Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our virtual fireside chat with Universal Display Corporation at Oppenheimer's 28th Annual Technology, Internet, and Communications Conference. Today, we have the pleasure to host the Chief Financial Officer of Universal Display, Brian Millard. Thank you, Brian, for being here. Yeah, great to be here. Thanks for having us, Martin. Just before we get started, I do want to give a quick safe harbor statement. I may make some forward-looking remarks as part of my comments today, and our results may differ from those forward-looking statements. We would encourage everyone to look at our SEC filings before making any investments in the company. Thanks, Brian. I would like to start with your view on the IT market. Beyond quantitative market forecasts for OLED penetration in IT, what qualitative shifts in user behavior or product designs are you seeing in the IT market that excite you the most about the long-term material sales opportunity for Universal Display? Yeah, I think the IT market is certainly one that we see a lot of growth opportunity for in the next few years. We're coming off of very low penetration rates. Right now, approximately 5% or approaching 5% of the IT units globally have OLED displays in them. Very low penetration, and one that we know there's a lot of OEM interest in the coming years in adopting OLED displays into a variety of IT products. The form factor, I think there's, whether it's tablets, laptops, monitors, there's a lot of use cases for OLEDs in the IT market. Gaming monitors are actually one that's getting a lot of momentum recently. The fast refresh rate of OLEDs is a key driver of interest in the OLEDs for the gaming monitor market. Even recently, in the last few weeks, there's been some comments about some of our customers introducing new gaming monitors with even faster refresh rates. We see that as being a key opportunity for growth in the IT segment. There are also some comments that in the next few years, some OEMs may consider foldable IT products, which bring an even more interesting form factor to the displays. There's a lot of interest in IT across our customer base. We see that because three of our major customers have already announced new CapEx plans for the IT market. Samsung, BOE, and Visionox all have plans underway for capacity to meet that growing demand. We would expect that other customers in the coming quarters may announce new capacity investments as well. It's a key growth driver for our industry and one that we're actively working with our customers to support. We've also probably talked with you previously about the tandem structures that are used in many of the IT products, which is also a key driver of our business because there's more material needed for those displays. For those not familiar, the tandem structure is where there's two emissive layers used in the display. There's probably somewhere between 1.5x-2x the material consumption of UDC's materials compared to a single layer structure, which is certainly a benefit to us because that's more of our red, green, and future blue material that will be needed for those displays. It's one that we're working very closely with our customers to support them and are very excited about the path forward for IT and think that as these new fabs come online and as OEMs look at their product roadmaps for their IT products in the coming years, there's going to be more and more interest in the various form factors and options that OLEDs provide. On the topic of large IT-oriented Gen 8 fabs coming online, what does those fab CapEx mean for you before they enter mass production? Do you generate any meaningful sales as they ramp up production and into commercial production? Yeah, we certainly do. As the equipment is installed and they're going through the process of qualifying those lines and readying them for commercial mass production, there is material needed from UDC to go through those test runs and those qualification processes. We typically do see some revenues before those come online. As it relates to the pieces, the materials that are going to be needed this year for the qualification at Samsung and BOE, those are already incorporated in our forecasting guidance for this year. There is some material that's needed in advance of actual commercial mass production. Got it. Regarding the tandem structure, we all know LG showcased a hybrid tandem panel with your phosphorescent blue and fluorescent blue. How do you think about the market potential for the hybrid solution versus a pure phosphorescent blue? Are most customers OK with this hybrid tandem structure, or are they waiting until the pure blue is ready? Yeah, LG's announcement back in May was really a key exciting development for us and for the industry. As you noted, their display that they produced using our phosphorescent material for the blue color had one layer of fluorescent and one layer of phosphorescence. They showcased those displays a few weeks later at SID Display Week in California in mid-May. They were IT-sized displays, kind of the size of a tablet that they showed. They showed a side-by-side comparison of a conventional tablet and a tablet that was produced using the higher efficiency blue material from us using that hybrid structure. They had power meters on both, and you could see there was a 15% reduction in energy consumption using the high efficiency blue from UDC. We know that 15% is really compelling. Energy efficiency is what our customers and the OEMs, their customers, are all after as they're designing new and next-gen displays. We know there's a lot of interest in high efficiency and getting that to market. We believe that even if it is a hybrid tandem structure, there should be a place for that in the market. From our perspective, getting our phosphorescent blue material into market, whether it's in a hybrid tandem structure or another structure that LG or any of our other customers may bring to market, that's a really interesting opportunity for us and one that we're very excited about. We also think it's a foot in the door because ultimately getting to an all-phosphorescent approach is our goal. Having our product in market initially will give us opportunities as we continue to invent new materials that continue to improve their performance. That then unlocks more opportunities for our customers in the years ahead. In the LG implementation, how does the material consumption for UDC compare to a more regular tandem panel? Yeah, it's very hard to say at this point because we don't know the exact recipe that LG used to produce that display. Typically, in a tandem structure, there's 1.5x -2x the material consumption in total compared to a single layer. Exactly the thickness of each of those layers for blue is a little unclear to us at this point. It certainly represents an entirely new revenue stream for us because we don't have any blue in market today. If they're successful in commercializing that and having an OEM design that into a product, that's an entirely new revenue stream for us and one that we're really excited about. For overall tandem adoption in the market, we've seen some smartphones using tandem in China, and we are seeing a wider adoption of tandem in tablet products. Going forward, where do you think, aside from IT, do you still see smartphone as a high potential market for tandem? We think that smartphones, as you noted today, it's been a little bit niche using tandem in the smartphone market. There's been some, even in the last few weeks, there's been some rumors of tandems being considered for various smartphone models. We think that especially if it can enable phosphorescent blue getting into market, we think that that's a great opportunity. Even regardless of phosphorescent blue, we think that certainly on the red and green sides, a tandem structure would be incremental revenue for us if they do use tandem on the red and green side. The tandem displays are brighter, so brightness tends to be one of the key factors that are marketed when introducing tandem displays. Actually, when the iPad Pro, Apple's iPad Pro, launched in 2024, Apple specifically marketed it as a tandem OLED and also noted the brightness as being one of the key features of it. In the smartphone market, we think it does have an opportunity to take hold. We'll have to see exactly how those OEMs in the next few years decide to consider tandem in the smartphone market. For Apple's iPad Pro, for example, that display is one of the brightest and highest-performance displays in the market alongside other IT products. How would you characterize the commercial success of this tandem panel? Do you think going forward, this will make tandem a mainstay among the IT products for Apple's product lines? Yeah, I think that tandems, whether it's really any OEM who's evaluating tandem, has to consider what exactly does it add to their product that they're bringing to market. Could they introduce a single layer and get the same features? As you said, the brightness, and we talked about the brightness as a key factor. Also the lifetime, because if you have white pixels on all day long on a display, after a number of years, there can be some concern of lifetime if you don't have a tandem display. Tandem does help with the lifetime concern there. We believe that in the IT market, there's going to continue to be a blend of single layer and tandem structures, whether any OEM is going to have probably their premium models that would have the tandem structure. There may be other models that are single layer. There are models that have been in market for many, many years that are single layer OLED IT products, and they do quite well. They don't have the same brightness that you would have with tandem. After many, many, many years, possibly there's a lifetime concern, but we've not really seen that be a significant issue. There's going to be space, I think, for both. It comes down to the cost, because tandem is a more costly display for the OEM to procure from the display maker. There's more manufacturing complexity. As it relates to our material, we're still a relatively small part of the overall bill of materials for a display, even a tandem display. It's not necessarily UDC 's material pricing that's a hindrance to tandem being adopted, but more some of the other manufacturing complexity that goes in the process that causes them to be a little bit more expensive for the OEM to purchase. Got it. I want to touch on blue, because this will be quite an integrated topic with tandem structure going forward. Maybe first taking a more retrospective view on blue. When you look at the blue development, what were the most unexpected breakthroughs or challenges you ran into that contributed to the delay in 2024? Yeah, so a little bit of background there. As many of you may know, in 2022, we first set a timeline to blue, and we said that in 2024, we expected to have commercial performance of our material. Just this May, five months after 2024, one of our major customers, LG, came out and said that they had commercial performance using our material. Over the last few years, our team's been working very closely with our customers and internally to develop new materials that have continued to increase their performance and therefore given our customers more opportunities as they design and develop products using our high efficiency blue. I'd say that the challenges and breakthroughs have been that our material is one component of our overall system. That is a little bit challenging for us and our customers because it's a matter of how does UDC's material perform with various other materials that are used in producing a display. Getting to that right combination has been part of the puzzle that everyone's been trying to solve. Specifically, there are three things that we assess when we're developing new materials, whether it's red, green, or blue materials, which is what's the lifetime of the material, what's the color point, so how deep is the blue or light is the blue, and what's the energy efficiency. Of those three, lifetime has been kind of the most challenging to move up the curve. That's part of the reason why you saw LG in their announcement back in May. They noted that they got the energy efficiency benefits of the phosphorescence from UDC, and they were able to get more of the stability or lifetime benefits of the fluorescent using that hybrid approach that they did. Continuing to improve the lifetime characteristics of our material is certainly a priority and what our team's working on. It's not a linear path. There are kind of twists and turns as we go through the development process that just cause it to take a little bit longer than that 2024 timeline that we had originally set out for a few years ago. One of the key things that we've been using across our development of red, green, and blue materials is our proprietary AI/ML platform. We set up a computational chemistry team at UDC about 10 years ago. That team is working continuously with our team in the lab to come up with new material sets that can improve performance characteristics. That's been a key capability of ours that's helped us certainly, on the positive side, move forward faster than we would have otherwise been able to. There are always, in science, things around the corner that you can't anticipate. We've successfully navigated those and are really happy with the place that we're in today. I talk about one of the challenges is developing a material in a very complex system. Does that make you think about maybe getting involved in more of the material development in the entire stack, or forming a closer relationship with our customers, or any other way to maybe remove some of the challenges in this complex system design? Yeah, it's a great question. The material that has the closest relationship to the emitter that we produce are the host materials. We do, on the blue side, we have manufactured blue hosts and been selling blue hosts in development quantity to our customers. That's been a way that we've been partnering internally with ourselves to make sure that we're introducing a system to our customers that has the best possible likelihood of success. We also have host collaboration agreements on red and green specifically with other companies where we do collaborate periodically with other partners in the OLED ecosystem on material development for both. They're developing hosts, we have development emitter, and we do have collaboration agreements to kind of make sure that we're able to introduce collectively the best possible systems to our customers. It's something that we certainly do focus on, specifically on the host materials. Do those host collaboration agreements result in any financial upside to you? Is that something you also have revenue recognized from those development agreements? It's not any material revenue, but we do occasionally have some small amounts of revenue that come out of those collaboration agreements. I see. For blue specifically, do you still see the host material for blue as a potential revenue stream once the material is ready and passed all the commercial thresholds? We do see an opportunity for blue revenues, or blue host revenue specifically. I think we are mindful, though, that the host market is a little bit more commoditized than the emitter market. As we approach our customers and approach that commercial opportunity, we fully think we have hosts that perform very, very well. We know there's interest in them because our customers have been purchasing them for development use. We are also being mindful not to go build a bunch of capacity and infrastructure around a host business until we have a really clear sense of the commercial opportunity there. We are fully going all at that opportunity and making sure that we're really competing in that space. Got it. I want to talk about foldable smartphones because we see a very steady increase of foldable smartphones, both in shipment and market share over the years. For you, are you developing a foldable-specific material stack given that the display has more durability or power efficiency concerns? Anything special in the recipe? Yeah, so the foldable opportunity, as you said, really seems to be taking off in the smartphone market. There are many Chinese brands, as well as Samsung and others, who have had good commercial success with introducing foldables. We would expect in the next few years, there are going to be other leading OEMs that will introduce foldables in the smartphone side as well. We specifically don't, our material sets are fairly common, whether it's foldable or single layer. There can be slight tweaks, but it's not like it's an entirely new thing that we're not familiar with. Many of the materials that we develop that are used for single layer devices can also be used for foldable. It's a market that's really growing, and our customers are all very interested in it. The opportunity for our business is also very great because there's probably 2x-3x the quantity of our red and green materials and future blue materials that will be needed to produce those foldable displays just based on the square area of those foldables compared to a conventional smartphone. It's a great opportunity for us. On the material side, it's fairly common to what we're used to in the traditional smartphone devices. I see. I want to move on to your exposure to the Chinese market. Considering the China order patterns are getting more bulky due to geographic political factors, how do you proactively manage your inventory levels across the U.S. and Ireland? Yeah, as you said, we manufacture our products in two locations, the U.S. and Ireland. Right now, we manufacture about 50% of our needs in each location. It's a challenging situation to balance what we manufacture. If we're introducing a new product tomorrow, do we manufacture that only in the U.S., only in Ireland? Do we manufacture it in both locations so we have the ability to supply customers from both? With the U.S.-China trade situation, having the Irish plant in our network has been a key capability for us. We've been able to supply our customers in China directly from Ireland in many cases. There are some materials that we make that are only made in the U.S., and those have been subject to some tariffs. That's why we saw a lot of our customers in China purchase a significant quantity of material in the first few weeks of April before some of those Chinese tariffs went into effect. It's a constant balancing act to how we balance our supply between the two plants. Having Ireland as part of our manufacturing network has been really critical in this time because it's key that we have alternative sources and be able to continue to be a U.S. manufacturer, but have the options of manufacturing elsewhere if we can as well. We're continuing to, on a case-by-case basis, work with our customers to figure out exactly where the optimal location is for those manufacturing activities. Would you say the capabilities in the U.S. and Ireland, they are similar? Is there any materials that can only be produced in the U.S. or Ireland? No, we have the ability to make them in both. The equipment sets are really identical between the two. We have the ability to do all the wet process chemistry as well as all the finishing processes in our manufacturing in both locations. We have packaging labs in both locations as well. Really, soup to nuts, we can do the full process in either location the same. Is it right that the only difference between the U.S. and Ireland will be total capacity, where you have a bit more capacity in Ireland? Yeah, ultimately Ireland is a larger facility. If it met full capacity, if we build out all the phases of CapEx, it's a multi-year CapEx plan that we have for that location. It's a 16-acre campus, so it's quite large. We're only using about half, roughly, of the physical plant that's there. There is some incremental CapEx needed in the coming years to fully get to 100% capacity there. As of today, based on the capacity we have in Ireland and the capacity we have in the U.S., we're balancing about 50% of our production needs between both sites. Got it. When it comes to capacity, there's also this question on utilization. What's the current effective utilization rate across your manufacturing facilities? Is there some optimization you currently need to do that impacts margins? Yeah, so we have a high degree of capacity utilization, so we don't have a lot of underutilization at this point. That said, we certainly have some excess in our process if we need to scale up for additional volume to meet customer needs. It's also important to note, back to kind of the earlier part of your question, with the lumpiness of customer ordering patterns, we stock many months and sometimes quarters of material in finished goods for our customers so that if they do place a significant order tomorrow, we have the ability to meet that demand because we've already produced it and have it on the shelf waiting for them. That allowed us, in April, when we got all those significant orders from our customers in China, we were able to rapidly respond and meet their needs within a few days because of the fact that we had already produced everything. It's a constant act of figuring out exactly how much to produce. We have a high degree of utilization, but not 100%. There's always some capacity. We do a forward-looking plan, multi-year plan, looking forward to where we think industry volumes are going to go over the coming years. That informs our CapEx plans and how we need to bring new reactors and other capacity online. Got it. Do you need to bring reactors online in relation to the Gen 8 fabs? We have sufficient capacity today, we believe, to meet that demand because we've been planning for that and known that that was going to happen, that the IT market was going to have an inflection point in the coming years and that we were going to need to scale up manufacturing to meet that demand. We feel comfortable with the capacity we have either in place or under construction in the current state that we'll be able to meet those volumes. Got it. How would you describe your overall visibility in terms of customer demand? You talk about having ample stock in finished goods for inventory. Would you say your visibility with clients is pretty reasonable for you to prepare ahead? Yeah, we get visibility. Some customers give us kind of rolling 12-month forecasts. Our larger customers tend to give us longer-range forecasts. As the smaller customers, we tend to get three months or sometimes six months of visibility. It really just depends on the customer how much visibility we get. We have our own team internally that meets typically every two weeks to kind of look at what the forward-looking volumes are expected to be over the next 12 months. We do an internal kind of rolling 12 months, even for the customers that we don't get 12 months for. We do our own extrapolation and estimates for that 12-month period. We do a longer-range three-year model on an ongoing basis based on mostly internal data, leveraging some third-party analysts and market research firms. As it relates to kind of the near-term visibility, we do get three to six typically, and sometimes even more than that from our customers. What's given us the confidence this year to raise our guidance that we raised just two weeks ago on our earnings call, we brought up the bottom end of the guidance range by $10 million. That's really because we have good visibility now to kind of certainly what through July and into August look like. We're continuing to get consistent feedback from our customers about what the rest of the year also is expected to be. That's why we felt confident in bringing up the bottom end of the guidance range by $10 million. Got it. I want to maybe touch on emerging sectors for OLED display. Beyond the expected growth from IT and your potential blue adoption, what are the underexplored or emerging applications for OLED that you see as having significant longer-term consumption potential? Yeah, I think automotive is a really interesting market. It's one that over the last few years, I think we've been increasingly bullish about the automotive opportunity as our customers continue to focus on it even more and more. We have automotive development projects underway with many of our major customers at this stage. Especially in the EV market, automotive, OLEDs and automotive have a lot of compelling factors for energy consumption, the ability to have good temperature specs that OLEDs can perform at, as well as some tandem structures are also being assessed for the automotive market, which is certainly an incremental opportunity for us based on that material volume per square inch being greater. The automotive market's one where not only for the cockpit and the dashboard and those driver-facing and front passenger-facing features, but even the rear entertainment displays for passengers in the rear of the car. We have some customers who are active in the tail light market as well for automotive. Audi has been the OEM who's been most active in the OLED tail light market. They've adopted them in many of their models and have plans to do even more in the coming years. I think automotive of the key markets is one that we're most interested in. Certainly, wearables continue to be an area of focus, whether that's smartwatches and other types of wearables. It's a smaller revenue opportunity for us just because the size of those displays is smaller than a smartphone or a tablet or those types of devices. Those are really the key markets that we're evaluating going forward. There's certainly things that fall beyond those too, like medical devices and other things that might use OLEDs. The predominant things that we're focused on beyond the top ones are really automotive and wearables. Given there's a higher performance requirement for auto in terms of various conditions, maybe resistance to temperature and brightness, would you say overall there's a potential of higher adoption of tandem OLED structures in auto? Yeah, to date, many of the automotive use has been tandem. There have been a few brands, especially some of the Chinese EV brands, that our understanding is they have used a single layer OLED in some of those models. Especially many of the flagship brands in the West seem to be using a tandem structure for their displays. Got it. Do you foresee in the future where auto starts to become more material? Is there an inflection point or milestone you're expecting for auto to become more material to your business? Yeah, I think it's important to have the context of the broader TAM of the auto market. There's around 85 million new vehicles sold annually in the world. Right now, about 1% of those, so a little less than a million units, have OLED products in them. There's clearly a lot of opportunity for growth off of where we are now since we're just at such low adoption in the current state. If you look at some of the next-gen prototype models that are coming out that have more and more displays in them, I think that's really the key opportunity for us: proliferation of displays even more in automotive. As that happens, we think OLEDs will continue to have strong footholds. There's no one particular thing to point on other than we think that the penetration rate is very low today, has a lot of opportunity to grow, as well as the size and quantity of displays in vehicles is continuing to grow on an annual basis. That provides an even greater opportunity for our business as that continues to occur in the years ahead. Got it. Both the penetration rate and the content per vehicle will rise over time. Yes. Got it. Thanks. I want to touch on IP. How do you plan to evolve your IP strategy to keep protecting your leadership position against other challenges, especially as the majority of the OLED industry is based in East Asia? Yeah, we are a continuous innovation company. We're continually on a daily, weekly basis inventing new technologies, materials, device architectures, various types of IP that we are patenting. We are filing that on an ongoing basis and continuing to get new patents granted. We have more than 6,500 patents today that cover not just our materials, but a broad array of technologies in the OLED and display space. We believe that the global coverage of that portfolio, as well as the quantity and breadth and depth of the portfolio, provides us with a lot of protection against competitive concerns. We believe it'd be very hard for someone to compete with us in a meaningful way, especially on a global scale based on the types of IP and the nature of our IP. We're not sitting here living on patents of the past. We're continuing to move forward and invent new and improved materials and technologies that provide us with a lot of protection for our business going forward. I want to touch on the topic of capital allocation. You have announced a buyback this year. In UDC 's history, it's a very rare occurrence. Can you maybe speak to the context of buyback, why now, and overall, what's your capital allocation strategy and where buyback sits? Yeah, as you noted, we historically have returned capital to shareholders through our dividend program. We've not been active on the buyback side. Our board did put a $100 million authorization in place back in late April. That authorization was put in place really to give another tool to management as we move forward, that if there is price dislocation or a reason why we think our stock's trading at a particular value relative to what we believe is market, we can get in there and buy some shares. We're going to be opportunistic in the way that we deploy that, as opposed to having an ongoing program each quarter where we're buying a certain quantity of shares. Our capital allocation program is really focused firstly on investment, and that's investment either in R&D and continuing to expand our position in the industry, M&A, whether that's acquiring patent portfolios or businesses. Returning capital to shareholders, as I said, is important to us and has been through our dividend program historically and now through the authorization that we have in place for the buyback. We'll see when and if we deploy the buyback going forward, but it at least gives us the opportunity that, as I said, if we see that dislocation, we can get in there and take action as we need to. Got it. In terms of other priorities in capital allocation, how would you rank them respectively? Yeah, I think organic investment in organic R&D and continuing to find new research areas, whether that's in OLED displays or other types of electronic materials or things that are kind of within our wheelhouse and what we know how to do is important. We're also continuing to look at our AI/ML-driven material discovery and computational chemistry area, which I mentioned earlier, and how can we continue to leverage that as a vehicle for our growth in the years ahead to maintain and grow our position in OLEDs, as well as if there's other research areas that that might be applicable to. We've acquired patent portfolios historically over the last few years. We most recently acquired the Merck patent portfolio two years ago. We'll continue to look at opportunities in the years ahead. If there's IP we find interesting that we think is additive to our position, we'll have the capital in the business to be able to pursue those very quickly. We've not had a significant history and track record of doing M&A at the business acquisitions, but it's something that we preserve the flexibility to do through the capital we retain in the business and our financial position that we have. I would like to address a few questions coming from the audience. The first regarding SemiSprout and then your IP protection. The question is, the company has been shipping red and green materials, and there are reports that those materials are being used in global smartphone models. How should investors take your lack of legal response to this development? Yeah, I think the key thing is we have a position with our customers. We have a strong partnership with our customers. We expect to continue to be the leader in the industry. There has been an increased competitive environment over the last few years, particularly in China. A lot of that is driven by a desire for localization. We believe that our IP position, which we just talked about over the last few minutes, as well as the partnerships we have with our customers, the quality of our materials, will continue to preserve our position on a long-term basis. Continuing to protect our IP and our know-how and trade secrets is of utmost importance and one we'll continue to take going forward. Another question from the audience regarding blue development. Do you have a new timeline to share on when you expect to hit the commercial specification for a standalone blue, meaning blue or in an all-phosphorescent RGB architecture? We don't, I think the key thing is LG's announcement of using our material in a hybrid structure with phosphorescence and fluorescence, we view as a major win for us and being able to get a foothold in the market, which will enable us to move forward and continue to iterate off of that strong position. Like I said, getting to an all-phosphorescent approach is certainly a priority. I don't have a specific timeline to provide in that regard other than to say our team continues to work. Our work isn't done in continuing to invent new materials that continue to improve their performance characteristics and that then giving our customers more options as they invent new products going forward. I want to maybe take the last few minutes to talk about your outlook for next year. Aside from quantitative guidance, what are the things you're excited about going into next year? Yeah, I think certainly if you look at the key markets of our business being smartphones, TV, and IT, of those three, IT we expect has the strongest rate of growth over the next few years and in 2026 as well. Based on the new capacity coming online, the OEM product roadmaps that we understand today to adopt OLEDs into more and more products on the IT side over the coming years, there's a lot of momentum at our customers on the IT side. Smartphones, we also have the opportunity to grow that market. We're more than 50% penetrated today in the smartphone space, and there's room for that to continue to grow as more and more mid-end, mid-models and low-end phones continue to adopt OLEDs. TVs, we also expect there's going to be continued growth in the TV market over the coming years. We're excited about a lot of things going into next year. On blue, we're continuing to work with our customers very closely on their development prospects, and we believe that we'll be very successful in having blue in market. It's just a matter of continuing to support our customers as they develop displays using our blue and as they continue to move that forward into the commercial marketplace. Got it. Now I see no further questions from the audience. Is there any closing remarks you would like to make? No, I really thank you, Martin, and Oppenheimer for hosting us today. It's been a great conversation and conference. I look forward to talking with many of you in the coming quarters as well. Thank you, Brian. Thanks, everyone, for attending. That's a wrap. Thanks. Take care.