I know, comfortable. All right, great. Everybody, just wanted to welcome you to the, you know, Wells Fargo 2023 Healthcare Conference here in Boston. We're kicking it off with Revvity. I've got Max Krakowiak, SVP and CFO of Revvity here. And, you know, welcome. Obviously, thanks everybody for coming. And we're just gonna dive into it here, with, you know, hot topics du jour. So, you know, if you could just give us some color on how August, September have been trending. Obviously, you know, the market right now is quite volatile on a month-to-month basis. So, you know, if we could just kind of start with non-China pharma biotech capital equipment. Yeah, sure. So I don't think we're going to probably give updated guidance or confirmation of it, so I'll probably stay away from the monthly trends. But I will just mention that, you know, when we had guided for the rest of the year, we were basically going off of what we had seen in the first couple weeks of July, which is what had led us to sort of take down our midpoint of the guidance from the 8% to the 5% midpoint. And that was predominantly on the back of softer expectations across Life Sciences CapEx spending. Okay. No, that's great. And then just wanted to kind of dig into that, you know, July exit rate, I think, is how you guys framed it for some of these businesses with increased headwinds here. And also the guide does assume no budget flush, at the midpoint, along with a kind of flatline July exit rate. Just curious, you know, when this year will you guys get visibility on if a budget flush is happening or not? Like, how do those conversations go with pharma biotech customers? You know, when do you get the visibility? Any insights there would be great. Yeah. So maybe just talking about in terms of the budget flush. So normally what we would see is about a 20% sort of volume step up in our instrumentation between the third and the fourth quarter. I would say this year, we are not expecting that significant of a volume step up from instrumentation. So we are expecting a lower instrumentation volume in the fourth quarter. And then in terms of the timing of when we would normally start to see a budget flush, normally our commercial pipeline is somewhere around 3 months-4 months. So if you kind of back that up, it would start to be kind of in the, you know, end of August, early September, where we are now. And so we'll see how this next month over September plays out and if we need to do any updates of our guidance in October. Got it. Okay. And then, you know, staying on the pharma biotech side of things. So you guys, on the earnings call, called out European customers being incrementally cautious versus U.S. Just, you know, can you help us understand that? Why is that? You know, how does that dynamic play out through the rest of the year? Do you expect maybe European clients are, you know, I guess, a leading indicator of U.S. clients or, or anything kind of helpful on that? You know, I think it, I can't—I don't remember the exact context maybe in where that comment was given. I don't think we've seen a too disperse dispersion of a trend between the U.S. and European large pharma customers in terms of their CapEx trends. Could have been a comp dynamic, et cetera, but I think those are both across the U.S. and Europe have performed relatively similar. Okay. And then, you know, another comment I did want to dig into was, I think it was broadly Life Science and not just isolated to pharma biotech, correct me if I'm wrong, that you said, you know, the softness in reagents was isolated to China, didn't really see it in the Western market to that point, and you were expecting these two-year stacked growth comps in the first half and the second half reagents to be consistent. So, you know, I'm just trying to understand that with the, I guess, conservatism that was baked into the guidance around pharma biotech specifically, is that really just offset with academic governments? You know, that is something that kind of, I guess, in my mind, meshes less obvious. Yeah. So I think in terms of the, the guidance commentary, maybe to take a step back, right, in terms of what we had updated when we moved from the 8% to the 5%. Essentially, what it was, was we baked in 400 basis points of headwind in terms of the Life Sciences market, and that 400 basis point was sort of split evenly between instrumentation, reagents, and our Software and Labs business. So if we unpack the reagents piece, the one big change in the guidance was, one, a little bit softer performance in China. But then the second dynamic was we did take out any assumptions around licensing technology, which we roll up into our reagents business. So we decided to de-risk that in our guidance for the second half. And similarly, on the software and lab side, we de-risked it as well in terms of not assuming any new contract growth on the Software business or any new partnership agreements in our Omics business. And so those generally tend to behave similar to how CapEx does from an instrumentation standpoint, and just given the current market environment, we thought it was prudent to assume that, or take that assumption out of our guidance. Got it. Okay. You know, while we're on this, just wanted to, you know, touch on China. Have to do it, but the dynamic in China, obviously, you know, this week we saw some stimulus. Granted, it was real estate-focused, but is that the type of stimulus that, you know, gets even these end markets going? Or, you know, again, we hear about broad stimulus is something that people are looking out for, but just... Is it? Do we need some specific life sciences or healthcare-focused stimulus to kind of get that market going again? Or, you know, is real estate stimulus enough to kind of stave off all the broader concerns in the country? Yeah, I think it would probably be more life sciences, healthcare specific. We did have the benefit in the first half this year of some stimulus packages that had been granted in the fourth quarter that we were to deliver on in the first half of this year. And then what's really changed since our kind of assumptions or outlook, you know, in December, January of this year, is that we expected that stimulus packages to continue into the second half, which was always the signal. And now what we've kind of seen is that is less clear. And so until those stimulus packages sort of get restarted, we have taken down our assumptions in China for Life Sciences in the second half. Got it. Okay. And, you know, staying on stimulus here, so, you know, AcaGov, very strong expectations for it to continue, you know, called out, which, you know, a lot of other companies have. There was stimulus packages in Europe, stimulus packages in China in 2022. You know, how—like, what's the legs to these? Like, when do these, you know, how long do they keep kicking if there's no, you know, additional packages, you know, layered on top of that? Yeah. So for academic and government, for us, it's about 10%-12% of our total company revenue. Now, of that 10%-12%, half of it is BioLegend, which is our predominantly reagents business, which is not really driven as much by the stimulus packages. That's just based on general research activity in the academic and government labs. And so now you're really only talking about 5%-6% of our total company revenue that could be, quote-unquote, "impacted" from the stimulus programs. And so, yes, it's been relatively strong growth in the first half. We do expect that more or less to continue in the second half in the U.S. and Europe. And so we'll keep monitoring, but I think we expect relatively consistent performance. Got it. And, you know, within AcaGov, like, what products, what—you know, I guess, if it's—there's any capital equipment that's, you know, staying resilient or you're seeing increased demand from this end market or, you know, certain consumables or services, you know, what is it? And, you know, just trying to understand that dynamic when, you know, you look at NIH funding, obviously, there's so much volatility around that. Granted, I think there's probably some upside to what the, you know, headline numbers suggest. But at the same time, you know, in a macro situation, you would expect, you know, rising tides, if you will. So, like, what are the specific services, products that are seeing the outsized growth within AcaGov, and you expect resiliency in for, you know, the rest of the year and, you know, into 2024? Right. So again, if we look at that academic and government split, right, with BioLegend being half of it, that business has been a relatively steady growth rate in terms of the academic and government reagent growth, and we would expect that, again, more or less to continue. If you look on the instrumentation side, which is the other half, you know, that's predominantly our preclinical instrumentation business, which is going to be, you know, our High content screening, our In vivo imaging platforms. And so those are, I would say, really the two big product portfolio families. Okay. All right. No, that's helpful. So, you know, I guess kind of staying within China here. So, you know, China, ImmunoDX, obviously great growth, expected to, I think, moderate from 30% to still healthy double digits- Yep. In the back half of the year. You know, you've talked to a bit of, I don't know, if it's pent-up demand or backlog getting worked down from lockdowns. Like, how long does that last, if you will? And then if we were to think about China, ImmunoDX, you know, what's embedded in that 10% midterm guidance? Yep. Yeah, what's kind of the assumption there? For sure. So maybe to start with the current trends of just what we're seeing in China, more so specifically. So if you remember, coming into this year, we had always said Q1 was going to continue to be challenged due to the lockdowns, which it was. And then when we looked in the second quarter, we were hoping that by the exit of the second quarter, we would be closer to what we would consider more normalized activity in the China hospitals. That is kind of what played out in the second quarter. We were encouraged there by the strong growth, as you mentioned. But I wouldn't say we've gotten into, like, pent-up demand or backlog. Right now, where we exited the second quarter was really more, quote-unquote, "normalized growth" or normalized volume that we would see in the hospitals, and that's what we expect to continue in the second half. And we've got the benefit of softer comps is still, you know, the back half of 2022 was relatively weak for the China IDX business. When you look at the midterm outlook, our Immunodiagnostics business is a low double-digit growth assumption for us. And if you look at that even geographically, I would say it's relatively consistent. Maybe the only two places where you might have some deviation from that is probably the Western European markets is probably a little bit softer than that. Mm-hmm. I would say the U.S. market is actually stronger than that. As if you remember, when we bought Euroimmun, the U.S. market was one of their biggest opportunities for additional penetration, and that has been a robust growth rate since the acquisition. So over the past four or five years, it's been averaging about a 20%-25% CAGR. Oh, okay. Oh, interesting. So, you know, maybe that, I guess, U.S. or guess, non-China growth that you're expecting to stay or I guess, has delivered above that, you know, low double-digit range, that... Is that pent-up demand or I guess the kind of return to healthcare dynamic that you're seeing out of other, you know, diagnostics and healthcare med tech companies like that? Is, is that why we're growing above long, you know, the midterm trend, or, or is it easy comps, or? You mean by the U.S. specifically? Yeah. The U.S., it's more just a new market, right? So when we had bought EUROIMMUN, that was only like, you know, 1%-2% of their total revenue. Now it is much higher to, like, 6%-7% of their total revenue. So it's just been the growth and penetration of them in the U.S. market, sort of using our legacy revenue channels. Got it. Okay, that's helpful. And I guess thinking about moving here to the, you know, other pieces of Diagnostics business. So, you know, prenatal, you know, it's been resilient in the face of birth rate trends. Obviously, you know, a lot of excitement around Vanadis when you guys launched it. A bit of a, you know, taking a bit longer to materialize. You know, is that the driver here? You know, where is Vanadis today? And at the same time, you know, can you help us understand how you're growing above the macro volumes? I guess, the macro volumes. Is it share gains? Is it, you know, pricing? Any, some help there? Yeah. So I think when you, when you look at our Reproductive Health business, right, there's, I would say, kind of four different channels associated with it that are in Reproductive Health. You have prenatal, you have Vanadis, you have neonatal, and then you have our Omics labs business. When you look at the different components of it, the one that I think you're referring to is actually neonatal. And so neonatal is a business that in the first half this year, grew 10%. I wouldn't say that's sort of our midterm outlook, but the reason why that business has been able to grow above, you know, an environment where we have, you know, sort of declining birth rates globally, is basically two levers. One is geographic expansion, so finding new countries to go do our neonatal testing in. And then the second dynamic is really around menu expansion. And so this is on the backbone of our innovation and new disease areas, you know, getting states to take on additional tests in their panel or getting other countries to expand their testing capabilities. And so those are really, I would say, the big two commercial levers that we've been able to drive for neonatal. And we do expect the ability to be able to grow, I would say, above what's happening from a macro perspective, although it wouldn't hurt to have birth rates start to increase again. Yeah. I guess the whole world would like that. So if we were to think about, I guess, you know, Prahlad called out the Ohio, you know, incremental, coverage decision and/or just statewide decisions, just, you know, how big is a individual state like that to, you know, I guess, the top line, in terms of whether you call it the SAM or the TAM or, how much of that is... Is it just simply, you know, okay, we look at the population of the U.S., population globally. Like, how do you guys think about that market broadly and, and these incremental wins, if you will? Right. And so it's a little bit tricky because it kind of depends on what's been approved across each one of the different panels. But since it, this one was just particularly for Ohio, it's really limited to just what the Ohio market size is. For the rest of the states, it's gonna depend on us getting them to also adopt it within their panel. And so what we would look at is, you know, the number of babies born in that particular state and apply $1 per test, et cetera. So I would say it's a, I think the more exciting piece on the Ohio example is really around the innovation and our ability to bring this product to the, to the market. I don't think it would be something that would be overly material to the overall company, but it will certainly help the neonatal business in the U.S. Got it. Okay. And then moving to, you know, thinking about lab and software and genomics, just, you know, I think you guys called out there was a bit of softness, obviously, because some of that exposure is in pharma biotech. Like, what's the breakdown of that business broadly in terms of, you know, end market? Yeah, it's a good question. So I would say that it's actually probably about 60-65% is actually related to backup testing for our state labs in the, in the U.S. And then the other, about roughly a third of it, is related to these pharma partnerships. What's the dynamic that's played out this year is, we knew we had a bunch of projects coming to completion in the first half of this year. We were expecting to re-up that pipeline, across different projects with our pharma customers, but then given the, you know, sort of macro environment with the pharma customers, they just weren't as quick to close, and there's been a little bit of a delay there. We still have confidence that these deals are eventually going to close because they are in high-tech areas, that are aligned with the pharma's innovation pipeline. It's just a little bit matter of timing right now and working through the logistics of the T's& C's. Mm-hmm. That's kind of the reason why we wanted to de-risk the second half, is there was just too much unknown, given the macro uncertainty or exactly when these deals would close. Yeah. No, that makes a lot of sense. And if we were to think about, you know, the two, I guess, biggest buckets of the spending pause, you know, elongated decision-making timelines, whatever flavor you want to kind of describe this dynamic as within pharma, you know, what snaps back faster? Is there? You know, we've heard, obviously, initially, it was anything above $100,000 on the capital equipment side was where the weakness was, and then all of a sudden, starting to hear a bit more below that line, and then obviously software again. Like, what's the average contract size of the software? Is that it? Is it dollar amounts of the spend, or, you know, should we expect software to snap back first, then kind of sub-$100K equipment, then above-$100K equipment? Any kind of just general frameworks on, you know, the recovery dynamics here? For sure. So maybe just speaking broadly, too, about our Signals business or is what I think you're referring to, is our Software business on the Life Sciences side. Coming into this year, we knew that there was going to be headwinds in this business, agnostic to the market environment. The reason why we were going to have those headwinds is because it was just a lighter renewal year. So these are multi-year software contracts that we sign up. It just so happened that we knew 2023 was going to be very light in terms of the timing of these contract renewals. It was a one-year blip that we were aware of. The dynamic that really was unforeseen coming into this year was the market environment and how that would impact our Software business. And so our Software business has had a little bit more challenge in terms of signing the new deals that are particular CapEx investments for the pharma customers, but that's not all software deals. So for instance, if they're signing up SaaS instead of an on-prem solution, SaaS for them is an OpEx decision. And so for that, that is less of a capital outlay out front, versus if it's an on-prem solution that they are interested in, that is very much a CapEx decision with much more significant upfront cash. And that is where we have really felt the, I would say, the brunt of the market environment is on the on-prem solutions with pharma customers. Got it. And then, like, what's the split of on-prem versus SaaS in that business? Is- So the SaaS, if you go back three or four years ago, was literally zero for us, and now that is about, I would say, roughly 25%-30% of our portfolio, but then the remaining, you know, 70%-75% of it is still on-prem solutions. Okay. All right, that's helpful. And within, I guess, the broader, you know, Signals, or I guess if you want to kind of combine the two that we were just talking about, SaaS and on-prem, what's the growth rate embedded in that, you know, 10% midterm guide? How big do you think this business can be ultimately? Yeah. So in terms of the midterm guide, it's a low teens. You know, I think in terms of where this business is going over the next couple of years, we remain incredibly excited about it. Again, we knew 2023 was going to be a one-year blip for this business on the renewal timings, but as you look at the commercial levers over the next couple of years, you know, we definitely have the opportunity to expand into the a little bit more, I would say, further downstream in some of the partnerships that we're looking at, even with CROs, and some new tech capabilities there. But then also building out our software capabilities around biologic cell and gene therapy is an area that we continue to invest heavily in, and our customers are asking us for those solutions. We feel confident in our ability to deliver on it. It's just, it's just a matter of time in terms of getting the products to market. Got it. Okay. Across the, you know, be it software plus capital equipment that's going to pharma biotech, you know, we've heard kind of mixed reviews about whether the resiliency in you know, mRNA versus cell therapy versus gene therapy versus, you know, traditional mAbs, or even the kind of biosimilars pipeline. Is there? Have you guys seen any bifurcation in the demand coming from, you know, one group of customers that happen to be leaning into one modality or another? Is cell therapy falling apart, or is it staying resilient. Yeah, I don't think we've seen it one way or the other, truthfully. Okay. All right. Well, that's helpful. And then, you know, I guess just thinking about... So we covered the Immunodiagnostics, Genomics, and then, you know, if you could just kind of update us, if we take a step back, you know, the Diagnostics subsegments, you know, the growth rates that are embedded in that 10%. I think we mentioned, you know, I think we said we're midterm, low double digits in China, Immunodiagnostics, consistently with the rest of world here. You know, just neonatal, kind of 10% midterm growth. Like, what are the other pieces that make up that pie? And, you know, if we were to think about Life Sciences versus Diagnostics as that 10% whole- Yeah. You know, what's all the, I guess, embedded pieces, if you could take a step back and kind of... I know it's kind of piecemeal. Yeah. Okay. No, no, I got you. And so I think if you look at that 10% midterm outlook, the two big pieces, Life Sciences and Diagnostics. Life Sciences should be above that 10%, so call it a low double digits, and our assumption on Diagnostics is high single digits. And so if we look at the Diagnostics components, the three business lines of Reproductive Health, Applied Genomics, and Immunodiagnostics. Immunodiagnostics should be the fastest grower at about a low double-digit growth. And then the assumption around Applied Genomics and Reproductive Health is both kind of around a low to mid single-digit growth rate. And then if you look on the Life Sciences side, the three components, right, being our instruments, reagents, and software. Both our reagents and software, we expect to be in the low double digits, and instrumentation is more of a mid to high single digit growth rate assumption in that midterm outlook. Got it. Okay. No, that's really helpful. And then, you know, if we were to kind of do a sensitivity analysis, if you will, around the midterm guide here, you know, focusing on growth, I want to go to, you know, the margin and the cost actions after this. But, you know, like, what's the beta on that, if you will? You know, I think the 10% assumes normal market conditions, pretty consistent with every one of your peers, in their kind of LRPs, if you will. Just, you know, what's the... If we stay in below normal conditions, like, is it, you know, a mid single? Is it a high single if we all of a sudden come out of this much stronger? Are we now looking at kind of low teens, mid-teens, any kind of, you know, guardrails, if you will, around, you know, macro, I guess, stickiness? Yeah If you will. Yeah. I don't think I'll commit on a number higher than the 10%. But in terms of your question, maybe in terms of the beta or downside opportunity, I mean, if you look at this year, right? So this year, our new guidance now is the 4%-6%. I would say the main components are, I mean, you've got instrumentation across both our Life Sciences and really our Applied Genomics portfolio. That's essentially flat growth year-over-year. Then when you also look at specific one-time headwinds that we have this year around our Signals renewals that I had mentioned, and then the, I would say the contract timing headwinds in our Omics businesses, those two pieces together contribute about 200-250 basis points of organic growth headwind. And so maybe I would probably not consider those real sticky headwinds. So if you were to normalize those, that should kind of give you an indication of the 5+ that 200-250 is sort of what our beta would be, if you will. Okay. All right. No, that's, that's helpful framing. And, you know, moving to the cost actions, so I think you guys hit $60 million of annualized run rate as of the second quarter. Just, you know, if you were to think about the extent that it can go, you know, is the low-hanging fruit kind of plucked at this point? Is it now a bit more of a longer burn to gain additional cost savings? And, you know, I think you're at almost the six-month mark here post the divestiture. So, you know, how should we think about that? Is your thought process-... of all. Mm-hmm. Obviously, clearly, you guys, you know, kind of up-indexed that last quarter. Just help us through the extent of the cost savings, you know, where we could get to and I guess the additional trajectory from here. Yeah. So I think maybe I'll take it a little bit back into the past maybe 18 months of history here. So when we had first come out and had mentioned, you know, at the time of the divestiture, that we were looking for 30% operating margins this year, that was on the assumption of 9% organic growth and $100 million of COVID, which has very favorable margins, as you've seen over the past, you know, 3 years for us with COVID. And so the fact that we were able to only go down from 30 to what now is a 29% operating margin assumption for this year, while losing $100 million of COVID and dropping organic growth from 9% to 5%, I think shows the strength of our portfolio from a margin capability standpoint. And so I think we remain incredibly encouraged. And as we look out over the next couple of years, you know, I don't think we're going to commit to something more than what we've kind of said over the midterm of 75-100 basis points per year of margin expansion to take us through 2026. But then what's the really exciting thing for us is really probably what's beyond 2026. So once we work through sort of those “stranded costs” over the next couple of years, really focusing, I would say, more so on the supply chain synergies. So whether that's around rooftop consolidation, you know, freight lane optimization, you know, consolidation of suppliers, I think that is one area we continue to remain incredibly optimistic about, and I think we're just scratching the surface of our new portfolio with all of our recent acquisitions, and our ability to drive, I would say, meaningful margin expansion, even post 2026. Okay. So, kind of those heavy lifting efforts that you just kind of listed off, you know, multi-year progression and evolution, that's really not included in this, you know, what's been done to date or- Mm-mm. or anything here. That's really kind of just post-divestiture, you know, right-sizing headcount, if you will, and maybe some other factors. Exactly. Okay. All right, that's helpful. You know, and if we were to do that same exercise about, you know, the beta of the growth rates, you know, how should we be thinking about that 75-100 basis points of, you know, operating margin accretion? Is it... You know, I guess kind of, you know, you lost almost 500 basis points of growth and the margin was down 100 basis points. Obviously, COVID has pretty high incrementals. Yep. If we were to try to kind of reverse engineer that and think about, all right, if that 10% is, you know, mid-single digit, is it 50 bps? Is it 25 bps? Just kind of framing that, that out. Yeah. So I mean, we're obviously not providing an organic growth assumption here or guidance for next year. But I think probably the best way to think about it is, you know, if we are similar growth rate to what we have this year, we'll probably be closer to the 75 basis points versus the 100. And on the flip side, if we are actually closer to, you know, the 10% growth next year, I wouldn't expect more than the 100 basis points either. You know, there are definitely some investments this year where we've maybe put pause on, that we would like to, you know, restart, if you will. So I think probably the 100 basis points is probably the upper range of what I would expect for next year. Okay. Yeah, no, I think that was... That came across. You guys still have a lot of things that you want to take action on right away, that were in flight and almost, you know, critical path, if you will. So that, that's helpful. And, you know, if we were to think about, I guess, you know, the... You know, moving on to here, the capital allocation. You know, as I said before, coming up on six months of divestiture, you know, you guys have been kind of deploying, leaning heavily on share buybacks in the quarter, obviously open and evaluating inorganic opportunities. You know, what is the white space out there, really, that you guys are, you know, focused on the near term, plugging, you know, any holes on or adding capabilities? Is it Life Sciences? Is it Diagnostics? Is it specifically, you know, in one of these subverticals? You know, any thoughts there? Yes, I mean, maybe just to paint a little bit of a broader picture on the capital allocation. So as a reminder to everyone, we do have about $1.3 billion of short-term debt that's coming. There's $500 million coming due end of this month, and then we've got another $800 million in September 2024 that we need to take care of. You know, the second piece around our priority really being M&A, and we will continue to be diligent there, I think, in our underwriting and what we go after, and I can talk a little bit more about what areas that would be in. And then the third area is share buyback. So we are not assuming any further share buyback than what has been done to date, but we will obviously continue to monitor what happens here from a market perspective. In terms of the acquisition and where we might want to go, I would say we love both our children equally across the Life Sciences and Diagnostics space, you know, which maybe wasn't always the case pre-divestiture. And so I think for us, when you look at those two markets, Life Sciences has more efficiency. So it is a little bit easier to have a more robust pipeline there, but that doesn't mean we are excluding looking at Diagnostics opportunities. And then even within each one of those spaces, I think I would say we are very excited about the portfolio that we've built, right? It's a high recurring mixed business. I think that would be a continued theme we'd want to ensure. You know, we maintain sort of the margin profitability, all those type of things that we've now worked so hard to build. Mm-hmm. I don't think we would. It would take something, I would say, outsized to want us to deviate from the new look of the company that we've built. Got it. Okay, well, that's helpful. Yeah, I know having the Diagnostics piece today is definitely keeping the numbers a bit more resilient versus peers. Yeah. So, you know, as you guys obviously opened up the call with last quarter. I guess if we were to think about the size, magnitude of potential deals you guys are looking at, you know, obviously have some recent home runs that are really helping you guys out here. Like, are we looking at, you know, billion-dollar deals? Are we looking at, you know, bolt-on, smaller, smaller magnitude? Just kind of, I guess, size, and then we can—I do want to touch on the hurdle rates and kind of how you guys think about, you know, what makes it deeper into the funnel versus, you know, what doesn't. Yeah. You know, I think in terms of the yeah, let me talk. I don't know that I would necessarily say that we've... In like our hurdle rates and our strategy, I don't think is that different than what you're going to hear from anybody else, right? From a strategy perspective, we are very much focused on the technology fit within the company as the first hurdle. The second hurdle is going to be from a financial perspective. Again, as I just mentioned, it's going to take something outsized for us to buy something overly diluted from a financial perspective, as we want to maintain the new profile we've sort of built up. And then from a hurdle or returns perspective, you know, we are in the same camp of looking for high single-digit ROICs here, ideally, you know, in between years three and five. Okay, that's helpful. You know, and just kind of, again, last two minutes here, just did want to kind of retouch on that 10% growth expectations by individual end market. You know, do you guys have, you know, views on what each of the individual, you know, geographies, whether it be China, ex-China, APAC, Europe, and U.S.? Like, what kind of growth rates are embedded in each of those, geographies to build up to the 10% mid-term? Yeah. So I think if you look at the three sort of major geographic regions, I would say the Americas and the U.S. should probably be slightly above, I would say, overall company average. I would say Asia, including China, should be more or less right in line with the company average, and then Europe, probably slightly below, is probably how I'd break it down geographically. And if you look at even our sort of midterm or our current year guidance versus that midterm outlook, the real deviation is in the Americas. And the reason for that is because if you look at the two major headwinds across Signals and our Omics business, those are predominantly U.S.-based businesses. And so our assumption for the Americas this year is closer to low single digits versus what would it be implied, sort of a low double digit in that midterm outlook. Got it. Okay, no, that's really helpful. And then, you know, if we were to do, I guess, a similar exercise, with the 75-100 basis points, you know, margin accretion in, you know, breaking out Diagnostics versus Life Science, is there-- you know, are they both kind of on par or, or, you know, is there more, I guess, you know, upside potential in any of the businesses? Obviously, they have, you know, very different starting points- Yeah. And obviously very different governors if you were to think of the top end. But if we were to think of, you know, 75-100, is one segment or one subsegment really juicing that up, where others are a bit more mature? Yes. You know, I would say both businesses should have margin expansion, but I do think it'll probably be more tilted towards the Diagnostic side of things. If you just look at our, to your point, the starting points, right? Yeah. You've got Life Sciences already at sort of the mid- to high 30s, and you've got Diagnostics probably closer to a mid-20s, you know, Op margin percentage. So I think there is a little bit more opportunity on the Diagnostic side, especially when you look at some of our, maybe our recent acquisitions, and where we have the opportunity to turn them in from, you know, loss-generating businesses to money-making businesses. So there will be some margin expansion there. And that's what I'd say is probably more of the opportunity. But again, both businesses should have margin expansion. Perfect. All right, looks like we're pretty much right on time, so great. This has been extremely helpful, really enlightening, and Max, appreciate it. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, hopefully, everybody else has a great start to the conference, and we'll see you all soon. Thanks.