All right, we are good to go. Thanks for joining us this afternoon at the Paycor session at the Goldman Sachs conference. I'm Gabriela Borges, my colleague, Kevin Kumar, to my left. Excited to have the Paycor team on stage with us, Adam Ante, CFO, and Rachel White, Investor Relations. Thanks for your time this afternoon. Thanks, Gabriela. Good to see you. Thanks for having us. So Adam, I wanted to start off with a little bit of insight or anything that you're willing to share on your fiscal year planning process. In other words, what were some of the things top of mind as the leadership team started thinking about goals for FY 2025? And perhaps as part of it, you can share with us some of the learning lessons from FY 2024. Yeah, absolutely. So we take, of course, a super intentional approach with our upcoming operating plan and thinking about how we can execute into the year. But, you know, it sort of started with a little bit of the reflection on how the last three years have gone. It's been three years as a public company, and this year's macro environment has felt a little bit harder than the first couple of years post-COVID, and especially coming off of the IPO. So, we look back at some of the things that we've been really successful at, some of the successes we've seen out of our new embedded channel and the indirect side, and how we're making progress there, and really wanted to focus in on those areas where we continue to see success and some of these newer areas, again, like our indirect channel, and some of the product innovation that we wanted to drive into to 2025. And so again, like, the tactics of how the next operating plan comes together is fairly straightforward, and we get really deep, of course, and we're really intentional there. But, you know, the team has really been trying to look up a little bit more. Our team's been together now for three, four years in some cases, which is great, and you can really start to get a feel for how are we gonna work together and what does the next, like, three, five, you know, maybe even longer-term, cycle look in HCM and in payroll, outside of this sort of macro environment, and the team gets pretty excited about that. One of the dynamics we've been debating with companies, this most recent earnings season actually, is to what extent we're still seeing an unwind or overhang from COVID, and what's unique is that you'll have SMB customers that are pretty dynamic in adjusting to the macro environment when it comes to hiring and the evolution of the size of their teams. Maybe just talk through with us a little bit, do you think that, when you look at your install base, is there a way to think about excess capacity in the system for customers that have overbought, or does that concept not really exist for the Paycor customer base? Overbought? Yeah. I mean, most of our systems are mission-critical systems, right? You are either using them or not because it's core to your processes and how you think about people management. Of course, payroll, if you're a company that exists and you're managing pay, hopefully you're managing the payroll, but you don't shut your payroll down until actually you've gone out of business or you no longer exist, right? So everybody's using that. And some of the talent solutions, I think we were wondering if there was gonna be a bit of a pullback on the talent side. I think. And that's not what we've seen. I think what we actually saw sort of post-COVID to today is more, there was a little bit more, I think, broadly in software, exuberance around software, generally. Companies were ready to consume it. They were changing the way that they were operating. They were thinking about work differently, not just in HCM, but broadly. And so you saw a lot of pull forward. I think you saw some pull forward in HCM, clearly a lot more in, like, marketing and communications tools and stuff. And so I think, you know, there is a question, like, are we feeling a little bit of sluggishness broadly from just a broader software slowdown? But I don't think that it has been, for us, anything where folks have decided, "Hey, I'm not gonna ever hire anybody else again, so I don't wanna I don't need this, a talent attraction tool. I'm not managing my organization or my talent, so I don't need performance management. I don't need learning, compliance-related learning." Those things still exist, and it's been more... And it's also not a huge portion of these companies' IT stack either. Our average deal size, you know, is $35,000, and so when you start to go to look for places to cut or consolidate, we don't see people hitting their HCM solutions. Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah. You mentioned there, part of your planning process is about the longer term, so the next three to five years. How do you think about the HCM cycle within that? There's obviously the employment cycle. The U.S. is close to full employment. You know, non-farm payrolls is an important metric for you to watch. So when you're thinking longer term, how do you intersect with macro factors, or how do you think about the overall cycle of HCM to the extent there is a cycle at all? Yeah. I think that the cycle. There are sort of two dynamics that we think about in the cycle. One is the labor market growth, to your point, the non-farm payroll growth, and where are we in that cycle? Are we on a slowdown? Is it going to decline, or are we on an upswing, and right now, it feels like it's been on more of a slowdown. Hasn't declined necessarily, but it's definitely slowed down to closer to zero growth in the non-farm payroll number, overall, labor market growth. The other side is the demand cycle side, and so the demand cycle and the labor market growth, actually, I think they're different. They're two different cycles. The demand cycle has remained fairly consistent over the last, you know, couple of years, maybe apart from the COVID, pull forward or excitement. The labor market growth has clearly, post-COVID, was really high, and it's slowed down quite substantially. So I think if there's opportunity, and that's how we sort of think about the longer-term cycle, is if the demand cycle persists and in fact actually gets even better or more positive, then it really feels like an unlock. The labor market, plus or minus, is actually a less of an impact on our business, right? So a point of growth here or a point degradation, as long as it doesn't impact the demand cycle broadly for software solutions and better infrastructure and driving efficiency in your stack, then we think that that's a positive trend for us. ... Absolutely, and one of the unique dynamics with Paycor is the specialization that you have by select vertical, and some of the vertical-specific functionality that you layer on top of your horizontal solution. Mm-hmm. What can you share about trends by end market? Is there anything you'd call out from a vertical standpoint? Yeah, we've seen a little bit of trends, and we sort of look at it both ways. We look at it from an employee segment perspective, and then an industry segment perspective, and there's actually less that we see on the employee segment side, and to your point, it's more on the industry side, so retail and restaurant has seen more slowdown and compression over the last couple quarters, but of course, they experienced huge growth for the last couple years post-COVID, so we've seen a little bit more pressure on the restaurant side, a little bit more pressure on manufacturing as well, but we've seen more positivity out of healthcare and in government. We don't have a ton of government like localities, but we've seen a lot of growth out of the government sector as well, so. Absolutely. Let me turn it over to Kevin on market share. Yeah, Adam, I think there's been some investor debate around market saturation in SMB. So maybe walk through how you think about the market, the runway left, particularly in that segment, call it 10-1,000 employees, that you're fairly focused on. Yeah. Over the last couple years, as we've invested in the product, we've really expanded to 10- 2,500, 10- 5,000. And that's not really because we're chasing market share as much as the product continues to hunt and move upmarket. And we hear this question a lot around saturation and is everybody slowing down because there's just less opportunity? But it's interesting, when you look back over the last 30 years, and that predates me, but Raul, our CEO, he's been around for a little while, so he tells me that we're competing with the exact same competitors and companies as he did 30 years ago. And in some sense, we... Again, we've talked about, you know, there's folks like Zenefits, which sort of get to a certain size and can't scale, and there's some other smaller competitors who are making some noise. But Gusto is really, like, the largest competitor that we've run into, who has gotten to any level of scale, and they're a 20-year-old company still. I mean, they've been around for 20 years. And when you think about the mid-market specifically, where we're really successful in that 10- 1,000, 10- 2,500 segment, it's really ADP, who we compete with the most, and Paylocity, who shows up in almost every one of our deals. And then much further below that, we'll run into Paycom and Paychex. Paycom, they're upmarket a little bit further, and then Paychex is much further downmarket. But actually, who we compete with the most, like, 50% of our new business actually comes from regional and in-house service bureaus, or regional service bureaus and in-house providers. These in-house providers are ERP solutions with legacy payroll, sort of, throw-in product, and these local payroll service bureaus. When we scoped this out, we think that it's 45%-50% of the entire market still, and that's really where a lot of the share is coming from, is with those competitors. Yeah. And you made the point about enterprise and moving up. How do you think about kind of that move-up market? Is there a natural ceiling? Is that a function of the expansion of the product capabilities? What do you think about in terms of the sweet spot, in terms of enterprise? And maybe talk a little bit about kind of how we should think about the incremental investment in the product and go to market as you move upmarket. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it really comes with the complexity of the customer and the needs of the customer. So there's a bit of sort of processing capacity with the payroll side, and that's really not a challenge for us. We have customers up to 20,000 employees, so it's really not on the processing side. It used to be, but we've invested in there, or in that part of the product. And then the other side is really around specific, like, niche pieces of functionality around payroll, niche pieces of functionality around time management, workforce management, where you have to have more and more complex capabilities or configurations, and then a little bit on the global side. So when you get to larger customers who have significant global needs, that's not where we've focused. That tends to be where we run into challenges. On average, I'd say that sort of caps out for us at around five thousand. But again, we do have customers who are much larger, who have simple needs, or more simple payrolls that fit the solution. You know, I shouldn't say simple needs broadly, just simple enough and not complex enough for us. Once you get into some of those more complex things, that's where we sort of cap out, at least at this point. As we think about continuing to make investments, it's really around you know, some of it is around making sure that we have the opportunity to win the deals that we run into, where, hey, we're getting, like, knocked out on these individual items. And we'll continue to make those, you know, get rid of those knockouts. I think that'll continue to lift us further and further over time, but there's also then a point where you start to hit, like, a more of an enterprise-type sale, and you need an enterprise seller, and the deal cycle is a year or longer and that's where we've intentionally... Like we said, that's not where we're going right now. We have more of a mid-market, upper mid-market, lower enterprise rep who we can train up and push into that space, and the cycle, the buyer personas are a little bit different. You do run into different cycles with CIOs or CHROs, and you have to deal with the CFO at those points, but it's not an enterprise length, sort of, take folks out to dinner for a year and build that relationship. That tends not to be the cycle for us. Adam, I want to spend a little bit of time on the sales force. Give us a little bit of the benefit of your thinking here. What do you think, in hindsight, drove some of the churn issues, and what are some of the signals and metrics you look at to feel confident that you're on the right track now? Yeah. So the broader market has segments. Their go-to-market strategy, typically from fifty to two fifty, fifty to five hundred, fifty to a thousand, right? ADP has sort of infinite segmentations that they run at the market, and this is really how our Chief Revenue Officer, our CEO, have grown up with these different segmentations. And when they came in, we were really fifty plus. So we had a mid-market seller who served fifty deals and larger, fifty employees. We realized that actually it's hard for a seller to come in and get a larger deal, like a thousand, 2,500, really to know how to step into that deal. What the thinking was, "Hey, let's segment them so that the younger sellers, as we're growing them and adding so much, let's keep them in the 50-250 segment, so they have more success. They don't have to sort of try to cut their teeth on a 1,000-plus deal." What we realized, ultimately, we did have some early success. It was maybe a false indicator, is what it seemed like. But when we rolled that out more broadly, we realized that we're hiring these mid-market sellers who are coming into a segment that ends up being a little too narrow and for the level of activity that they were expecting to do. It's really... I think it's because there's other companies that segment at this level. So the question is, like, are we at our company stage ready for that level of segmentation at 250? You know, the brand is not as strong as somebody like an ADP brand. The breadth or the depth of the products up and down and wide, we continue to build that just for the niche of that segment size. And so when we've expanded it to 50 to 500, and it's been really positive since then. The folks who are in the mid-market, of course, have more of an opportunity to underwrite their quota with just a couple more deals, and then fill in the rest of the quota with some of the activity that you have to churn through at the 50 to 250 segment. So we've seen it really well received across all of our sort of markets. And the folks who were in the upper market, fifty or two fifty plus, we cut them, now they're five hundred plus. But there's so much opportunity there for us, and you only need to write a couple deals, really, as a seller in that space. So it hasn't felt like a takeaway, and sellers will let you know when you're taking away something from them, so we haven't really heard that noise. In fact, it's been, you know, fairly steady since we launched that in April now, and we feel good now about the setup for 2025. How much of it was inflating, conflating different variables? So, for example, we talked a little bit about Paycor wanting to move upmarket. We've also talked since the time of the IPO about Paycor wanting to move into Tier One markets. Yeah. So how do you think about isolating? How much of it was, well, the pattern matching that historically would have made sense, didn't make sense in Tier One markets? How do you think about that? Yeah, I don't, I don't think that it was necessarily anything about Tier One markets specifically. Uh. I think it's a combination of a couple of the dynamics. One, the segmentation, of course. Two is, as we're expanding and adding new sales leadership, that's a big deal. It's really important that you have a strong sales leader before you pack them with six, eight, or 10 sellers. And as we expanded, I think that's probably a little bit hindsight being 20/20. We probably should have slowed down the expansion in 2022, 2023, rather than hit 20%-25% seller growth. If we could have pulled back a little bit, really focused on the sales leaders, made sure that we were ready before we, you know, built the markets out, that probably was, would've been beneficial. So that's one of the reasons why we decided to slow the sales hiring down now, was to make sure that we had the right candidate profile, we had the segmentations down, and that we could build into the sales leaders, more effectively. So there's the piece of this that you can control, like how you tranche out in quarter and assign quotas for your sellers. Yeah. This is a macro piece. How do you think about when is the right time to level up again, the seller headcount increases? Mm-hmm. And how do you avoid the negative feedback loop from, "Okay, well, we've slowed down seller headcount adds, therefore, the pipeline's gonna slow down, and you your growth rate levels down to 20% minus versus 20%. Right. Yeah, I think one of the important things that we see already, and this is fairly typical with software companies and sales broadly, is that a big portion of our sales comes from the top sellers, right? Top 30% of our sales force. And that section of the sales force doesn't churn very well. They're well paid, they get to participate in all the clubs, and they're doing really well. So to the extent that we can continue that, which we haven't seen any issues there, we keep success there, and it's really that next third of the sellers. If that next third of the sellers can start to make it to their second year and be successful, I think that's a really important benchmark. Because when we go from... Seventy, 75% of our sellers are under 12 months to 75% are over 12 months, and you only get to over 12 months if you're successful. So that, that's really where the benefit comes in, where we might say, "All right, now we think it's time to put some more fuel on the fire, to put the pedal down and say let's hire a little faster," because that middle third of the portfolio is starting to drive the efficiency. So I think you'll see a combination of improving tenure over time and productivity on average, coming out of the sales force, that will enable us to say, "Yeah, do we wanna, like, double down now and speed back up the sales hiring process? Is there a scenario where, let's assume that macro is stable, where the timing of fewer sales has productivity adds, coupled with some of the dynamics you're talking about on leading indicators, get you to that inflection point in 2025, where you've got sales productivity going in the right direction, and you decide to increase the pace of hiring, so you end up with acceleration into 2026? How do you think about that? Yeah, I mean, I think that there's an opportunity, for sure. The macro will be a big driver of that, and if we feel strength in the demand, and we feel good in the execution, I think the right time to really look at that and make that decision is coming out of the January sort of year-end cycle. Year-end is a really big point for implementation. We start a lot of business. We lose, you know, a lot of business in that January timeframe, like, that's just how it seasonally works. And so coming out of January, we'll have a good feel for how the rest of the setup's gonna be for the rest of the year. If we feel good about that setup, and we see a strong demand environment, we might say, "Yeah, now's the time to ramp the hiring." It's hard to ramp the hiring, like, in December, and then you don't really wanna focus on that in January because you don't know how things are gonna shape up. It's really a post-year-end decision where you make... Well, yeah, where you focus on the back half. And throughout the ebbs and flows of sales force over the last couple of years, any commentary on win rates, to Kevin's earlier question on the competitive environment? Yeah, you wanna talk about win rates a little bit, Rachel? Yeah, sure. So when Raul came in, our win rates were around 20% on average, and you've seen us invest not only a lot in the sales capacity, but also accelerating our product development. So we've seen the win rates expand consistently to above 50% now. We really like the direction that that's headed. It's been consistent for the last few years. Mm-hmm. Excellent. I'll turn it to Kevin on product cycles. Yeah, I thought a good place to start would be just on AI and kind of the opportunities you see in specifically in payroll. Is it more a function of cost savings, the improvement in support, or do you see more concrete kind of monetization opportunities within the roadmap? Yeah, I think there's two dynamics that we think about. Clearly, externally, as we think about product functionality, and then internally, and how we're using it internally to improve efficiency and drive more. If we focus on the product side, there's sort of two dynamics that we think about there. There are investments where we see... or like AI enablement, where we see explicit pieces of functionality that folks are using, right? There's a job description generator, there's passive candidate sourcing capabilities. Some of them are ML, some of them are natural language processing, but regardless, there's more direct, specific things. There's things around, like prediction indicators for turnover or skills building, where you can leverage and rip skills off of resumes and LinkedIn into your company to say, "Here are top skills or how skills translate across our company." So those are really cool features, and whether or not you bill explicitly for those is really a function of how much value they bring, of course, to the customer. So job description generator, building it right into the applicant tracking solution, really cool. It's super easy to use. You hit a button, or you sort of tell your applicant tracking what you want. You can put some key dynamics, key metrics in there, and it spits out a job description generator. Well, you could also go to ChatGPT and sort of type that in and spit out a job description generator. It's cool that it's built in, but I don't, we don't see that customers would pay us, like, $1 more or $100 a month more for that functionality. And actually, it took us, like, a week to get it in there, and it uses, not OpenAI, but some open source, NLP processing in the back end. But that's a really cool feature, and what you get, you actually do, is you just build it into the pricing, and then you take price increases annually. The other way to think about some. And so there's some other things, too, that we're doing on that side, that we wanna release more functionality, build it in, and the customers will know that they're engaging with AI. There's some other areas, too, that we're excited about, that are a little bit more around improving how customers engage with the software itself, more of how you get nudged through, how you, you know, interact with it, making sure that there's alerts. And it's sort of predicated on some of the AI enablement and data infrastructure that we're building in. And that, I think, is not gonna be an explicit bill for AI, as much as it's just gonna be part of the solution over time. Yeah. Yeah. So if I take a step back and look at Paycor and the platform, it's broadened nicely, right, over the last couple of years. PEPM, or list PEPM, has gone up from 48, I think, in 2023, to 53 at the end of fiscal 2024. So maybe talk about, you know, how you think about kind of developing that, you know, product set further from here. I think there's ambitions to increase PEPM even more. So maybe what's kind of the next couple of milestones in terms of kind of product expansion? Yeah. We think that there's still a lot of opportunity in that talent space. It's one of the reasons why we split out talent attraction versus performance management or talent management. And there continues to be areas. We just added a deeper compensation management capability into our talent solution as well. There's more things around analytics. And I think that there's an opportunity to think about things tangential to our space as well, and so we continue to see expansion. I think we would've said, you know, probably six, seven years ago, that talent and performance management and micro-learnings was tangent to what we do, and then it's eventually moved into this HR suite. And so we think that there's a couple other areas, around, you know, the, around our space, around employee records, that we think are moving further, or closer and closer to HCM suite. Yeah. So I wanted to touch on embedded HCM. It's been about a year since you announced that. Maybe talk about the adoption you've seen so far, kind of how that's going, and kind of how that compares to kind of initial expectations. Yeah. The sales cycle on the first couple partners was incredibly long, and I think that when these partners are making strategic decisions around their business and partnering with something that's gonna be embedded into their product, it should be a long decision, and we want them to be successful. Of course, our success is predicated on them selling the product and being successful. So we're expecting long sales cycles. There's two dynamics post-sale that make it sort of that we have to figure out or that we continue to work through. One is the integration and migration if you're bringing a portfolio over, and that's gonna depend on the partner's capabilities as much as it is with ours. Of course, what we're dealing with, typically, with these partners, we're dealing with smaller partners, you know, $10 million-$50 million of revenue. They're trying to grow their business. They're trying to figure out payroll and the value prop at the same time. We spend a lot of time on the tech cycle with them, the development cycle, sales enablement, even to get it integrated in and then migrating the portfolio can be very cumbersome. That cycle takes a little while. It could take six months to 12 months to migrate their portfolios. Now, we're not doing a ton of portfolio migrations. There's just a handful. On the other side is just net new business, so a partner wants to drive an integration and stand up net new business. We have gotten that cycle down to, like, 30-60 days, so we've, we've brought on a couple smaller partners, and they just want to go from net new business. We can get from deal signed to live within, like, 60 days now, and then they're, of course, they've got to write the business. Yeah. - and launch it. So we're excited about that side. That I think that's a little faster than what we were expecting going in, and then the learning on the portfolio side is just, we have to make sure that we have the right engagement level with that company. We have to make sure that we understand their development life cycle, how long it's gonna take, how we're gonna launch this to their sales enablement or through their sales enablement, through their sales teams. And so we have to just build that sort of business enablement function- Yeah. a little more. And can you talk a little bit about kind of the impact, obviously, long sales cycles, but the impact these deals have, you know, to PEPM, to employee numbers, and then maybe higher level, how you think about kind of the unit economics here, compare and contrast that to kind of the core business? Yeah, we haven't shared explicit unit economics yet, 'cause we wanna sign a couple partners and make sure we understand, you know, how it's gonna shape up. But we've seen that just this year, through the portfolio, that with the first big portfolio and partner that we've migrated and come on, we've added about two points of growth on the employee side, and that's equated to about a half a point of growth on revenue. So there's a pretty big difference between our overall PEPM and what you see within the embedded channel. The embedded channel looks effectively like a large national payroll HCM deal, and we're really just starting with payroll. So we haven't expanded significantly into HR, significantly into time, or into talent just yet, or workforce management. There's some things around that that we'll continue to enable, but again, it's around making sure that partner is ready to sell. They understand the value prop. But you see a substantially lower PEPM at this point. I think that over time, that is going to bring down our PEPM growth, as you think about that mix shift within the portfolio, but you'll start to see more growth come from the employee side. Is there interest from the customer base in terms of kind of expanding beyond that core payroll into other areas? Yeah, we had some interest pretty quickly, actually, after a couple of the partners launched with the payroll side, 'cause we split up our bundle. We don't sell our bundle to them. We sell the specific pieces of functionality, and everybody starts with payroll. We've got some quick requests for HR, some quick requests for workforce management, and then into applicant tracking pretty quickly. So yeah, we think that there's opportunity to expand. Mm-hmm. Now- I wanna end with a little bit of a discussion on the long-term margin target that you introduced last quarter, the 20% free cash flow. In the past, Paycor has also talked about a 20% plus revenue growth profile, so that would get you to Rule of 40. Is that how you think about it internally? What are some of the puts and takes to how you think the free cash flow margin trades off with the growth of the company over time? Yeah, there's definitely a trade-off, depending on, we think, what the macro environment looks like and how the broader demand cycle looks. But we don't think there's anything structurally in the way of us aiming for 20 in 20 25, 20% revenue growth, 20% free cash flow. And we've set that 20% growth, we haven't come off of that. We know that we're not delivering that today, but there is a little bit different macro environment and labor market dynamic. And so that's why it's important for us, as we think about the longer-term targets, to say, well, in a market where maybe there's a little bit more pressure, maybe we don't hit the macro pressure, maybe we don't see the same level of growth on the revenue side, but there will be an opportunity to outperform our free cash flow. And conversely, to the extent that we see a strong demand cycle, we might invest at a faster pace that would limit the free cash flow growth. So that is how we have been thinking about the dynamic of the Rule of 40, being split potentially by how the labor market, you know, is or the broader macro is acting. Mm-hmm. And do you view FY 2023 as the new normal? How do you think about... We just talked at the beginning of this conversation about macro cycles, demand cycles, labor market cycles. Do you think that that's the baseline going forward, and an improvement would be icing on the cake, or is it your expectation that things get better? Yeah, well, and I, I think you mean by FY 2024, right? This last year or versus FY twenty year- Last year. 2023, the year before. Oh, yeah, FY 2024. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. And I say that because I think the demand cycle between the two years, fairly consistent, maybe a little bit sluggish now. The labor market, I think, on a consistent basis, is probably somewhere in between 2023 and 2024. 2024 was closer to half a point of growth, 2023 was, like, four points of growth. And if you look back at, like, non-farm payroll growth over time, and even post-recessions, you might see something a little bit stronger in that 3%-4% range, which is consistent with what we've seen now, but probably closer to 2% in a normal environment. And so that's how we might think about what, what it feels like in a, in a Rule of 40, with two points of labor market growth contribution. That, that probably feels right. So beyond that would be a little bit more upside. We did also have, you know, some more pressure specific to 2023, with, like, form filings coming out and some of that Grove stuff. So if you normalize for that and you normalize for the labor market, we're in the high teens, and we feel good about that, and then you might have some upside from the broader macro environment. Yeah, that makes sense, and remind us on EBITDA to free cash flow conversion. At 20% free cash flow margin, what EBITDA margin would you expect to be at? Yeah. The cash conversion rate is weird with some of the 606 accounting, so it does have its own sort of dynamics. I think what you're gonna find, though. We focus on adjusted operating income. What you'll find is that adjusted operating income will get closer to EBITDA, and then the difference between that adjusted operating income and free cash flow will shrink much more. Today, we're like 12 points difference, and I think what you'll see is that that will come down to just a couple points of difference between AOI and our free cash flow. EBITDA margins today are in the sort of low 30% range, 33%, 30% to 33%. So I think there's some opportunity there as free cash flow lifts. To get to 20%, you'll see some of that benefit flow through to EBITDA, of course, as well. Very good. Please join me in thanking Adam and Rachel for their time. Thank you so much for being here. Thanks for having us.