by a cost-saving project? Yeah. I am going to focus my discussion on kind of this corporate segment. I am not talking about the hyperscalers. The hyperscalers, obviously, with the AI spend have driven incredible demand for chips and networking gear, servers, all that stuff, right? That is a fairly different sales process, and it is very much a direct environment, not completely, but very much. If you think about just companies that are not Microsoft, that are not CoreWeave, that are not AWS, the sort of standard corporate customers, what we have seen is traditionally, and I think this still holds true, that IT budgets are usually a couple of hundred basis points ahead of GDP. That is kind of how they generally run. This year, there have been a couple of challenges. I would say, first of all, there's continued uncertainty in terms of their own businesses and their own growth trajectories and their own requirements. Some of that's macro. Some of that is, "I wonder what AI is going to do to my business, and how many employees will I have next year, and should I refresh all those PCs?" kind of questions. They've also, I think it's pretty well understood, there's been some changes in the pricing on some of their biggest kind of platforms with the Broadcom acquisition, for example. They have to figure out how to support that demand and make sure that they can fit that inside their budget. They are also trying to reserve some, I would call it, experimental spend that is really around AI. All of those things have contributed to, I would say, a fairly subdued IT spend environment. Oh, and by the way, then they've also had to refresh a whole bunch of PCs because I would say we're in the process of that still. We're sort of rounding, I would say we're about a little bit more than halfway through, maybe 60% through on the PC refresh piece. All of that is happening, and it's contributed to a pretty uncertain market for most customers. I do think that, as I said, I think we'll see a more stable environment in 2026 because now everybody's pretty clear on their core operating costs. There's probably not a big new change that's going to happen there. The uncertainty still persists for sure. I think I would say customers are getting a little clearer on how they might want to use AI, although that experimentation, that proof of concept work, that MVP-type approach will be very prevalent still next year. I'll tell you how we're thinking about it. We are representative of this Fortune 300 and below type size customer. We're saying we will spend more on IT over the next few years because while we expect to drive significant improvements in our IT operations, we also expect that there will be more demand for AI-type solutions throughout the rest of the business units. Those business units are becoming more and more vocal about their demands for IT and AI so they can solve their own issues. That's how we're thinking about it. We do expect to see efficiencies in the core operations. There is a bit of an offset, but it's still a growth trajectory. It's difficult to quantify or describe, but are you generally seeing more AI projects moving from proof of concept into production and potentially a tangible ROI being experienced by your end customers? Yes. I mean, it's easy to say more, but it's also just still very early. I think we're moving. We are very excited about some of the focus. We've announced some offers about two weeks ago that seem to be very, very exciting to customers. It's great to see that. This notion of thinking about how to prioritize IT or AI projects to deliver the highest ROI is something that everybody's struggling with. We have built our capability for our own internal use that all of a sudden it was kind of serendipitous, but we've started showing it to a bunch of customers. Customers are saying, "Hey, I need that too." This is how we're thinking about it, not as a product, but instead as an accelerator to figure out which projects are going to deliver the highest ROI. Everybody read the MIT study. I think it's going to take a while to realize the benefits. I think what we're seeing is, again, a focus on smaller projects so they can prove there is an ROI so they can do the next one and the next one and the next one. Makes sense. Just as a reminder, investors are able to answer or ask questions through the Q&A function. We've had one come in. How would you describe current market growth as defined by GP? Insight Gross Profit Guide is flattish to down. CW is plus low to mid-single digit. Are these reflective of the market, market share shifts, loss of wallet share for VARs to larger distributors, or direct sales/reduced channel compensation by product companies? Yeah. I'm not going to speak for CDW, but I can tell you are. I mean, think about $70 million. Most of that drops to the bottom line. That is $70 million worth of program reset from Microsoft and Google. Otherwise, we would be in line with a couple hundred basis points higher than GDP. Okay. I guess when you think about the total wallet that you essentially guide for a customer, can you size that in terms of a percentage of the total and then, I guess, potentially how high that could go? Maybe if services is a stepping stone on helping you get there. Okay. If you think about this, this is just how I think about the market. It is $5 trillion worth of spend on IT this past year-ish. Just take a trillion off the top and call that kind of the big hyperscalers and stuff you do not participate in. Maybe you say, "Okay, there is a bunch of other things." Say it is $3 trillion. I mean, it is enormous. We have customers where we have 100% of the IT spend. Again, that is corporate sweet spot is where we get to do that because they trust us, that we have built a relationship over many years as a reseller. We have added services, and now we have 100% spend. We have customers where we sell only laptops or we sell only a services project. Our entire growth strategy is around cross-sell. It is around taking, and we've done tons of analytics to show that we have been able to do this with lots and lots of our clients. We just need to do it with some more. That is start with wherever we have a strong relationship, whether that's with laptops or that's with cloud optimization, and bring in on a very methodical basis based on customer demand and the outcomes that are most critical to them, bring in the opportunity, bring in the ServiceNow solution when they need it, bring in the Google Cloud data analytics platform when they need it, bring in an on-prem storage capability when they need it. That requires a combination of very, very strong understanding of the business units, the business from our core account execs. What we expect and we have seen happen in Europe is we add in this advisory capability, which can help pull through all of those types of solutions, and that accelerates our share wallet expansion. We have lots of room to go. At $9 billion and a, call it $3 trillion worth of addressable market, there is plenty of room to go. Of course. Are there any not obvious areas of white space? I think some competitors in the U.K. have highlighted cybersecurity as a very fast-growing area from a low base. From your perspective, what are the key areas to expand into? Yeah. I mean, in terms of capabilities where we are very, very we are working still to build out more robust capabilities. Cyber is the number one capability there. We just bought a small company called Securo in Australia. They have a small presence in EMEA. We expect to leverage that. We expect to leverage the IP that they've created around their security offers. We think that's really important. I would say security is not going anywhere. It's going to continue to grow double digits for sure. We've seen some great success with that. We'd like to have stronger capabilities there. The other one is data and AI, of course. There's almost no customer over five years old who says, "I'm pretty happy with my data estate, and I'm really happy with the data quality and architecture." That is a fast-growing area. That's more of an enablement. What we have found is really, really important to tie data improvement to a core outcome. Otherwise, it's really hard to demonstrate the ROI on that. That's an area where we will continue to invest as well. Is that an area that you can compete in, in data labeling and data structuring? It's been highlighted with some of the pure SIs. It's quite a high-growth area for them. Yeah. Data architecture and data quality improvement is absolutely a focus for us, and mostly because it's a focus for our clients. If you have really strong expertise in Microsoft, then you have really strong expertise in data fabric. I mean, that is a core capability. Same with BigQuery and Google. I think we have the core capabilities already, and we understand the products very well. Optimizing the use of those products usually requires some improvement in the data architecture and also some of the attributes. You talked about IT budgets increasing kind of at a rate of GDP plus. I suppose that as a percentage of OpEx, are you seeing that take share, I guess, potentially at the expense of labor costs? Yeah. That's how we're thinking about it internally. Yes, I would say that's how most customers are thinking about it. There is a little bit of a nuance there that I think is quite interesting. I mean, for a long time, maybe 10 years ago, everybody was talking about shadow IT budgets. Because more and more of the decisions are being made by the business units, I think there is an opportunity for shadow IT dollars to show up in business units. I think that's going to require some attention for almost every company. We're certainly paying attention to that too because it's so easy to buy some of these tools and start using them. Good governance, good policy, obviously good security is really critical to keeping our customers safe. Maybe just going back to the areas that you want to grow into and cybersecurity and then maybe some other associated services. Can we expect more M&A in that area, or is it something that you can scale organically? I guess, more broadly, what is the approach and strategy to M&A? Yeah. M&A is still important. I mean, we have, obviously, given where our stock price is, we are very thoughtful about where we are spending money now. We're considering all different options. Our capital allocation priorities are organic growth first, then M&A, then debt and buybacks. Some of those are James, our CFO, was tweaking those priorities because we have to be thoughtful and opportunistic about that given the stock price where it is. In the sort of longer term, M&A will still be an important driver to this business. Thinking about organic growth as the number one priority, I suppose the business is quite capital-light in nature. Would that really come in the form of, I guess, strategic hires? Yeah. Strategic hires and expansion of core capabilities. For example, we have a very strong ServiceNow business in North America. We'd like to build out ServiceNow expertise. You could either do an acquire or you could just go do strategic hiring. Same with security. Also, we're always focused on upgrading our sales capability and services capabilities. AI skills are not cheap, so we will continue to invest in those as well. That's both in terms of new hires, but also development of our own teammates. Are there any other major capital requirements for the business that are needed, maybe on financing for hardware or warehousing? We've invested in the last couple of years in a new warehouse in Texas. We've upgraded our warehouse facilities in Europe. I feel we don't see any of those in our current five-year plan. There's not major capital allocation for that. Sure. I guess the only other major topic in the VAR debate is the hardware refresh cycle. Where do you believe that we are in terms of the client devices that got refreshed in the early innings of COVID? We have now passed the Windows 10 end-of-support window. Just any comments on kind of where we think we are on that would be? Yeah. I think we're about 60% through. Still, some of the largest enterprises have been waiting for some of the reasons I mentioned earlier. I wonder how many people we're going to have. I wonder how many devices I really need. I wonder. Also, the environment's uncertain. Should I be spending this now, or should I wait? That has delayed, especially large enterprise spending. I would say generally, we're about 60%-70% of the way through. The first half of the year will still be solid in terms of device refresh. I should note, though, that we had historically been able to calibrate and forecast the refreshes really, really well as an industry, both in terms of the size of the refresh and the timing of the refresh. All of those assumptions were wrong for this refresh. I think specifically the size of the refresh was significantly off because during COVID, we basically shipped extra units to lots of people, and not all of those required refresh. I think that was part of the forecasting dilemma that we had on how big this would be and when it would return. Are AI PCs playing a role in this refresh cycle at the moment? AI PCs are, if you define AI PCs as 40 TOPS, trillions of operations per second, we are selling some. I would not say it's the majority of what we're selling. I do think most consumer PCs are now AI PCs. In the corporate space, the commercial space, that's not true. I think the price point of AI PCs, and the reason for that is the applications are not really mature for AI PCs yet. I do think over time, the price points will collapse, and there will not be much difference between an AI PC, and there is a benefit to future-proofing your investment with AI PCs. That has not been a driver of the PC refresh yet. As applications mature and as people start actually leveraging small language models or tiny language models, I expect we will see that become more important. As I said, I think right now the average selling price is sort of in the neighborhood of less than $100, $100 or so. I think that will, over time, trend down. Makes sense. Just a final reminder, questions can be asked by investors in the Q&A function, and I'll be able to read them out to Joyce here on the call. I suppose that kind of on the same topic on hardware refresh, obviously, devices, given their, I guess, relatively smaller cash outlay and easier delivery, were refreshed early, but we did see a bit of a refresh cycle later on networking infrastructure, some on-prem data centers. Is that something that you could perhaps see a pickup in hardware demand for as this normalization? Yeah. Sorry. I I was just talking about devices at 60% through. I think we're just at the beginning stages of the refresh. By the way, if you think about the demands for networking and edge compute, I mean, AI is going to drive a much higher adoption. I am bullish about the AI impact on hardware and software. Is that something you can wrap more services around and potentially take away? Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, as I said, the complexity associated with a technology stack is only increasing. It's not decreasing. Where there's complexity, you need those advisory skills, those technical skills to get things moving. Certainly, AI can help on some of the most basic elements, but it's a long time before we can give sort of a standard customer pieces, and they can just figure it out themselves. It's a long time away. In terms of the take rates that you're getting in terms of, I guess, gross profit dollars coming into the business, which is commission divided by, I guess, on hardware, you're recognizing that as principal or gross. Would you expect a higher take rate for some of these more complicated hardware solutions like networking versus, say, device, which, I guess, the services wrapped are maybe just configuration and delivery? When you say take rate, do you mean margin? I guess gross profit divided by sales. The mix of the solution, first of all, from a hardware point of view, devices are lower margin than infrastructure. As you sell infrastructure solutions, the margins on the hardware and the software basically are higher. The services associated with infrastructure are usually higher. By definition, infrastructure is a higher value set of products for Insight, for sure, and probably for the industry. Okay. I suppose maybe just to wrap up, I guess, the wrap-up, is there any kind of strategy on geographic exposure, or is it mainly still focused on the U.S. and then your Fortune 300 clients' sweet spot? We are expanding in the Middle East. Europe is important to us, for sure. We're probably not trying to be in every country in Europe. We're pretty happy with our current footprint. We'd like to grow in our existing footprint, but the Middle East is an expansion focus for us. Asia, we're primarily focused in Australia and New Zealand. We have operations in China and Singapore and Hong Kong. I'd say in Asia, the market that we're most focused on is Singapore. Expansion. Okay. Brilliant. It looks like there are no more questions on the Q&A function. We'd like to thank Joyce for joining us today. Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you. If any of you need any AI help, we are ready to go. You know where to find us. Harry can put you in touch. We would love your thoughts on our offers and the capabilities if you're interested in learning about them. Thanks, Joyce. Thank you so much, Harry. Appreciate the opportunity. Thanks, everyone. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.