Well, good afternoon, everybody. My name is Hamza Fodderwala, U.S. cybersecurity analyst here at Morgan Stanley, and we're really pleased to have the CEO of Palo Alto Networks, Nikesh Arora, with us. Before I begin, just for some important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley Research Disclosure website at www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures, and if you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales representative. With that, Nikesh, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for having me. All right. Maybe we can start off with sort of the current state of the union of Palo Alto Networks, demand environment, pipeline. How are you feeling about that, and how are you feeling about customers buying into the Palo Alto platform vision? Great. Great. Okay. We're done. I don't think the pace of digital transformation is letting up. On the margin, we've seen ransomware attacks tick up, then tick down in the recent past. There continues to be a sense of urgency in terms of making sure your cybersecurity infrastructure is robust. The transformations, whether they're cloud transformations or network transformations or SOC transformations continue. There's not a letting up in the demand environment. I think, you heard this commentary from other tech companies that, there's more scrutiny, deal cycles are taking longer. I've heard this word RAM deals. I don't know what that means, but that must be true. All those things are happening, and, it just means you have to work harder to get the same amount of business. Fair enough. When you think about the last, let's say, six months, October, November, you know, there was a little bit more caution. December, it seems like we didn't get that normal budget flush that we usually do. January, I sense you were a little bit calmer about the macro. Is that a fair characterization, and how are you feeling, you know, today? See, You think about it in calendar months, I think about it in quarters at Palo Alto. Mm-hmm. It's very hard to decouple Q4 for a tech company with the macro environment, 'cause Q4 is when salespeople make a lot of money. They just sell a lot of business. They will bring everything kicking and screaming in, even if it's not kicking and screaming, they'll bring it in. It's very hard to discern whether Q4 is cyclical or is it... Yeah ... something that your salespeople are creating. We had a good Q4. Q1, again, it's hard to decipher whether Q1 is just the Q4 flush happened, there's not enough business due in Q1. People are busy with sales conferences, so we're a bit cautious because there's a big macro running around there. We did identify, like most people did, that deals are taking longer. There is more scrutiny. You got ahead of the problem. Once you got ahead, you saw last quarter, we don't think there was a big slowdown. We think there was pricing pressure, we think there was deal cycle issues, but there's no demand reduction in the market. We feel comfortable. I feel comfortable. All right. Sounds good. You look fine. You know, 60% of the business is the third month of the quarter. It is not the third month of the quarter. I will look fine till the third month of the quarter. All right. Maybe until the last two days. Let's step back and talk a little bit about how the company has evolved. Your 5-year anniversary at Palo Alto Networks will be June of this year. Yep. Can you talk a little bit about the development of the platform, how you're feeling about the portfolio, and sort of the scale of the NGS products? Sure. You know, it's funny, I sent Walter, who many of you know is the ex-Citi analyst now Palo Alto, Senior VP of Corporate Development and IR, a message this morning at 4:00 said, Can you send me the numbers from five years ago till today? Going through that, we've tripled the revenue in five years, we're $2.2 billion in 2018 year-end. We're projected to be $6.8 billion. Our EPS is approximately triple. Our headcount's up 2.5x. We took our margins from 21.8% down to 17.8%. We're back to 22% this year. In that process, over those five years, we've tripled the market cap of the company, give or take, roughly. What we've done is we've taken what was a, what I call a single product, single swim lane cybersecurity company, established it in three different swim lanes, in network security, in cloud security, in endpoint and SOC. Each of those swim lanes, we've delivered an incremental billion-dollar business in all three swim lanes. We've got a billion-dollar-plus cloud security TCV business. We've got a billion-dollar-plus SASE business. We've got a billion-dollar-plus endpoint and SOC business. This is all over the last few years. That required us to go invest in technology. We took our R&D spend up, which is why our operating margins went down. We're beginning to see the scale benefits. All these businesses with their large amount of, you know, RPO is beginning to spin out revenue. We think the continued amortization of cost will happen. Our margins should continue to trend upwards over the next few years, and we see no reason why we can't double this business again. Got it. Okay. You've got a $1 billion TCV business in three entirely net new areas in the last five years. It seems the next focus for Palo Alto Networks is going to be AI. Yes. One, talk a little bit about how you think the more mainstream adoption of AI, 'cause AI has been around in security for a while. How do you think that will change the threat landscape from a adversary's perspective? You know, I discovered ChatGPT on a weekend. I was going to India to go speak at my university graduation, and I got to play at it at Dubai Airport for eight hours. I rewrote my speech when I went to India, and I said, I learned how to program on an ICL 1904 in 1989, showing my age. Today, these two phones have 10,000 times the computing power of that ICL 1904. 30 years ago, what I programmed on is now 10,000 times better. If ChatGPT is the first incarnation of the public display of AI, imagine when this thing is 10,000 times or 100,000 times better. I think that ChatGPT is kind of the iPhone moment of AI. We've been using AI at Palo Alto for 17 years, supervised learning, 12 years, unsupervised learning. Now suddenly we're all in the midst of this AI battle. If you parse that, all of you have seen every CEO come out and talk about how, you know, there's gonna be ChatSpot and Einstein Chat, and every enterprise product is gonna now connect to ChatGPT, and there'll be a natural language interface towards it. If you parse it a little deeper, AI is based on having good data and be able to run A/B testing against us. If there's good data, do I know what good looks like and can I tell good from bad? That's what we do in security every day. We know what good looks like, and we know what bad looks like. The problem in security has been most enterprises have had what has traditionally been said about AI, garbage in, garbage out. Most enterprises have about 30-40 security vendors. They collect data from 40 different security vendors and then try and cross-correlate it. It's like trying to get 40 different people who speak 40 languages, trying to get them to communicate. It doesn't work like that. You need a single source of truth. What we did internally is we took our business, where we had 67,000 alerts across 20 different vendors. We replaced all of that with one endpoint from ourselves. We cross-correlated the data, and we took our Mean Time to Respond from 27 days to under one minute by using AI. That's the product we put in the market four months ago called XSIAM. I think that will... That concept, I'm not suggesting it will only be us, that concept will be the disruptive event in security in the next five years. The ability to cross-correlate data, make it consistent, run a normalized data lake in any company, and be able to stop threats from happening. There's a ransomware attack that's going on in some company out there, where the entire, from the point in time they attacked the company till the time they've extracted petabytes of data, was 14 hours. You have to be able to stop the threat in less than 14 hours. Today, the Mean Time to Respond for most companies in days, which means everybody is susceptible. Mm-hmm. To me, this is a big deal. This is what needs to happen, and hopefully, we'll be one of the players in the market who can make it happen. Yeah. It seems like data is really what's gonna fuel this AI motion. And Palo Alto Networks is one of the few cybersecurity vendors, maybe the only cybersecurity vendor that has critical mass of data across network, endpoint, cloud. How do you stitch all that threat telemetry together to actually make it actionable from a detection and response standpoint? In an enterprise, 85% of the security data is between the endpoint and the firewall. We've got 61,000 firewall customers. We've got 4,500 endpoint customers, there's a large overlap between the two. In a lot of cases, we have 85% of the security data that should exist in a company. Our ability to cross-correlate those two data streams and reduce the number of alerts, the amount of noise, it will eventually allow us to get customers to a place where they can start blocking threats in real time. It's about eliminating noise, getting more signal, blocking threats. That's the aspiration. We signed up 14 customers in the first three months as design partners. They all turned to paying customers. We are now slowly and steadily expanding the scope of the customer base on our XSIAM. You know, to us, that is the first time there's an outcome-based product available in the security industry. It doesn't say, Buy my product, good things will happen. It says, Buy my product, I'll reduce your cycle time down from days to minutes. Got it. Another big problem is, automating the security operations center. I mean, there's a massive shortage of labor in cybersecurity. I've read, you know, over 3 million, you know, worker shortage. How does XSIAM help to drive automation, ultimately save costs? I'm trying to think if there's an analogy between the horse carriage and the car. There were a lot less horses than the number of people who wanted to get around. You don't need horses, you need cars. You don't need people to solve cybersecurity problems, you need more automation. You can't throw people against the cybersecurity problem. You can't get your Mean Time to Respond by having 100 SOC analysts. You've got to go automate a lot of stuff, you gotta deploy a lot of AI. As part of the product we've talked about, we have inbuilt automation. We can improve your outcomes by 8x by automating a whole bunch of traditional attacks that happen in an enterprise. Got it. Got it. Let's talk a little bit about vendor consolidation. I mean, when you joined Palo Alto Networks, I think, there was no vendor in the market that had more than maybe 2%-3% market share, probably even less. Today, the cybersecurity market is still pretty fragmented. How do you see that changing, and how do you think AI is going to aid in that consolidation trend? You know, before we get to AI, when I started five years ago, the argument I got from people in this room or buy-side analysts, sell-side analysts, was the customers don't want consolidation. Fine. I think now, five years later, I think customers had no choice to consolidate. Nobody actually offered them great products and multiple swim lanes that you could consolidate onto. You had one great swim lane. People had great endpoints, they bought CASB. People had great endpoints, they bought DLP, said, Let me sell you this because you have this. Customers don't wanna buy a non-best of breed in security. Today we sit in 13 Magic Quadrant to the right, where we are the leader in 13 different categories of security. We say, Listen, we'll compete individually in each category. We'll win by giving you the best V product. The advantage we'll give you is we'll make our products talk to each other. We'll stitch them together for you. That's what's driving consolidation. Easiest way for us to measure consolidation, when I came to Palo Alto, the largest deal was $28 million. Last quarter, we did a $75 million deal, right? Customers are buying more things from us. I think our number of million-dollar deals in the growth number is bigger than most other people in the industry in their net number of million-dollar deals. Our million-dollar deals are growing, and our traditional life cycle is you go from $1 million to $5 million to $10 million to $25 million to, hopefully, $75 million or $100 million. Our $5 million deals are growing. Our $10 million deals are growing. Our million-dollar deals are growing. I feel comfortable that we're seeding the market with million-dollar deals, and we're driving customers to bigger and bigger purchases and consolidation as we spend more time with them. All right. Today, I think Palo has over 62,000 enterprise firewall customers, roughly 10,000 customers across the NGS portfolio. How much overlap is there between that base, and do you think over time all your, you know, customers, 70,000 customers, will use multiple products with you? 50% of our customers use at least two platforms from us. There are two ways to think about it. One is, yes, all customers of Palo Alto Networks, depending on whether they're using the public cloud or not, should be using more products from us than less. I also believe we're not amply penetrated. Even in our largest customers, they should be spending more with us. The fact that I can get one customer to spend $75 million means there should be another 500 customers like that over time who should be able to spend that kind of money with us. This is a motion we're still getting used to. We're still ramping up. I think there's ample time, ample opportunity, and ample product market fit that we have, and we should be able to keep driving growth in the market. Let's go into some of the product categories. Cloud security, particularly cloud workload security, you know, Palo Alto Networks was early to this market with some strategic acquisitions and has really helped to evangelize the market in many ways. I think today around 1% of public cloud spend is dedicated to security, maybe one or two. Typically 5%-7% of overall IT spend is on security. Mm-hmm. What do you think is an inhibitor of that maybe getting to 5% to 7% of public cloud spend, or do you think it will eventually get there? It'd probably get to about half of that. Mm-hmm. Today, 5%-7% includes infrastructure security. In the case of public cloud, you rely on Amazon, Microsoft, Google to do the infrastructure part, but you still have to do application security. It should be about, I'd say, 3%-4% of your total IT spend or public cloud spend should become cloud security spend. It's trending, you're right, around 1%. I think the inhibitors today are a lot of public cloud has yet to be deployed. If you talk to any company, they'll tell you they're still a third or a quarter of their journey down the path of full public cloud deployment. As that begins to happen, you'll see them get there. The most advanced companies are SaaS companies, which are currently offering SaaS-based products to customers. We did a $40 million deal last quarter, one deal of selling public cloud security to a SaaS company, right? There's no reason why most SaaS companies shouldn't be able to get to that point once they're fully deployed in the public cloud, where they're spending $5 million-$10 million a year on public cloud security. Yeah. That was the $40 million TCV deal. Yeah to Cloudflare. I like TCV. TCV is great. I like. They give you cash up front. It's a wonderful business. Fair enough. Fair enough. They're back in fashion, TCV. Yeah. ARR is out of fashion. TCV is back in fashion. All right. Bring TCV back. To what extent is the move into cloud security allowing you to capture budget from beyond the traditional CISO budget, so in cloud and DevOps? Look, the SASE budget is network plus security. I don't think there's a lack of budget. I mean, there's a $200 billion cybersecurity industry. Despite all our efforts, we're only 3.5% of it. There's a lot more room. We can still grow within our own cybersecurity budget. We don't need to steal other people's budgets yet. There's a lot of money we can go chase. Got it. Let's talk about SASE. I think, for Palo Alto, SASE is about the convergence of security and networking. How important is it to have a scalable architecture for this, and why is Palo Alto Networks, where you are today, better equipped than perhaps others in the market? Anybody in particular you had in mind, or? Any of the 2.5 vendors you want to mention, go ahead. I was told by one of your Morgan Stanley colleagues I have to talk about the switchboard, but I think that's legacy technology, so I'll ignore that. For those of you who are not security specialists and don't want to spend time understanding SASE, when you're on your laptops accessing your company's applications, you're using some sort of VPN tunnel to get back to your data center. If not, using some sort of client on your laptops to access applications. Traditionally, you went to your data center through a VPN, which is where you saw a firewall. Today, you can go from your laptop, you can go to the public cloud, access something, or you can go back to your data center. The right architecture for that is to bring the firewall to you. You take the data center firewall out, make it a software form factor. That's the first thing your traffic should see before it goes anywhere. That's what we do. We move the firewall out from the data center into Google Cloud, into Amazon. Your traffic goes, hits that, it decides whether your traffic is secure or not, what you're doing is right or not, then it sends you wherever it sends you. Right? We brought the firewall through the cloud at the edge. That's why it's called SASE. Some industry participants haven't quite figured out that's the architecture that we have, that's okay. We did $1 billion of TCV in the last 6 quarters in SASE. We grew last quarter close to 80% in our SASE business. We think we're a third of the size of the largest SASE player in the market in a span of two and a half years. This architecture was built two and a half years ago. The most important thing that you have to know is, for the first time in SASE, I'm no longer selling you a product. I'm not selling you a firewall and leaving. I'm saying, I'm gonna run your traffic, which means the moment your traffic leaves your laptop, it is now running on Palo Alto. It is no longer running on your own company's pipes or AT&T's pipes. It's running on Palo Alto. I don't trust myself to run a network. We're a $7 billion company. No company south of $10 billion should consider running their own network if you're gonna serve 50 million customers. I offload that traffic as fast as I can to Google Cloud or to Amazon. I don't run it. I worked at Google for 10 years. I know they spent a lot of money on building a network. They have a lot more capacity to run network, and they can give me burst capacity anywhere in the, in the world, in 150 countries. Can Amazon. What happens is, if I run your traffic on Google and they have a problem, I hot switch you to Amazon, which is how I can give you five nine SLA. Five nines, 99.999. I don't run my own network. I outsource the network. It costs me more money than it costs anybody else because I'm running on a public cloud provider that charges more money than if I was to run my own network. I think that incremental cost I have to pay is worth all the reliability in the world. We'll be running close to 10 million end users for some of the largest companies in the world. I wanna make sure that they get five nines capability. I think we have a good architecture. I think our architecture is two and a half years old, not 11 years old or 15. I think in the long term, you need the full firewall capability at the edge, which is what we deliver. Time will tell. An important point is you can fund that incremental hosting cost because of your scale and because you have multiple products that generate a lot of cash, whereas not. Our SASE business is gross margin positive by a mile, and it doesn't require us a lot of funding, especially in TCV. I hope it's growth margin positive. Large, by a mile. Okay. All right. It's got very good gross margins. Don't worry. Okay. Okay. All right. just can you speak to the... I know there's a lot of nuance, like there are customers who will still have hardware in their data center for the firewall or their campuses, and then they'll use SASE for remote users. Like for like, what is sort of the ARR uplift when a customer moves from on-prem firewalls and attached services to a SASE deal? Two and a half to 3x. 2.5, 3x. Our largest deal last quarter was $45 million in SASE. Three-year deal, about 150,000 employees of a customer. We're doing soup to nuts SASE. I haven't sold a $45 million firewall deal since I came to Palo Alto. Okay, fair enough. Let's talk about the 10% of your revenue that everyone cares about, which is the hardware firewall. You know, lately, I think you mentioned low to mid-single digit growth for the hardware business. I think that business has actually been more durable than even you expected perhaps a couple of years ago. Why is it- I didn't know what to expect. Sure. Fair enough. That's nice. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, just talk a little bit about why you think it's, you know, low to mid-single, maybe not higher? Look, there's this big conversation that everything's moving to public cloud, hardware is gonna go away, firewall's gonna be dead. Well, it hasn't happened because what's happened is the public cloud spend has come as incremental spend. There are some very specific use cases for hardware. When you want high throughput, low latency, you need boxes. If you're running a large financial service enterprise, you're gonna run a high throughput, low latency box. You're not gonna go to the public cloud just yet because you've got a very specialized use case. Those volumes are going up, so people are buying more capacity to satisfy high throughput use cases. There are many use cases where you don't wanna move lots of data onto the public cloud. We're gonna live in a hybrid world. What's interesting is that what nobody thought about is that even though we shut down most of our data, all of our data centers moved to the public cloud, our firewall spend has gone up internally. Because I need bigger firewalls in my campus because there's a lot more throughput going from my 3x the number of employees I have in and out from the cloud. I still have firewall technology on my campus, which allows my employees to get to their public cloud instances. I have SASE when you're working from home, and I have a single security pane that works across both of them, so you have a common security policy, and you have a zero trust network, right? I don't think hardware is gonna go away. There's been too many confounding effects this year between supply chain, pull-in from spend, share shifts, backlogs. When you normalize all of that, I think hardware is in the low to mid-single digits. I don't think it's gonna grow much faster than that or grow slower than that. Got it. Maybe switching gears towards federal. I think Palo Alto Networks has the largest federal cybersecurity business out there. There was a recent initiative from the Biden administration around cybersecurity. Just your thoughts on that and how, how are you feeling in terms of your positioning on the federal side? Like, not just federal. I mean, they put out executive orders for enterprises and critical infrastructure as well. I think it's important to understand the digital transformation pace continues unabated. The ransomware attacks, the cyberattacks continue at a faster pace. There's a lot of technical debt that has not been paid to fix cybersecurity issues in enterprises in the government. All that needs to be spent because we're getting more and more reliant on technology as we go forward. It's become a lot easier from a different part of the world to go attack your infrastructure. Those things are gonna continue. The spend for cybersecurity is gonna keep on growing. I don't think this is where we started. The demand is not going down, and people like the US government putting more focus on it only reinforces it. You're gonna see an SEC ruling come out, which is gonna require you to report any cyber incident in four days. I think eventually security committees will be formed for companies just the way of audit committees. We already are beginning to see companies install security committees. They're requiring cybersecurity expertise on the board. This is gonna continue to be a big topic. It is the number one topic for those of you who are on boards on Enterprise Risk Management. Now, every company is saying, This is a big risk. We need to understand it better. There's a lot of focus, which is good, which keeps the demand environment stable for us. Got it. Maybe a couple of questions on margins, then I'll open up to the audience. You talked about sort of a shift in mindset towards accelerating your margins in the last six to eight months. Look at Palo, you know, kind of purposely took down your operating margins over the last three, four years to really build a foundation of these next-gen products. You now have a $1 billion+ TCV across these next-gen products. Can you talk to the leverage that you're seeing now that you're selling these products more and more into your install base? What do those incremental margins look like? Look, our RPO has been growing at 38%-40% consistently. What happens is it's all sitting as deferred revenue, but I have to go service it right now. I have to spend customer support costs. I've got support onboarding costs. I gotta get them all up and running. My costs are front-loaded in my business. As we're beginning to see scale kick in on our business, our margins are continuing to improve. I think there is room for our operating margins to grow, given where we are. We were at 21.8 at $2.2 billion in revenue five years ago. We're at 21.8 at $6.8 billion forecasted revenue for 2023. Clearly there is scalability in our margins going forward. The environment allows us to be resource constrained if we want to be. We haven't cramped our style. We haven't cut down any projects. We've also had to pay a lot of technical debt, which is bearing fruit. I feel reasonably comfortable being able to operate this business with continually growing margins, if that was your question. Continually growing margins. Any comment on how much? No. This is English class, not a math class. The free cash flow margins are really high. Yes. High 30s%. Yes. Um- I have to thank Jerome Powell for that. Yes. Just on the interest income is an interesting point. As customers maybe. It's an interesting point. Huh? It's an interesting point, yes. Yeah. I mean, yeah, you have Palo Alto Financial Services. You're a bank now. I mean, customers also don't wanna pay as much upfront. You talked about that. You know, how do you feel comfortable with sustaining 37% plus free cash flow margins? Well, we had 33% last year, and my interest income was in tens of basis points. This year, right now, we finished the last quarter with $6.2 billion in cash. We'll probably yield 4%, 4.5% this year, by the time we ramp into it. I think Jerome Powell said today it's going to be higher, faster, longer. I feel comfortable that we're generating north of $2.5 billion of cash. Our cash is roughly equal to our revenue. If I'm yielding 5%, 5.5%, that's 50 basis points more on my free cash flow margin because it goes straight to my interest income and my EPS. On the other hand, I'm using some of that to lend money to my customers because I have Palo Alto Financial Services. I'm lending less money than I'm generating on interest income, hence my cash flow margins are expanding. At the same time, because I'm lending money, my annual billing per I heard the Snowflake guy say, you know, Mike say that it's 80+% of his customers pay TCV. I have a similar number. I'm lending the other people money, but that is damping my decline in free cash flow margins for the next three-five years. I feel comfortable with my free cash flow margins. Palo Alto Financial Services. You heard it here. It's good to be a large company generating positive free cash flow. It's true. Yeah. Wonderful. Any questions from the audience? Wow. Oh. That one over here. Thank you. This could be way off base, but just given the kind of AI security that you spoke about at the beginning and the need to kind of cross-correlate across data lakes, does that put you on, like, an eventual collision course with companies like Snowflake or some of the clouds that, you know, that pull all the data and analyze it? Those type of companies are going into security too, Datadog, et cetera. Somebody asked me the question earlier, like, there are companies going in security. How would you feel if I said I've got 50 engineers working on observability? Do you think I'll take them down? Probably not. Unless they put 4,000 engineers to work to compete with me, I don't feel so stressed. Maybe 2,000 'cause they'll be twice as smart as us, still, it requires a lot of investment to take us down in security. Having said that, on your question around whether we're in a collision course with companies, I think the database companies are data collection expertise. They collect data. They're able to organize it for you. They give you quick access. We're not. We use BigQuery to put our data. We use their databases to put it there. It's the intelligence we deploy against. It's the threat intelligence, it's the threat research we do. It's a cross-correlating of when you see something in here, and you look at something over here, does it look like a threat? Does it look like it's a foreign actor? We know every organized actor in the world that has been doing any kind of hacking for the last 1five years. We have large amounts of database, so we have larger pattern recognition. Our knowledge is more on the pattern recognition intelligence side, not the mere act of collecting data. There, yes, there's been companies collecting data for the last 1five years as well, but there's no normalized data either. You gotta go figure out how to normalize security data and go do research against it. I'm less worried about them than I am of two guys in a garage starting the next security company that'll chase us down. I think we might have time for one more question. We're going a little bit over, but anyone? Okay. You guys have been very acquisitive over the past few years, and. Right ... it contributed a lot to your revenue and your ability to innovate even faster. I think last year you might have had an acquisition fall short or less successful than before. That at least the rumor. Any lessons learned? Any differences in the way you're gonna approach acquisitions going forward given where the market is right now? That's an interesting question. If I was a little more edgy, I'd ask you, has every stock in your portfolio generated positive return last year? What is your lesson learned, and what are you gonna do about it this year? Let's put that away. I think my portfolio return is better than yours. I bought 17 companies. One failed. 16 worked. Great. Jokes apart, we did not get any revenue. We bought technology. The collective revenue across all the acquisitions we did were less than $100 million. We do $6.8 billion in revenue. The revenue wasn't the reason. We bought it because we were lagging in innovation. We had a lot of technical debt to pay. We bought them. We integrated them. They're all part of the three platforms that we have. Lessons learned, you know, I'd do it again. The reason is we anticipated a technology we thought was gonna work, which didn't hit mainstream and didn't work. I didn't think SASE was gonna be mainstream, and we put 260 engineers to work on it, and it did $1 billion in the last six quarters. I can't get everything right. I got more right than wrong. I think we're in the same business. All right. With that, I think we'll wrap it up. Nikesh, thank you so much. Thank you, Hamza. Pleasure. All right. Thank you, everyone.