Looks like the webcast has begun. So we'll get going with our next presentation. I'm Ryan Brinkman, autos analyst at JPMorgan. Very happy to have PHINIA, of course, spun out of BorgWarner the other year. Brady Ericson to my left, President and Chief Executive Officer, as well as Chris Gropp, Chief Financial Officer. Brady and Chris, thanks so much for coming to the conference. I understand you had some difficulty getting here with the weather. You might be a little tired to the hotel at 2 A.M., but thanks for persevering and making it. I don't know if you have any introductory remarks or you just want to launch into questions. What do you think? No, I think we'll just kind of comment, what a difference a year makes. I guess, The stock price. We just celebrated, you know, our one-year anniversary back here in July, and I think when we were here last year, the sentiment on EVs and PHINIA in general were very different. And we're just super excited about, you know, what we've accomplished over the last year and how the industry has continued to, you know, realize that GDI and electrification—Sorry, and GDI and electrification, are going to be both, you know, needed in the industry. And so I think we've continued to try to be, you know, a good steward of the company and put the foundation in place to where, you know, we're a strong company, and I think we're starting to see some of the appreciation in the stock price, too. Yeah, and that's really one of my first questions is just, you know, what, what did happen with the EV expectations? I mean, at the start of the year, S&P Global Mobility thought that 2024 BEV production would be up 32%. Their latest forecast out last week is only up 10%. Mm-hmm. You know, what accounts do you think for this significant reset in expectations? Has the slower near-term growth caused you to think any differently about, you know, the medium or longer-term trajectory for BEVs and the tail to ICE? You know, what are the implications for PHINIA? Yeah, I mean, from our perspective, we always kind of question the somewhat parabolic, you know, curve that people were forecasting for electric vehicles, which is why we were excited to take the opportunity to join PHINIA and be spun out. EVs are going to continue to increase. Okay, so rather than growing 30, they're only growing 10. And they're going to be a key part in the transition in the industry to carbon neutrality. But I think people are realizing that, you know, efficient hybrid and plug-in hybrid solutions are also going to be key, and they're going to be around for a lot longer. And so our view has always been that EVs are going to continue to increase, but it's going to plateau at some point. Whether that's plateauing at 30% or 40% by the end of the decade, you know, we'll see where that ends up. We think that combustion engines are going to be around for decades to come on the light vehicle and through the rest of the century on commercial and industrial applications. We're just going to continue to work with customers to transition them from fossil fuels to carbon-neutral and carbon-free fuels. Thank you. The second question relates to the big growth we've seen in the Chinese domestic automakers. They've improved their quality, their design. Of course, they've been quick to embrace electrification, not exclusively. BYD does hybrids, as well as internal combustion, has gone from the 13th largest automaker in China to the biggest in just the last 4 or 5 years. Overall, I think the domestic has gone from about 35% pre-pandemic to even 55% or more this year, with ambitions to grow outside of China, too. How do you see that trend evolving? You know, many of the suppliers we cover are underexposed to these quickly growing automakers. What is your exposure to the Chinese? And can you describe, you know, any actions you might be taking to try to win more business with these automakers? Well, I think you've seen a number of our announcements have been with the local Chinese OEMs. We're a little bit fortunate in the fact that on light vehicle side, we're probably over 80% of our revenues is with the local Chinese OEMs. And on the commercial vehicle side, it's around 100% because there's really no global OEMs on the CV side in the market. And so we're well positioned. We're actually seeing some advantages in supporting customers on some of their export business. You know, they have some very competitive products. We have a strong team working with all those major players that you just kind of mentioned. And we've announced a number of, you know, plug-in hybrids and range- extending EVs that we're doing for a lot of these customers, for both the local market as well as for export. And we're starting to see some of those also, you know, look to move production, you know, outside of China as well, to support their global ambitions. And so we're excited about it. We're right in the middle of it, and I think we're in a great position to be, you know, overweight with those customers. Next question pertains to the implication for suppliers from the interplay of the price and the volume of new vehicles. And we saw during the pandemic that automakers can do just fine, even great, in a low-volume, high-price environment, because while automakers are hurt by the lower volume, you know, they're helped by the higher price. Suppliers, though, got the short end of that stick, being levered to only the volume and not really the price. I know vehicle sales in the U.S. remain 8% lower than where they were pre-pandemic, I think, hurt by the fact that new vehicle prices have risen 9 points faster than other consumer prices. And automakers say that they will remain disciplined, intent to hold on to these relative pricing gains. Others expect volume to benefit from a return to historical discounting, inventory build, et cetera. Maybe we're at a crossroads with inventory now, recovering to pre-chip shortage levels. Just curious what you think happens next with price and volume, and if price is structurally higher, is demand maybe structurally lower, production structurally lower? Well, I think that's what's happened a lot with the electric vehicles. I think the prices of those were just so high that people, there's only a certain amount of population that can afford those. I think we've seen some of that on the combustion and hybrid side as well, but I think they're still at a lower price point. From an overall cost and profitability standpoint, you know, for the last couple of years, it has been a headwind for most suppliers, because those were a lot of inflationary or non-commodity inflationary costs, that we had to kind of fight and push through some price increases. We ended up still absorbing a good chunk of that. The good news is that those headwinds are now kind of abating. The labor costs, transportation costs, energy costs are now kind of stabilizing, and I think our teams did a really good job to try to push through. I think in 2022, we got a lot of lump sums. In 2023, we said, "Hey, we've got to roll this just into base piece price." So now that's kind of ratcheted up our piece price as well. But we've got to continue to be focused on driving productivity and supplier productivity and improvements to remain competitive. And I think we've done that from a margin standpoint, you know, with increasing margins over that time, you know, with a lot of our cost reductions and synergies that we drove through in the last few years. So, I think it's going to continue to be a challenging market for the suppliers with those lower volumes. We're seeing it with some of our suppliers as well, especially ones that over-invested in EV and were expecting EV volumes to be a lot higher. I think they're definitely seeing some challenging headwinds with those investments, not cash flowing. And so we're dealing a lot with supply chain at this point, but I think the industry, especially on the combustion side, has changed quite a bit to where, you know, these 3% and 4% year-over-year AIFs are now kind of a thing of the past, and it's going to be more, you know, maintaining flat pricing and ensuring you have productivity to offset inflation. You also have to break that apart by segment, too, because you have to remember, aftermarket, it is totally within our... Whatever we're going to do. Obviously, market price plays into that, but on aftermarket, we're continuing to increase price 1%-2%, which keeps us still within market rate and still gaining share on that side. But as Brady said, it is a very different game right now on the OE side, for sure. What are you seeing in terms of the latest with your various different end markets, you know, the OE demand or production? Of course, light vehicle OE, but you have a lot more commercial truck and off-highway, you know, commercial vehicle exposure than many of the suppliers at this conference. What are you seeing in those various different commercial vehicle and markets globally? Yeah, I mean, we're very fortunate with the diversity of our portfolio. Light vehicle, as you said, is not our-- you know, it's less than 40, right around 44% of our revenues, and so it's less than half. Commercial vehicle, about a quarter. Obviously, commercial vehicle, industrial applications, especially in North America and the European markets, are challenged. We originally came into the year thinking that was going to be, you know, mid to high single-digit declines. We're now seeing that closer to probably double-digit for the year. But as part of the overall cycle that we see in the market, the CV industrial tends to be cyclical. I think the last two years, 2022 and 2023, were really good from a production standpoint, as I think a lot of the pent-up demand was finally kind of met. I think folks are kind of pausing a little bit right now on some of their big purchases with the higher interest rates. But I think, you know, as those interest rates come down and as we start approaching the EPA 2027 emissions regulations, we'll start to see the pre-buys start to kick in, latter half of 2025 and into 2026. And then when the Euro 7 comes into play, that'll probably have, you know, some of the pre-buying maybe 2026, 2027. And so again, it's a cyclical market, and we'll continue to manage, you know, kind of up and down in those markets. But we see it, you know, coming back into norm, you know, in the next year or so. And then I think the aftermarkets you serve have been performing a lot better. You know, is that how you expect it to play out ordinarily, that when OE demand is softer, you know, the aftermarket tends to kinda counterbalance that with a bit stronger demand? How do the OE and aftermarkets typically relate to each other? You know, you were among the minority of parts suppliers to have maintained your full year outlook this earnings season. Can you talk about the role that aftermarket might have played there? Yeah, I mean, we shared it at our Investor Day back in June of last year, of how resilient the aftermarket is and the fact that it's close to a third of our revenues. And so when the OE business is down, that means people are keeping their vehicles longer. Average age is increasing, which means they need more service parts, which is a great thing for us. You take a look at our aftermarket performance during the financial crisis, and even during COVID, it may have had a short initial dip, but then it came back even stronger. As people, you know, couldn't get OE vehicles there for a while, they had aging population, and they bought more service parts. And so we continue to see steady, consistent growth in our aftermarket, and so I think it's up 3%-4%, you know. For the first six months of the year- Six months ... we're down less than 1%. Aftermarket's up 3.6%. Fuel systems is down 3.5% based on the CV trough, so- Mm-hmm ... it's a balance effectively. Right. And again, I think that it's a good cash flowing business for us, and it's resilient. And so if you have a 30-year business that's consistently, you know, has a market growth of maybe 1%-2%, has 1%-2% of pricing, and we continue to expand our portfolio and gain some share. So it's a nice, consistent business that kind of dampens and is a nice ballast, I think, for the rest of the business, as we go through the cycles. Thank you. What does the regulatory backdrop for internal combustion, emissions look like in terms of, you know, requiring these vehicles to be cleaner and more efficient? How are you thinking about the tailwind to your business from these regulations, perhaps in the form of, content per vehicle uplift? Yeah, I mean, obviously, GDI is a good content increase from port fuel injection. We also see opportunities with us providing complete systems is advantageous. On the commercial vehicle side, as they go to more stringent regulations, that's going to be another, you know, content increase for us because the specifications that our customers need are really, really tight. You know, we're producing systems that have pressures of close to 3,000 bar, about 45,000 PSI. We have tolerances in these injectors that are plus or minus half a micron. You know, it's just just a little bit larger than the coronavirus just to kind of give you an order of magnitude, and we have to make that, you know, in thousands and thousands of parts a day. In dealing with a lot of, you know, alternative fuels and the such. So, you know, I think we're continuing to help customers today on improving efficiency through, you know, GDI, higher, you know, 500 bar, for plug-in hybrids and range-extending EVs, is a good step. And then, you know, we're also working with a lot of customers on alternative fuels, whether it's 100% ethanol, hydrogen, ammonia, natural gas, and the such. So, you know, our injection systems are such that we can adapt to whatever fuel or fluid they want us to be able to use and help them, you know, towards carbon neutrality. I think a lot of the emissions regulations, you know, they're still 10 years out when people want these ICE bans, and I think they're starting to realize that that may not be realistic. I don't think they're gonna change officially until we get probably closer. And we've seen that in the past, and we're starting to see, you know, more interest in hydrogen combustion and more e-fuels, as a viable path. And I think we always remind folks, too, even on the light vehicle side, you know, everything is not California, you know, London, and Paris. South America, Central America, Southeast Asia, India, Eastern Europe, they're not going electric. They're developing other types of renewable carbon-neutral fuels that are gonna be their pathway to carbon neutrality. While we're used to regulations helping your business, you know, in terms of requiring internal combustion engine vehicles to be more efficient, which in turn necessitates, you know, more sophisticated ICE solutions, there are these other set of regulations, as we alluded to, you know, or proposed regulations, which seek to mandate EVs or, you know, to ban ICE engines entirely by a certain year, et cetera. You know, what have you seen in that respect, and what has been the trend in, you know, the discussion around these regulations amidst the recently slower consumer uptake of EVs? Well, I think from a regulatory standpoint, I think they're listening a lot more. I think they got on a kick of, you know, we want 100% electric, and I think they're starting to realize that, excuse me, I think they're starting to realize that that's not a viable, practical solution for the consumers. And I think it's, there's gonna be some more education. We've got a hydrogen van that we've got running around both Europe and here in North America now as a demonstrator vehicle to show the benefits of, you know, alternative fuels. And, you know, combustion is not the problem, it's the carbon- Mm-hmm. In the combustion process, that's a problem. And so we're showing and demonstrating to them, you know, how valuable it can be and what a practical solution it is. We're also doing, you know, a lot of fuel cell components as well, so we've been awarded some fuel cells, and so we have options there with hydrogen. And so I think there's a lot of interest right now, especially on the heavy-duty side and commercial side, for hydrogen combustion. And I think folks are, you know, adapting to it, and there's also a lot of work on e-fuels. And so I think the EPA and the environmental, you know, agencies are gonna start to come around, and we're doing a lot of advocacy for that. I like what you said there about, you know, combustion is not the problem, it's the carbon. I didn't know combustible hydrogen, like, on purpose, was an actual thing until several years ago. Mm-hmm. But it does seem to be gaining traction. It doesn't have some of the drawbacks around refueling time or operating in cold weather that some of the EVs do. You know, can you talk about the role of, you know, liquid hydrogen or, you know, these liquid carbon-free or maybe, like, carbon neutral when you consider the whole supply chain, you know, ethanol, the biofuels, maybe e-fuels. What, if anything, is in production today? I think you actually have an award in this respect, a development award. You know, what research is being done, and when do you think this is gonna become, you know, more commercial and take off? Yeah, I mean, we've got 100% ethanol in Brazil, heated tip injectors, and that's already kinda going into production. The first hydrogen combustion engine for an industrial application is launching this quarter. And so I think we're not expecting it to take off and be a huge revenue portion for us this decade, but I think it's laying the foundation for it to be a viable technology for 2030 and beyond, you know, and actually start generating, you know, good revenues and cash flow for us. So, with that understanding, we're not overinvesting in trying to spend too much money on it, but we're making sure we have the right technologies. I mean, the thing about hydrogen and liquefied fuel is we know how to pipe it, we know how to truck it, we know how to ship it to the locations that we need it. Electricity, clean electricity or green electricity, is a lot more difficult. You know, you need to generate that green electricity within 300-400 miles of where you're using it. And so we don't always have enough green energy where we're actually consuming it. And so being able to pipe it, being able to truck it in, makes a lot of sense. And so just imagine, you know, if you have a lot of green, cheap energy in Northern Africa, that's interesting, but how do you get it to mainland Germany? Convert it into a hydrogen, convert it into a liquefied fuel of some sort, and then you can truck it, ship it, pipe it, you know, a lot more cost-effectively. And so that's where I think people are starting to make some of those realizations that, you know, a liquefied fuel, whether it's gaseous or liquid, is gonna make a lot of sense from a storage standpoint. I mean, I see some of these massive battery parks going in to try to store energy, and that's not necessarily green either, with the amount of CO2 that's required to produce all those battery packs and store the energy. And so again, I think that a liquefied and gaseous fuel is going to be used in transportation for the rest of this century. What has the trend in conversation or research or development efforts been between the liquid and, you know, the combustible hydrogen versus a hydrogen fuel cell? Yeah, I mean, we're actually worked with the fuel quality folks as well to get a different type of hydrogen certified or at least offered. Because the nice thing about a hydrogen combustion is that we can deal with less pure fuel, a less pure hydrogen. A fuel cell needs liquefied, and it needs to be really, really pure, 'cause if there's any impurities, both in the air that's going in or from the hydrogen, it causes a lot of challenges for the fuel cell. And so we're working with a lot of the, you know, the hydrogen manufacturers. We're working with them to convert some of those vehicles to run on hydrogen, and working with some of the large, you know, energy producers in the world on some conversion fleets as well, as well as on the quality and distribution of those products. So, we're working with a lot of different companies right now on that. You've announced a number of conquest wins in the fuel systems area. If you can comment on the trend there and what maybe has driven those wins. We've been hearing about some competitors maybe not allocating, you know, additional R&D to this area. Can you give an update on what the competitive environment looks like in fuel systems, maybe how your share has trended or could evolve and, as a result of that, that changing backdrop? Yeah, I think from a, from a light vehicle side, you know, competitors have been exiting the marketplace, especially the, the smaller players, whether they're, you know, low single, mid-digit players. They stopped investing a number of years ago and started exiting. And so things are kind of trending down to maybe, you know, 2 or 3 major players in the marketplace. Bosch is still the big player in there, you know, 40%-50% market share. Denso's in there, and then, and there are us. Marelli is in there a little bit as well, primarily with Stellantis. And so the market's consolidating. Even some of our competitors that I just named are, you know, still focused a lot on electrification. And our customers really appreciate the fact that we're continuing to invest in combustion technology, launching our 500 bar on GDI, continuing to develop next generation, you know, diesel technology for commercial vehicles. And we've been selected in a lot of these cases because, you know, they want a partner that's gonna be there for them for 2040 and beyond. And again, 2040 and beyond is what they're looking. They still see combustion engines in demand for their, for their applications. And, and so they see us as a strong, viable partner, that's gonna continue to help them transition and support their carbon neutrality goals. I think, in many cases, we've been gaining market share on the, on the GDI side about a point, point and a half a year, the last few years, and we see that continuing throughout the decade. And we think that market share gain on the light vehicle side is gonna help offset any, you know, declines in combustion engine production because of EV penetration. And so we're seeing that light vehicle kind of stay in that $1.5 billion-$1.7 billion of revenue, keep our plants full, keep them generating a lot of cash as we continue to grow and expand in industrial, off-highway, aerospace, and commercial, bringing additional ECUs and services to it and seeing a consistent, steady growth in our aftermarket. And so we see that trending to where, you know, our commercial vehicle and aftermarket business is gonna be trending towards 70% of our revenue. Our light vehicle OE, we think, will be around 30% by the end of the decade. But still, you know, right around that $1.5 billion-$1.7 billion of revenue with really good margins and cash flow. Great, thanks. Now, I also saw in the second quarter that you won your first award in tailoring an entire system, including hardware, software, and calibration capabilities. Can you walk us through what are the various, you know, components of fuel system that you supply and how they get integrated into a complete system? And I think in the past, you saw an incremental opportunity to supply the ECU, but does a full system go even beyond that? And, you know, what are these software and calibration capabilities that have been alluded to? How should investors think about the benefits of providing a full system? Is it like a CPV tailwind? Does it help margin? Does it help market share? What do you think? Yeah, I mean, kind of yes, yes, and yes. And it, and I think it also really intertwines us into their business and makes us really a core partner to our customers. You know, from the low-pressure pump in the fuel tank to the high-pressure pump, to the high-pressure rail and the injectors, that's. You know, historically, customers would buy 1 or 2 components at a time. Now, they're looking, saying: "Hey, we want the entire wet side system that we'll design and develop for them." As we mentioned, we then kind of picked up the ECU as well. From the hardware standpoint, we started that development, you know, 2-3 years ago. We took some of the engineers from another business unit at Borg. They came into ours. We started developing our next generation, you know, ECU. We've always had all the software and calibration engineers in our business unit. We've got about 400 or 500 of those that provide a lot of services for our customers. And so in this case here, we got all of the fuel side, all the mechanical parts, we've got the ECU, they're using our software, and they said: "Hey, we want to pay you money up front to do the calibration services for us." And if you take a look at our numbers, we get about $90 million a year from our customers for services. So they're paying us for developing the engine, getting it certified, and that really integrates us, and it uses. For us, it just reduces our cost. It's not in the piece price, but it reduces our engineering costs, and that keeps our net engineering cost around 3%, even though our total engineering cost is north of 5%, which shows you how much technology that we're investing. But because we have a lot of these skills, we're charging our customers for that. And by doing that complete system, there's only a couple of us in the world that can do that. And that really also fully integrates us into their organization, 'cause a lot of our OEMs have been moving a lot of their calibration and technology people into electrification and autonomy and infotainment, and that opens the door for us to then get, you know, a much larger piece of the pie of the customer. Maybe switching gears a bit. You know, recently you stepped up the pace of repurchases, bought back $90 million of your own stock in the second quarter. Can you talk about what was behind the faster pace, and how do you go about generally deciding whether to allocate capital towards share repurchases versus other potential uses of capital, such as M&A opportunities? Yeah, I mean, the big trigger was the refinancing of our and paying off of the TLB. The Term Loan B had a lot of restrictive covenants, had a one-time leverage kind of trigger, that if once we went over that one time, that would then trigger a lot of cash sweeps and additional debt reduction. And the interest rates were kind of super high. I think they were north of about 9% at the time. And getting that refinanced into fixed rate, you know, at 6.75%, really opened up, and removing a lot of those covenants, kind of gave us a lot more flexibility in our capital allocation policy, and so that kind of opened up the logjam that we had up until that point. Looking at our share price, we're going to look at it every single quarter and make a decision on, you know, the cash flow that we're generating and our cash position. You know, what's the best allocation of capital? And so when we look at M&A, we're going to compare that to our own share price. And so if the assets out there that we're looking at are trading at 8 and 9 x, you know, EBITDA, and we think they're subscale to what we are, it makes it very difficult to justify when we're trading at 5. And so we're going to continue to look at that, on a quarterly basis and evaluate where we are on cash, where do we see some M&A opportunities and where their prices are, and compare that to our own stock price. And again, we're going to continue to be, you know, financially disciplined, maintaining a strong balance sheet, but then just being good stewards of our investors' capital. Chris, did you say on the last call that if you were to go to the 1.5 x that you're now comfortable with from the 1, that you'd be paying essentially the same amount of interest expenses as, as you did at the- Yes. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. So, how did you get such a good deal, or did you inherit a bad debt structure from Borg, or how? I mean, the structure that was taken out last year, the Term Loan B, was not great. Term Loan A was fair, but when we went to Term Loan B, it was known that we were going to be spinning out very shortly, so there was a little bit of opportunistic, you know, piling on, so to speak. So, yeah. And is the comfort going to 1.5 from 1, is that, you know, purely around the fact that the interest expense is less, the covenants are less, or is there any maybe more confidence in the outlook for the business or the tailwinds to ICE that could be motivating that also? It kind of yes and yes again. I think, one, it's the, it's the fixed rate, so we know what it is, and we've always been confident in the overall cash flow of the business. And I think that's just emphasized with this last quarter, and the consistency and performance from our aftermarket business. I think they all kind of play into that. And so we knew the 1x was generally... people questioned, it was kind of low, but we kind of said that makes sense when we're paying 9% interest. You know, 2x makes sense if you're paying 3%, right? And it's fixed for a long period of time. I think it's a combination of the interest rates, the fixed nature, and the confidence that we have in the long-term cash flow ability of the business. Yeah, the cash was running well. Brady was actually giving my treasury people a hard time as we were doing repurchases last quarter, that my cash balances weren't going down, and I said, "That's illogical." You know, 'cause he was giving them a hard time, but cash isn't going down, and we're still doing these repurchases. And I went, "That's a good thing, Brady. Yeah. Don't give them a hard time. Well, it was—I mean, obviously, the... we changed our bonus structure to everybody back to economic value and cash flow. And so I think that's also having a very positive effect on our operations and driving the right actions, I think, at the team too. I wanted to ask about, you know, what, what triggered you going from 1 to 1.52, because, you know, all the executives, all the management teams, they say that they always weigh, you know, M&A against the repurchases, and, you know, they say they want to stay within their targeted range and, but, you know, sometimes they'll say, "Well, we're willing to go above the range for, you know, something strategic, you know, something M&A, so long as we can get back within it." But I wonder if after, you know, Aptiv's levering to buy back stock, last week, if that maybe will start to increase the questions, from investors, whether you would consider levering, you know, purely for the sake of repurchasing shares? I think the answer would be yes. If we take a look at the value, and we say, "Hey, that's, we don't see a pipeline for a good M&A, and we think our share price is still, you know, a great value." And so, you know, yes, we would, and that's one of the things we've been asked. You know, going up to 1.5x could be for M&A, or it could be, you know, more accelerated repurchases. Obviously, your share price is in a totally different place than it was when you presented at the conference last year. I wonder if that changes how you think about allocating capital between M&A and repurchases. I know you think your shares are still undervalued, but also, does it change the way that you think about what kind of M&A you might engage in? Because on the one hand, you can go out and you can buy things that can, you know, increase your leverage to the structural change in the industry, to the hydrogen, to the EV. On the other hand, you can buy back and own more of the current business. I don't know if, you know, with the shares higher, that makes you incrementally interested in some of the more strategic M&A, as opposed to, you know, the more accretive to improve the base business. How are you thinking about where you would, first of all, M&A versus buyback in light of the share price, but then also how you might allocate the M&A? Is it to address strategic reasons or to maximize the shareholder returns over the nearer term? Some of this hydrogen stuff might benefit you 20, 30 beyond, you know, but if stock's cheap right here and now, do you think different? Right. Yeah, I mean, my definition of strategic is it's going to cash flow, and it's going to generate good returns for our investors, and it's going to be accretive. I don't want strategic that's going to be cash flow burning and a headwind on the business. And so I'm always hesitant, internally, when people said, "Oh, it's strategic." Well, does that mean we're going to lose money? We're not going to get a return, so I'll pass on that. Thank you very much. We want to look at assets and acquisitions that are going to be cash flow accretive, and then it's going to exceed, you know, our internal hurdle rate of 15%. And on an M&A, it obviously brings a lot of unknown risk, and so you need to also factor that in, saying: "Hey, you want to expect an even higher return than we have on organic, organic business because of those inherent risks." And so, I think we're going to continue to be, you know, fiscally responsible and conservative. And even the organic investments that we're doing in hydrogen right now, we're doing substantial amounts, but we're getting customer funding, we're getting government funding, and we have a realization that it's not going to cash flow for us until at least next decade. So I'm not going to spend $50 million a year on something that may generate cash flow in a decade from now. Sounds good. Let's see if there are any questions, maybe in the audience. Perhaps as they think of their next question, I'll ask on these customer recoveries. You had strong supplier savings, customer recoveries, $13 million in the most recent quarter. It looks like it helped your margin by, like, 150 basis points. You know, most of the suppliers we cover have commented that these type of commercial settlements are, you know, increasingly more difficult to come by. You know, what has your experience been in recovering, you know, non-commodity supply chain costs from your customers? Is there still any more that can be extracted? I know you're not going to, but you're just getting back what was yours, right? Mm-hmm. You know, how do you see that trending going forward? I mean, it's obviously been a lot more muted this year than it was the last couple of years. I think in 2022, I think people, you know, claimed it was all transitory, so we did a lot of lump sums. In 2023, we realized that, hey, it's going to be here for good, and so we rolled a lot of that into piece price. I think on average, we ended up, I think, getting about 70, 70% of those costs. So, so not bad, but obviously not 100%, and it was dilutive to our margins. And that then drove us, obviously, to really focus on, you know, improving our own operational efficiencies, driving, you know, to our supply base as well, to drive additional efficiencies as well, to try to mitigate some of those headwinds. I think that's pretty much... There's a few pockets here and there on some labor costs and some energy costs in a couple kind of specific regions, but not nearly to the extent that it was the last couple of years. So I think that's mitigating, and I think it's also being mitigated, you know, on customers' expectations on annual reductions. We don't see increasing volumes, and therefore, you know, giving annual reductions and price reductions doesn't make a whole lot of sense, too. So I think you see that in our pricing as well, that, you know, it's pretty much more flat pricing with customers, rather than, you know, the 2-3% a year that was historically in the marketplace. So, I think folks are getting a lot more balanced on, on saying: "Hey, they want a strong supply base. We want a strong customer, and let's partner on how we can best do that together. But also going back to that, that 70% in 2023 included the troubled supplier that we had last year. We resolved that at the end of the year, first of this year. So this year, part of that recovery in Q2, about 44%, was related to that one supplier issue, where we got that pricing back to a correct pricing. And then we also had a lump sum retro to last year that we hit in Q1. So that's also a tailwind for us going into this year, just to be above board. And so, but, but outside of that, GSM does continue to work with our suppliers. There was a lot more turmoil in the market, in the supplier landscape the last couple of years. It's calmed down a little bit, so we are starting to get a little bit more in terms of price downs and some efficiencies out of that. Very helpful. Thank you. And with that, it does look like we're out of time, so please join me in thanking Brady and Chris for all the great color and insight they shared. Thank you.