Okay. We'll get started. I'm John Hodulik, the Telecom Media Analyst here at UBS. I'm very pleased to announce our next speaker. It's Perry Sook, the Founder, Chairman, and CEO of, and Lee Ann Gliha, the CFO. Guys, thanks for being here. Thanks for having us. Maybe let's start with discussing the key highlights in Nexstar 's 2025 and what your priorities are as we look out into 2026. I think in 2026, our first priority is closing on the pending acquisition, and we're doing a lot of that spade work in D.C. and in due diligence right now. It's occupying a lot of our time. We have a pretty well-worn playbook to get that done, and so we're just working through the steps in the process. I think the other thing that we're doing is, as we have assembled all of these assets, we have stood up a team for selling these assets and selling cross-platform, and so we're just beginning to plumb the depths of what's possible there. Network deals with regional station group add-ons and things like that are starting to generate some meaningful revenue for us, and we're starting to see a little uplift in our ad support as a result of that. Obviously, we have a lot of distribution deals up between now and the end of the year with the traditional MVPD universe, and so we are knee-deep in negotiations on all of those as well. So there's a lot going on, but I think the way we've deployed the team, we have the bandwidth to execute at a high level on all the tasks in front of us. Okay. So let's dive into the TEGNA merger. Can you provide us an update on the regulatory process and your thoughts on President Trump's recent comments regarding the merger? Sure. Well, process-related, I think the encouraging thing from my standpoint is that the FCC put our transaction on public notice literally a little more than a week after they received it, after the government reopened after the shutdown. So I think that's encouraging to me that we're in the public comment phase, which runs through the end of the month, and then there'll be reply comments through the end of January. And at that point, the FCC will have gathered all of the information they need to process the transaction. So I think that's good news. I think their expedient manner in which they put the transaction on public notice now kind of means the DOJ and the FCC are on a similar timeline in terms of working through their processes. As you know, the DOJ did not close during the government shutdown, and so we got and began to comply with the second request letter immediately, and so that will be done in first quarter as well. So I'll be spending four of the next nine days in Washington, D.C., meeting with regulators, meeting with folks on The Hill to continue to extol the virtues of the transaction and work through the process of getting it done. As it relates to the tweets that the president has made, listen, I think he is very attuned to what's going on in the media space. First and foremost, we wouldn't be contemplating this transaction if he weren't in the White House. So it's President Trump and his policies towards deregulation and Chairman Carr's desire to deregulate and free the local media industry from these artificial and antiquated constraints created the window of opportunity that we're now attempting to push on that open door. So I certainly believe that the president's entitled to any opinion he might have, but I don't think these will be the only tweets you'll ever see on this transaction, the potential network transaction, or any other derivative that might come from that. He's going to weigh in because he is. That's what he does. Very attuned to the media, and he's going to make sure that his opinion is known not only in Washington but by the counterparties involved in the transaction, and I certainly respect that. Right. Yeah. It's odd that you're the second presentation in a row where I've asked, "What do you think of the president's tweets?" But yeah, here we are. Well, and I told our team, I said, "Listen, we're in the public comment period this month and next month, and so a lot of people will have things to say about the transaction, and so we will be whipsawed, and people may choose to try and trade on that. I certainly respect everybody's business model, but I said, "We need to not pay attention to noise. We need to just keep our heads down and do the work. And when the transaction is actionable, when it's gone through all the regulatory processes, that's the time to have other considerations." But until that point, there's not too much, I think, to get excited about right now. The FCC, I mean, I've followed Chairman Carr and previously Commissioner Carr on Twitter and his writings, and he strikes me as very deregulation-focused, as you said, and clearing out the clutter and a lot of these sort of legacy rules that sort of serve no purpose in a modern sort of media world. It would seem that, I mean, just again, following him for years, it would seem like the FCC is not going to be much of a problem for you. I mean, do you think that the FCC is influenced by what comes down from the White House? I think that the chairman, Chairman Carr is going to want to know that there is political support for what he's going to be doing as well. I think there's also a sense of urgency to move through this process before the midterm elections while all three houses of government are kind of aligned philosophically towards deregulation and towards removing antiquated and outdated regulations and allowing businesses to grow and prosper. I've been on record saying I think we'll have more tailwinds than headwinds economically in 2026. I agree with you. Chairman Carr, going back to his time as a commissioner, said that these rules don't make any sense. In fact, we've got a lot of rules on the books that don't make any sense, and he's already taken steps to delete rules, some rules around telegraph and other things that make no sense to exist. This is another step in that process, and my job is to make sure that we've complied with the regulatory process, but also I've been spending time on The Hill to make sure that the political support. We had 24 or 26 senators send a letter to Chairman Carr, and it was somewhat bipartisan, calling for deregulation of the industry and elimination of the ownership cap. And so I just want to make sure that we continue to remind people as to why this transaction is in the public interest and that he then will have political support to do what he knows from a regulatory perspective is the right thing to do. Right. And where do you stand with the DOJ? The DOJ is a little bit more sort of black box to me. In the past, we've had some okay contacts there, but you said that they're on about the same timeline. Just what's your sort of gut or what's the read you're getting from the DOJ and the process? We have meetings calendared with the DOJ, not only staff but front office personnel, to talk through the transaction and our rationale for it, and they'll have the opportunity to ask questions. Obviously, all of that will go on during the pendency of our fulfilling the second request letter, which will probably be done mid-first quarter. We'll have all of the information that they've requested to them. Listen, I think it's an interactive process, and I think they do rely very specifically on data-driven arguments. We have more economists on retainer right now than are probably at this conference, and we are working through the economic arguments as well as the definitional arguments and trying to provide as much data as we can to allow them to make the best decision that they can. Got it. I know a lot of times you don't like sort of—or people don't like sort of prejudging the deal, but what divestitures are you expecting to make to close the deal? Too early to tell. Nobody has brought up divestitures, but we're also pretty early in the process. We've said that based on our analysis of the deal, if there are any divestitures, they're going to be relatively immaterial to the overall transaction size, value, and industrial logic. Got it. Maybe let's talk about some of the financial benefits for the deal. You've spoken about $300 million in EBITDA synergies. Maybe can you give us some more detail on sort of where those savings come from, over what time they're realized, and sort of any other sort of financial benefits? Yeah. I'll take that. So $300 million of synergies is about 45% coming from net retrans, 55% coming from operating expense synergies. We anticipate that the substantial majority of those synergies are going to be realized within the first 12 months of the transaction. On the expense side of things, it's really coming down to a few different buckets. Obviously, corporate overhead being one of them. You don't need two CFOs. You don't need two presidents. We also then have a number of back-office services and hubs that we utilize to service multiple stations. Can we add additional stations into those hubs and leverage those a little bit better instead of having two separate hubs? Yes, we can do that. There's also then really just general market efficiencies. We look at how we operate our stations, how they operate their stations. There's a lot of opportunity there in terms of efficiencies that we can deploy. And then, obviously, the largest component of the operating expense synergies is the overlap markets. We have a significant 35 of the 51 markets are overlap, and that's where you really can operate two television stations off of one infrastructure. And so there'll be cost synergies that will occur with respect to that as well. We do have some one-time costs that'll be incurred in order to execute those. We included that in the purchase price when we announced it. And I would say we also have some probably more medium-term synergies that we haven't really baked in or quantified yet, and that really just comes down to facility consolidation. We have two buildings in a market. Generally, they own their station. We own our station. So can we move these groups together and then execute on a sale of one of the properties, eliminate all of the property taxes and the utilities costs, and so on and so forth? But that's going to take a little bit of a longer timeframe to execute. What's the leverage of the combined company post the deal, and then what's the target, and sort of what's the timeline to get to? Yeah. So prior to the acquisition, we were around 3.2 x leverage. Pro forma, we think, will be in the 4-ish range. And then we're going to look to delever as quickly as we can, which we think we'll get back to around where we are sometime in 2028. Got it. And then obviously, we're not really through this one yet, but how do you see sort of the market progressing from there? Would you be interested in additional M&A, or do you think you're going to see further consolidation in the broadcast world? I think both will happen. I mean, we would continue to have an interest in follow-on M&A. If you look at our company, you have to look at it through a local lens, right? We own and operate stations. We've chosen to play in the local end of the media ecosystem. We have a national cable network, and we have a national broadcast network. Those were both outgrowths of the substantial station group that we have. And so anything that would be adjacent to local or additional local stations, but even other businesses and markets that could be sold and administered locally, I think are all things that we would be interested in. And our goal is to compete for the largest share of wallet in the marketplace, not just the TV dollars, but TV and digital is about 4 ½, 5x what linear TV is by itself. And so let's focus on the piece of the iceberg that's below the waterline that has the potential to create the most value. So we will continue to look at M&A, but it's got to be actionable, accretive, and make more industrial logic than buying back our own stock. Got it. Maybe we could pivot to the advertising market. We talked a little bit about it with the panel this morning, Fox, Publicis is here. Sounds like things are pretty strong. How would you guys characterize the health of the advertising market, and maybe what are your expectations as you look out into 2026? Yeah. I mean, we're seeing actually some good positive momentum in the advertising market. In connection with our third quarter earnings, we had indicated that we thought that our fourth quarter non-political advertising would be down very low single digits. We now actually think it'll be slightly up in the fourth quarter, so we're feeling good about that. We had some later buys in the quarter than we normally have seen, and so we view that as a positive signal. We haven't provided any guidance yet into 2026. We'll do that in connection with our fourth quarter earnings results, but there's a number of things that are going to happen next year which could be positive for us. Number one being political. Number two being FIFA is going to be in the U.S. and in a good time zone for most of the matches. We have the Olympics in Milan as well. In addition, there's just more sports on broadcast in general. That's really not that quantifiable, but there's a number of special events that are happening next year that we think will be positive. As Perry said, more tailwinds than headwinds going into 2026. The midterms in particular, how would you sort of stack up the political situation and sort of the races and where the races are competitive versus what we've seen in maybe previous midterms? I I mean, do you think we're going to continue on this track of growing political spend as we compare to the last midterms? Yeah. I mean, if you look at sort of the last three cycles of just both presidential and midterm, Nexstar has generated about $500 million of revenue from political advertising. And really, it sort of depends on the cycle. There could be a lot of initiative money on the ballot, or you have additional presidential spend, so it just sort of varies. The beauty of the Nexstar portfolio is that we are so broad, and typically, if you look at it, we're in 80%-90% of the contested election markets. And so when you kind of look over time, we have a pretty stable ability to look at what market share we will have of political advertising spending, and that tends to be a low-teens share. And really, what the benefit is there is one market gets hot, that's great. If one market goes cold, the money can go from the cold market to the hot market. Usually, we're in position to capture it. As far as 2026 goes, we have again, we'll put out our formal guidance in connection with our year-end earnings results, but AdImpact does some good research. They've said they think that I think the 2025, 2026 cycle, they expect to be up about 20% versus the 2023, 2024 cycle. Most of that incremental going to CTV, but they do expect broadcast advertising to be about flattish from cycle to cycle. So we anticipate that we'll get our fair share of the dollars. Got it. So some streaming companies have suggested that local advertising will become a major part of CTV advertising. Do you agree with that? And how can you capture local advertising? How will you capture local advertising if it shifts to streaming? Yeah. Well, we're already capturing CTV on the local side. That is a portion of what we call digital because what we do is we will sell audience extensions products to our local advertisers. And I think where we really feel like we have a benefit is that we have those feet on the street. We have 1,600 local sales force members that have relationships with 40,000 SMBs, and we're able to be in that position to help those local advertisers not only benefit from the wonderful proposition that linear television has for them, but also to be able to help access CTV for them. Got it. Any interest in moving into streaming with your existing assets, or is there anything you could do to sort of address that market, and what would a strategy like that look like? Yeah. I think on the CTV side or on the streaming side of things, I think we are already kind of doing that. The CW has its own app, which is an AVOD app, and then we are also in the process of rolling out CTV apps for each of our local television stations. So we really feel like what Nexstar does the best is we provide programming, and we provide that programming across any platform that's available. So if you want to get your programming from cable, we'll be there. If you want to get your programming over IP, we will be there as well. And that's really just the job of our job, one for us, is to produce good programming that is going to be interesting for the audience no matter where they are. Got it. And obviously, with streaming, it's a process of building scale, right? And so we are engaged in partnership discussions that could allow us to have access to more scale and higher ability to monetize. And so we'll obviously keep you posted on those discussions as they continue to evolve. Great. Now, Perry, in your sort of opening comments, you talked about some of the distribution deals that are being renewed with the MVPDs in 2026. Can you give us a sort of a lay of the land in terms of what you expect from the negotiations in 2026, and should investors expect an acceleration in retrans revenue? Well, historically, we've been able to achieve, when we renegotiate an agreement, a decent step up in rates in the first year from the deal that was done three years vintage. And so we expect that this round of renewals will exhibit the same. Historically, we've been able to outrun the rate of attrition by those rate increases and deliver positive growth and net retrans growth. And we think that, again, we'll see a continuation of that trend. We do begin to bump up against the law of large numbers in terms of the same percentage on a much higher base, is harder to achieve because the dollars have to come from somewhere. But we do expect that we will continue to show growth in both gross and net retrans in 2026. You've previously suggested that there is one more cycle of retrans price increases before leveling off. Does that idea still hold, or does the tech merger give you enough leverage to support retrans growth for a longer period of time? Yeah. I think it still holds. I mean, we are still underpaid versus the eyeballs we deliver to the bundle and the revenue we get from that bundle. And so until we get to parity, I'm going to believe that we are underpaid. And I think what I believe will happen over time is that some of these long-tail cable networks get pushed out of the basic bundle onto interest tiers: cooking tier, crime tier, romance tier, whatever they are. We already have kind of sports tiers, right? So that makes more money available to be apportioned to the channels that people actually watch, which the broadcast, the local broadcast stations in aggregate dwarf all of the cable universe in aggregate. And we believe that continues to be true, particularly with the continued migration of live sports to the broadcast medium. I think that we have been an object lesson in that with The CW and with our local stations where we've been able to do deals with sports teams and move them from cable to broadcast. And in every one, we have delivered a larger audience than their historic numbers have been, whether that's NASCAR whether that's the Texas Rangers in Dallas. It's pretty much the same story. It's just a question of how many of those deals you can access and how many of them you can do profitably because, again, reading the financial statements from the bottom up, we're very interested in making sure that we make money. Right. So do you think the process of Versant being cleaved off of NBC and maybe to a lesser extent because there's no broadcast involved, but what looks like the Discovery Global Network sort of losing NBA and then being carved off of Warner Bros., does that accelerate that process where you're getting sort of more of the resources of the bundle can accrue to the broadcasters, which are obviously much more sort of sports-specific? Because I just think that these assets are going to have sort of less bargaining power with the distributors, and that, in my view, sort of gives you guys sort of somewhat more bargaining power. So that process that you laid out, does that? That's the way we look at the world. Yes. We think that plays out. It plays out over time. We also think, as we've been saying for half a dozen years, that we think the rate of attrition will decline until it becomes virtually nonexistent, which there is one analyst that is reporting that growth in video subs this quarter, and there is one MVPD that has said the same thing. Now, we haven't seen it in the numbers they report to us yet, but if that's the direction we're headed, we think that has the potential to underwrite the value proposition of the entire industry because it's no longer the existential doom that, well, this revenue stream goes to zero. Your paid TV subscribers go to zero, and we've been saying no, it will eventually level out and moderate, and we think that that's happening versus the bear case. I think people would think about the inherent values of the companies if there's kind of a floor or a foundation under that particular revenue stream. I agree. Are you seeing better reverse retrans terms now that a lot of network feeds are on streaming services? And how does net retrans evolve going forward? First of all, yes. And second of all, our conversations with our network partners are that we pay you for two things as a network partner. We pay you for the content, and we pay you for exclusivity. The extent your content is less and less, or in a couple of cases, non-exclusive to us, it inherently has less value. And when you look at pro forma for the transaction, the acquisition of TEGNA, we will be the largest affiliate group of every one of the four basic networks. We're already the largest affiliate group for CW, and that will only grow. And so I think our seat at the table is entirely different than others' seat at the table, and I think we'll be able to press for certain things in our affiliation renewals that maybe smaller companies with only a handful of network affiliates of any particular ilk are going to be able to achieve. So I don't think it'll be a one-size-fits-all solution, but I do think that we will benefit increasingly from our scale and our bargaining position vis-à-vis the traditional networks. Makes sense. Where does The CW stand in terms of profitability, and when do you expect to reach break-even? We're getting there, right? We started with a very, very negative business, and we've been every quarter after quarter, year after year, have been improving it. Our expectation is this year we're going to improve profit by, I think, around 25% versus last year. And then next year, we will achieve profitability at some point during the year is our current plan. So we've done that by really more than halving the programming costs while at the same time increasing the amount of hours of programming by 40% and transforming the composition of the hours of programming to be about more than 40% from sports. So we feel very proud of what we've done so far on the network side. And I think that profitability discussion only tells you part of the story. The other piece is what's happening on our stations side of the equation because the network is just the network. But we have a number of CW affiliates, and that was one of the primary reasons for the acquisition to begin with. But by the fact that we have owned the network, we were able to bring back a number of those affiliates onto Nexstar stations, and that's been very profitable for us. And so when you look at the sort of totality of everything, it's been a good deal for us. Great. Now, you brought up sports. NASCAR has obviously done well year to date. Does this give you confidence in acquiring additional sports rights to add to NASCAR? Yes, it does. I mean, there's got to be something that's actionable. And we moved as fast as we did with NASCAR and with ACC and with Pac-12 and WWE because we looked at the kind of cascade of rights renewals. And other than NBA, which we didn't think we would be cost competitive on, and we weren't, and MLB, which we weren't really sure what the opportunity would be there. And it obviously is a short-term opportunity. But basically, the rest of the sports rights really don't mature until 2030 or later. NFL could opt out in 2029 and renegotiate. So we locked up what we did, and we're glad we did what we did because I'm not sure we could make those same deals on those same terms today given increased competition. We feel good about the portfolio. There's one more announcement to come before the end of the year, which will add some incremental sports inventory. And I tell people all the time, we're playing money ball, right? We're not going to outbid too many people for too many things, but what we have targeted is sports that are on streaming or on cable that have suffered a decline because of their distribution. And we've been able to move to broadcast. And with everything, ACC, NASCAR, WWE, we've been able to show audience increases over where they were a year ago and where they were, in case of NASCAR, the best numbers in five years. And so it's demonstrable. I think that's why NBC went after the NBA. I think that's why ABC put more and more of their NFL packages on the ABC Network as opposed to ESPN. And so we think it's been validated. We think we validated. Other networks validated as well. We think it's a movement, and I think everybody understands it, and so where we have the opportunity to compete, we will, but we're not going to bet the farm on something that we hope works out. It's going to have to. We will continue to have financial discipline around our sports acquisition as well as we have every other acquisition. What's driving the improvement in NASCAR? Is it just the better, more contested races, or why is there any sense for why things have improved there? I think it's pretty simple. I mean, you know that if you want to watch the Xfinity race, that it's going to be on the same channel, the same network every weekend. And you don't have to worry about, okay, is this on Fox, or is this on cable, or is this on streaming, or is this on NBC with the Cup series? And I'm not criticizing those decisions because they made deals that we couldn't compete with monetarily there. But I think the fact that people want simplicity in their entertainment, I think, and the fact that Jim France, who runs NASCAR, he lives in Orlando, he says, "I know my race is going to be on Channel 18 in Orlando every Saturday. I know where to find it. I don't have to fuss with it," right? So that's his words, not mine. But I think that rings true for a large part of America and the viewing public and certainly the NASCAR audience. Yeah. And my dad thinks he was a massive NASCAR fan. I'm sure he appreciates it. You've been outspoken about the benefits of sunsetting ATSC 1.0 and moving to 3.0. Can you walk through the benefits and the financial implications for Nexstar? Well, sure. I mean, if we can move quicker to ATSC 3.0, it's just a more efficient use of the spectrum. It's an IP-based transmission, which allows 4K video and HDR, high-definition audio reception. And so that makes a better consumer experience. But it's also a more efficient use of the spectrum. So when I think about non-video use of the remainder of the spectrum, A, there's more of it to play with or to sublease. And I think it's a tremendous opportunity. Things get valued on a per-pop basis in the digital world. They get valued on a per-sub basis in distribution revenue. And so to me, the two are not wholly disconnected there. And I think that when I look at high-speed data transmission, GPS-based services, video to the connected car that's from entertainment or navigation or whatever, those are all the kind of wonky things. We're into distributed power and precision agriculture with driverless tractors and things like that. The sooner we can sunset the Simulcast requirement, which is 1.0, it frees up more spectrum to experiment with. We developed this spectrum consortium called EdgeBeam with Sinclair, Gray, and Scripps, and TEGNA is not a part of that, but when we acquire TEGNA, their spectrum will become a part of that, so we will have by far more actionable spectrum in 3.0 spectrum than any other operator in the company or in the country, and so we look at that as our mineral rights and our opportunity to develop another revenue stream, not dependent on a network, not dependent on anything other than our distribution, a backup GPS system for the country, which we don't have. We're the only industrialized country in the world that doesn't have a backup GPS. We could deliver a terrestrial alternative to the satellite-based alternative, which is superior to having a backup be just another satellite in the sky, and there's a national interest in doing that, so we think it works on a lot of levels and that we will ultimately, it's a voluntary process today. I think we will put a stake in the ground as to when we will plan to transfer, eliminate 1.0, and transfer to 3.0 only, and I think you will see that date established before the end of the decade. As the date is established, we'll establish it before then, but I think that we will pick a transition date before the end of the decade, and we may even try to do a transition in a market or two earlier just so we and the industry can learn what the transition looks like, almost as a laboratory. And so we have a whole work group that is focused on that. But the point is, I've said historically that I think non-video uses of our spectrum could generate as much revenue five years from now, eight years from now, that distribution revenue does today. And that's about $14 billion for the industry. And for us, it's 25% of that. So we think it's even if I'm wrong by 50%, and it's $1 billion of incremental revenue, if that falls at a 90% EBITDA margin because it's just lease activity, that's a substantial increase in equity value and per-share value, I think, in the company. So it's work worth doing. It's hard. It's not impossible. And I had a speech with kind of the TEGNA senior management team, and I said, "Our focus is on closing the transaction, but here are the things I want to work on the day after." And spectrum monetization and push toward that is certainly at the very high end of the to-do list. Right. And does the monetization really not start until the end of the decade once you've cleared the spectrum and convert from 1.0 to 3.0? And then, is there any sort of CapEx or sort of spending ramifications to sort of harness the benefits of the spectrum? No, that's the beauty. We're already built out these towers, these 3.0 lighthouses that need to be converted to individual sticks, but they already exist. And so the CapEx is fairly minimal to build out fully. Now we'll transition to the end-to-end consumer experience over time as we replace cameras and production equipment and things, just like we did from analog to digital. And so I think that will happen on a different track than the B2B opportunity that we see. But no, I think that we will see revenue. The consortia should have its first paying customer in first quarter. That will not be life-changing revenue, but it will certainly be beyond the proof of concept. Right now, we're in proof of concept with auto manufacturers, with other folks that are fleet management that's interested in an enhanced GPS. And so we're doing a lot of proof of concept. We did with one auto manufacturer. We drove up and down the hills of San Diego, and it was kind of, "Can you hear me now? Did the signal stay on the monitor in the backseat headrest for the entire time?", and it did, and so we're moving from the test phase to a proof of concept phase, and we'll begin to you'll see some money start to flow in 2026, and I think it will be hockey stick, right?, and if that transition happens 2029, 2030, then that's when I think you'll see a real acceleration, but I think you'll see real revenue increasingly over the next couple of years begin to show up. Great. And maybe just wrapping up, back where we started at the TEGNA deal, what are the sort of next milestones we should expect maybe over the next few weeks or months that sort of hopefully will make you guys feel better about the transaction, maybe from the DOJ or from the FCC? What are the next things to look out for? Well, I mean, we have to go through this public comment period in December and January. Obviously, that January will be reply comments. So if somebody files something in their material misstatements of facts, we'll have the chance to address that in our reply comments. And others can file reply comments as well. So I think that once we get to the end of that pleading cycle, the FCC won't be requiring any additional information to process the transaction. We have meetings scheduled at the DOJ with not only the career staff, but the front office staff. And those will be very interactive, right? They'll be asking questions. We'll be asking questions. We'll see from those questions what they're most interested in. And that will inform our response going forward. And so we're not going to make any of that public, obviously, but we're just in a process now. There won't really be unless the chairman decides to drop a rulemaking on something as part of the Quadrennial Review or the national ownership cap, which is a discussion, which is now a closed proceeding. He has what he needs. There's no more public comment there. I would see that. When Lee Ann starts to go to the market for financing, we feel pretty good about getting to the finish line. That would be one that might be of interest to everybody in this room. Okay. We'll look out for that. All right, Perry, Lee Ann. I really appreciate you guys being here. Thank you. Thanks for having us.