Aurionpro Solutions Limited (AURIONPRO) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Any major impact of this geopolitical disruption in our new deals, new geography that we are trying to capture, specifically Europe, Middle East? And how much time it will take to get normalized on realistic assumption that we as a promoter, you are taking?

Look, Middle East is the question mark, right? So last year, so like we got to double-digit percentage of the revenue from Middle East, and we are expecting at least on the banking side, a much more significant contribution to growth. That actually came down to 0. And honestly, we don't have a good handle on that. I think like I said even at the sort of end of last quarter, there are things we can't control, so I think we can't do much about. What we've done is we've refocused on trying to sell in more geographies to expand, for example, the transaction banking stack to Southeast Asia, which is a very strong base for our lending solution set. I'm pretty sure you'll see some wins on it this year, expand into Europe in a meaningful way. So I don't think outside of Middle East, there is any other concern that I'm aware of. The Middle East situation, honestly, we do see deals progressing -- so it's not like it was in Q4. We've not been able to bring deals to closure as much. So to that extent, there is still slowness in the geography. As to when that gets better, I would not hazard a guess. Honestly, we don't know. But I think it's a meaningful percentage of our overall mix. And to that extent, it will impact by the time you -- in any case, in 2 quarters' time, it will normalize itself, right? So there is at least no year-on-year impact of Middle East after Q3, right?

Okay. I'll join in the queue. But last question from my end. If you can share any number in terms of revenue of this financial year in numbers. Definitely, you guided that we will grow much higher rate. But if any guidance, if you can share with us?

No. So I think I've been pretty clear about this beginning of the year that I think there is too many uncertain factors for us to really do a good job of providing a guidance. So we will -- I think we feel that from where we were in Q4, the business has gotten back to growth. I think that is really all credit to really all parts of Aurionpro really adapting to where the market was going. We became too dependent on Middle East for growth on the software side, at least that we pivoted away from, right? So to that extent, I think we feel good about where we are and how the teams have adapted to things we needed to change to. We've grown at a breakneck pace for the last 5 years. I think the size of Q1 is what the size of Aurionpro used to be 4 years back or 5 years back, right? So it's a significant long run where we did get stressed. And to that extent, I think this is a blessing in this guys, we do get an opportunity to reset the market, reset the teams, which we've done. I think the Q4 to Q1 trajectory is pretty good. And I think we'll just keep pressing on for the rest of the year, right? I don't want to get into giving a guidance right now. I don't think we can do a very accurate job of it.

The next question comes from the line of Darshil Jhaveri. Darshil.

Sir, just wanted to know in terms of our margin this year, this quarter, you were saying that some kind of revenue was more difficult to achieve -- it was achieve with the some higher cost, right? So with -- even data center ramping up in H2. So will our margins maybe this year from the average 20% that we used to do could be in mid-teens 17% would you clarify? The range will also do because it's taking more time that our R&D spending is not reducing data center is a bit less margin accretive. So just wanted to get your thoughts on that, sir.

Yes. So look, I would not worry about the data center side too much. First of all, that business consumes very little capital. Second, even if, let's say, we are a few points behind on the margin, it will more than make up for it with the volume, right? So the net contribution to the enterprise is going to be very, very strong from the business, right? So I think the way to look at it is just the sheer scale of opportunity and the part that Aurionpro can play in building out sovereign AI infrastructure that India so desperately needs, right? And as we play our part on it and as a cycle -- this is not an ordinary cycle. This is a massive infrastructure super cycle that this country has never seen. And as that plays out over the next 8 to 10 years, the impact that we can make as an enterprise would be very, very significant compared to where we are and the impact that, that will make on Aurionpro's P&L would be very, very significant compared to where we are. So I think it's not fair to look at a business from a quarter or 2 quarters perspective. It is just a very, very significant opportunity for Aurionpro to play a role in a once-in-a-generation build-out that's happening in this country. And as we improve our contribution, we bring more of our IP like we've done in some of the other businesses, more of our products, we gain in capabilities. I think the impact of it will be something you can't really imagine right now. So I think that is the way to look at that business. I would not really worry about saying, okay, a few 0 margin and up. The idea is even if the margin is lower, the volume will more than make up for it, right? I think -- and it consumes almost no capital. So the return on capital is exceptionally high, right? So I think that is the way to look at it. The rest of the business, I feel from a margin trajectory standpoint, again, from one quarter to the next quarter, you can't tell, but software, as it gains traction, gains operating leverage will get more profitable over time. We do expense a lot of R&D, so that does tend to mask the actual real EBITDA in the business. But over time, that will play out. We have a very definite point of view on what software needs to be for the age of AI. And we feel very, very good about where that will take us over the next several years, right? So what would have taken us a very long time to get to a leadership position in the industry takes a lot shorter for us with the new stack, which is receiving exceptional feedback in the market, right? So again, software as itself will improve in margins, right? So over time, it will balance out. And over time, I think like margin is a function of, like I said, different businesses have very different economic profiles. At an enterprise level, it nets to a certain number. It does not mean every business in the enterprise is doing the same number, right? So the way to look at Aurionpro is more or less a fairly decentralized group of probably 13, 14 P&Ls, most of them product P&Ls, some of them services P&L. And each of them works hard to become a top 3 global player, top 3 player in each of the businesses that we focus on. And over time, the economics will sort of prove itself, right? So like if you really look at transit as a business, for example, it's probably a few years ahead of data center, right? When we started off, we had very, very little IP in that business. Today, we have IP across every single point of the value chain, right? And that makes us a very powerful competitor in that space, but it's taken us 5 years, 6 years to get there, right? So similarly, all of our businesses will get there, but it's a cycle. And riding that cycle takes the R&D spend. That's what sort of masks some of the margins that go out, right? So I think one has to look at the picture together. Overall, I think it's been playing out fairly well for us over the next 4, 5 years -- last 4, 5 years. And I feel it will play out very well for us over the next 4, 5 years as we ride these cycles.

Okay. Fair enough. Sir, just also, I think in our slide, you've mentioned our directional path for 2030, sir. So just wanted to know the value potential that you've given is a very huge range. So just could you maybe help us like what are other parts of your focus in that? Like what's the reasonable? I think it's $560 million to $1.7 billion, right? That's a decently big change. So could you narrow it down for us and our pathway to reach that potential? And just one more suggestion, sir, if data center is going to become like more than 20% of our business, can we disclose it separately in PPT? That would be really helpful. I think everyone is going to bug you for that question in each call as it is irrespective.

Yes. So look, I think the decision to start disclosing at a subsegment level is something that we will sort of consider internally and we'll see to what extent do we want to disclose and what additional value does that add to the information available to the shareholder, right? So I think we'll look at that, and we'll consider it. I think -- I'm not sure I fully understood the value potential question. The idea behind proposing -- so the way we looked at it, obviously, we are going after -- when we did the pivot 4, 5 years back, right? We selected -- carefully selected some spaces. Those spaces were essentially at the intersection of 3 circles. One, does it have a long demand runway and we chose segments which we thought had long demand runways, data center, transit, banking software, AI, right? Second, it has to be a space where we feel the global leadership is contested so that we can make a play for it. It should not be like a Visa, Mastercard kind of situation, no space for a third guy. And it should be a space where Aurionpro has some unique advantage to build out a Tier 1 IP, Tier 1 assets, right? As long as those 3 circles intersect, we go and make a bet. We haven't really meaningfully changed those bets for the last 4, 5 years. It's just that the market environment for those bets over time keeps evolving and from time to time, something becomes more fashionable than the other. But we are convinced each of these is a very large space where we feel we have a shot at becoming a top 3 global player in that space. That's been our ambition for -- we've stated it 5 years back. I've not changed that slide since, and that will remain our ambition until you get there. So basically, if you look at it, I think over time -- but these segments obviously have very large TAMs, right? So we did not want to come up with just a TAM number. So what we said is narrow it down to one specific named accounts, specific dollar numbers, that calculates to -- in specific geographies, that calculates to what we call a SAM number, which is essentially the addressable market for Aurionpro Solutions. And then we had the final number, which we think is an obtainable number, which is anywhere between 5% and 15% market share on the SAM that we can address, right? So that is essentially what that mix is. Whether or not we get there, time will tell. Like I said, the size of our Q1 this year was what the size of Aurionpro was 4, 5 years back. We continue executing at the pace with some ups and downs here and there, not every quarter, you go at the same pace. You will make a meaningful dent on that number, right? So the idea was not to come up with some overall size of the market, but what we think is an obtainable size for Aurionpro in the markets we are in with the products we are building out and making a play and making a respectable sort of share from the market. What I have seen in experience is when we build our products out and start competing, we actually win a lot more share than anyone in the business, whether it's on the transaction banking stack, whether it's on the transit stack, you can see in the markets that we compete in on the win rates, we upwards of 50% win rates on most of those products that we build out. So when we get in the game and start competing, the market share ends up being larger than what we conservatively estimate, right? And that sort of explains the range overall, right? But I would say beyond that, don't read more into it than that. It's essentially an articulation of what is the obtainable market. Whether or not you can actually obtain that market, time will tell. So we have to stay focused on the goals. If we build out products which are superior to the competition, if we stay true to our DNA of never failing a customer, we will get to that. We will probably get to higher than that. But then till then, we need to keep our heads down, execute and time will tell whether we succeed or fail.

Okay. Fair enough. I just wanted to know...

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Darshil Jhaveri, would you please join back the queue again. The next question comes from the line of Kunal Bajaj. I'm sorry, sir. He has left the queue. [Operator Instructions] So we have a question from Kunal Bajaj.

Sorry for the bad connection. So 3 questions specifically. You indicated that in Q1, it was impacted by the seasonality, project timing shifts as well as higher input cost. So can you quantify some -- throw some color on the impact of all of these factors? And are we expecting to normalize entirely by Q2? Or are we seeing some pass-throughs in H2 as well? That is one. A question on order book. So order book remains healthy, while we see conversion is below the normal trajectory, what we see. So what specifically needs to happen over the next 2 quarters for the conversion to return? And apart from the customer-specific delays in MEA, do we see any other execution bottlenecks? And thirdly, a follow-up question on the previous participants. So we see that FY '27 margins are impacted due to data center heavy mix. So should we expect any recalibration earlier margin guidance of 20% to 22% in the near term? Yes, that's it.

Kunal, so let me just take this one by one. So do I expect a full normalization of everything by Q2? Like I said, some of those factors -- so seasonality part of it is fine, right? So Q1 generally seasonally for us is a slow quarter in terms of conversions for various reasons, especially in terms of deal conversion, sorry, not revenue conversion itself, right? And I think to that extent, it's actually proven to be a fairly strong quarter. I think we had in terms of new wins, probably our strongest Q1 like ever that I can remember, right? So that way, I think it's proven to be fairly strong. The -- but I think some of the other factors probably will not settle down over Q2, right? And I'll come to the capacity part. But basically, even the Middle East situation, I don't know whether you can fully expect it to normalize by Q2. I think you can fully expect the impact to go away by Q3 only because there is no more year-on-year comparison for it, right? So just the comp goes away, whether or not the Middle East situation goes away. But broadly, I would say some of those factors will continue to stay. The test for us is not really whether those factors say. The test is to what extent can we pivot away from there, right? And which is what we've been working towards, right? Can we reduce sales dependence? Can we reduce revenue dependence? Can we focus more on businesses and products, which are not there, for example, data center transit, et cetera, right? So I think to that extent, I feel good about us being able to like move away from a bunch of those factors over the next quarter or 2, not everything is going to go away, right? The conversion and that probably mixed up with question number one as well. One of the factors is an order book is a necessary condition for revenue, but that's not a sufficient condition for revenue because you need to do a project to convert that order book into revenue. And there are 2 real factors, right? Very large deals, typically, the conversion cycles are longer because our typical projects are 12 months or thereabouts, but these are much, much longer projects, first of all, right? So it takes you long to get the sort of revenue out. The second is, especially for something like data center, if you look at it, the size of the deals are now much larger than what we were doing even 3 or 4 quarters back, right? So there is a buildup of capacity that needs to happen. And that capacity build-out is a function -- it doesn't happen overnight. So it's a function of how large is the project, how many is the capacity and we slowly ramp into the project. So it's not that you get a linear sort of conversion day 1. I think that is happening right now. And I suppose that will get normalized by the time we reach end of Q2 or early Q3, right? So I think that will sort of start flowing in. So part of it is just -- so what slows down conversion of order book into revenue is one, the size of the sheer duration of the project, but the second is, do I have the capacity to execute against it, right? So on the data center side, it's pretty clear because when you are on such a massive growth trajectory, you do need to build net new capacity, which we are building out. We've really rolled out a lot of specific initiatives to do that, and I think we are seeing success with it. On the banking side, the question is a little bit different and slightly more temporary. Again, the order book is there, but we are going through what is probably once in a lifetime fundamental shift in technology where you have 2 choices in enterprise. Do I just pretend as if everything is totally normal and keep on executing the way everything is normal? Or do I double down and invest on my specific point of view of where this needs to be. If I double down and invest and I'm right, the price is much, much bigger than the steady-state business. So it's worth it diverting some capacity right now to go and invest in a new product stack. We did that 4 years back, and we had exceptional success with it, right? So we are, for example, the transaction banking stack when we talk about, I don't think anyone in the market has ever gotten close to the kind of win rates we have purely because we had the courage 3 years back to go and rebuild the whole stack. The moment right now is exactly that. We feel over the next few years, the world will need a completely new type of software. The need for software does not go away, but what that software needs to be is slightly different from what it is today. We have a very specific point of view on it, and we are building against it. So if you look at it, what -- so I've said this many times before, but at the cost of repeating myself, right, what do we think this sort of banking Software 2.0 needs to be or needs to do. It's essentially 3 things. It needs to do everything that Software 1.0 is doing. It needs to do 2 more things. It needs to provide the agents, the rails, the tools that they need to become first-class operators on the banking workflow, right? And it needs to provide the banks and the human operators in the banks the tools that they need to govern these agents. Unless you solve for it, you're not solving for the next generation of software. And that is why it is so urgent that we build it right now, and we will build it. Of course, we are balancing out between customer commitments and R&D. We don't divert all capacity to one side, but it is important to build that right now, but that is a function of the next quarter or 2. And then I think a lot of our build-out is done, especially because we are a lot more productive in those build-outs right now, right? So that is a temporary phenomenon. Again, is it exactly 3 months and does it go away by end of Q2 and not into Q3? I can't tell. But over the next 1, 2 quarters, I think that gets normalized. So we have a lot more capacity available to convert the banking order book to revenue, which is again what we'll do, right? So I think that is sort of -- your question number two, that's what sort of slows down the conversion of order book to revenue, but we are hyper focused on it at the moment and you will see progress on it over the next quarter or 2, given all the other priorities, right? Question number 3 was about FY '27 margins. Can you repeat that question? I probably did not note that down properly. I don't want to answer an incorrect question.

I'm sorry, sir. He has left the queue, sir.

Okay. Fine. Let's move on then. I think on FY '22 margins, just to add, like we're not -- like I said, we're not getting into a guidance for the full year on either the revenue or the margin. We see us accelerating, especially as we get into H2. And I think I said in my opening remarks as well, one has to be careful with that statement as well because I've made that statement every single year for the last 5 years. And it's been proven true 4 years out of 5, but last year, that was not true, right? But I think just the sheer nature of our business is such that second half tends to be larger than the first half. And a lot of our project execution accelerate into Q3 and Q4. We just need to be very methodical, very careful on how we are executing with discipline to convert that into revenue. And especially like some of the projects are exceptionally large-sized projects. So it really matters whether or not -- it works to schedule and a minor slippage from Q4 to Q1 can actually be very material in terms of revenue number, right? So I think we just need to be very, very careful how we execute through the year. But I feel as we go through the year, especially into H2, we will see that acceleration.

The next question comes from the line of [ Tejas Gulka ]

Just picking up on some of your comments, you mentioned a little bit about reallocation of resources from implementation towards R&D. You've spoken a lot about the need for banking software 2.0 versus 1.0. But my point was that the client is going to spend when they're going to spend, right? If we are not selling, someone else is selling. So that's, in some ways, a loss of market share. So why not, a, expand the team and let have a dedicated R&D team doing the R&D stuff and we continue selling. So have we stopped selling? Are we seeing market share consciously because we think we'll come up with better products? And if yes, then would we not have done like a banking 1.0 sale today and say, okay, look, 6 months down the line, 1 year down the line, we'll come up with an upgrade and sort of run it as a normal course of business?

Yes. So interesting question. No, I don't think we are slowing down in terms of selling at all. I think if you look at any of our products, I mean, you look at transaction banking, that's sort of the bulk of the banking software sales that happened, we probably -- in the markets that we got north of 50% market share -- 50% share win rates in terms of new wins that have come to the market and not just last year, but the last 2, 3 years, right? I think that we continue to sell. We continue to move into newer markets, right? So like, it's not really a choice you are making in terms of stopping to sell. Product implementations take time. Most product implementation are 12- to 18-month projects, and then you will, within that, see a different shift in capacity. The reason the current moment in time is so unique is that I think you're going through a period where there is a distinct uptick in terms of productivity that you can get from the same consultant from the same developer from the same skill set that you have purely because of the availability of AI-driven tool sets, to do the development work, to do the implementation work, et cetera. And slowly, that productivity is seeping through. Now there is like no sort of rule that kind of tells you exactly how that matches out, but we do feel that uptick in productivity. Over a 4, 5-quarter period, I think the uptick in productivity makes up for not adding the staff overall because we're just that much more productive using all the AI tools. But for a quarter or 2 or 3 quarters, as we are adjusting to it, you may see a little bit of an effect. Now you say, why not just hire 400 more people right now and fire them in 3 quarters. We are just not that kind of an organization, right? So I think we are a highly people-centric organization. I would feel highly irresponsible doing something like that, right? So I think we feel the productivity gain from the usage of recent tools across especially the software world would more than make up for some of the capacity diversion towards R&D and all. It's just a question of balancing it out over a couple of quarters, right? So -- but does that mean you are losing business in the market? No, not really. I mean you look at our track record in the market related to just about anyone we compete with, we win more than we lose. And our win rates are only strengthening as we are strengthening our stack. And as we roll out brand-new products, it will only get stronger.

Sure. I appreciate that. Also -- we hit -- at a consol level about INR 320 crores, INR 330 crores, I think, March of '25. It's been 5, 6 quarters that our top line has kind of been stuck into this range. Employee costs have, I think, almost doubled during this period. So when do we start seeing -- when do we break out of this range? And when do we start seeing the benefits of these investments that we are making. And just going back to my previous point, I was not saying that hire today, fire tomorrow. But at that scale, I'm sure you can absorb more employees and some of those R&D employees would come back to normal course of business is how I was thinking about it, but you have a better hand on this than me.

Yes. Look, I think -- so first of all, look, I think it's important not to go to the extremes of any question or any situation, right? We do not have a fundamental sort of capacity issue to service the order book. And it's also not that we've not been growing capacity to deliver against the order book. Like I said, we have been building capacity. It's a question of to what extent we want to build capacity and what part of it can come out of tooling and productivity gains and all that stuff, right? And both of those things need to match out. So there is no like complete either 0 or 100. It's a question of slowly building it out. Capacity build-out typically, unless you're in a services business, right, where you say I put 100 people, I build 100 people, right? I mean that is fine. I can probably ramp it up over 1 month, 2 months and get it done, right? In most of our businesses, capacity ramp-up takes time because we are in the business of complex products, complex projects, and it takes time to ramp up the team. So it's not a simple thing of just doing it, but we've been doing it over time, right? I'm kind of forgetting the second part of your question.

A, I mentioned about capacity in terms of human costs have kind of more than doubled and b, that we've been in this range of overall top line...

In the range, yes, yes. Yes. So I think the range part of it is a little bit excessive. Like I said, if you go back 4 years, FY '21, we were a INR 375 crore revenue business, right, for the full year. Now you're looking at a like single sized quarter and that's just Q1, which is usually our smallest quarter, right? So I don't think we are stuck in any particular range. I think we will continue to grow the business even within the year between Q1 and Q4, you'll see a difference. And then businesses -- like businesses don't run on Excel sheets, right? I mean not all quarters will be the same. You will -- but progressively, I think if there is one business in the tech world, among the listed tech firms in India, which is not in a range with us probably, we've progressively been growing the size of the organization, and I feel very good about us being able to do that as we go, right? So I don't know, and I'll probably have to go back and look at the numbers to understand this whole range question. But at least in the 4-odd years that I've been facing you, I've seen us go from INR 400 crores, INR 500 crore number to where we are today. And I think that has not happened in any particular quarter or a particular year. That's happened progressively quarter after quarter, right? So I think we continue to chip along, right? Q4 was a -- I'm not saying Q4 was a great quarter, right? I do say we are below the sort of longer-term trend line that we have, and we'll find a path to getting to the trend line.

The next question comes from the line of Kshitij Sowlani.

Instead of focusing much more on revenue and EBITDA for FY '27, I would like to ask about the cash conversion which you are seeing in Q1 and in the running quarter as well. And as our revenue conversion was -- our cash conversion was not that great in FY '26, how do you see FY '27 panning out when it comes to cash conversion, EBITDA -- cash EBITDA conversion as such?

Yes. Great question. Thanks, Sites, right -- so look, I think we are very, very focused on cash conversion right now this year, right? So I think both conversion of order book to revenue and conversion of revenue to cash or rather EBITDA to cash is something which is an extreme focus for us right now, right? So I think we -- I do expect us to -- as we progress through the year, to be in a pretty good position on that front, right? And to the extent that the -- I think what really happens is as we focus on execution and conversion of order book to revenue, if we are really executing well, it will result in better cash. We're also not doing -- so one of the big deployments of cash for us over the last couple of years was acquisitions. As you've seen, we acquired a bunch of enterprises over the -- of fantastic businesses that we -- fantastic teams that we wanted to partner with over the last 2, 3 years. But we are not going to make a significant -- or we are not going to make any meaningful sort of acquisition for the next few times. So that automatically frees up a big sort of demand of cash that we used to have in the business for the next few quarters. We're also not going to meaningfully increase the R&D side of the expense. So that should also, to that extent, as the business gets larger, reduce the pressure on cash, right? So one, focus a lot more on operational execution that generates the cash. Second, probably less demand for that cash from within the enterprise on the places where we invest cash. So overall, I think for this year, the plan is for us to focus sharply on it. Of course, we are executing against very large complex projects. So to that extent, we need to manage the project cycles and see how that progresses through the year, right? But both sides of the equation, I think we intend to sort of show some progress on through the year. And we'll obviously come back at the middle of H1 and talk about it in more detail.

So like H1 last year, we saw extremely negative OCF, right? So going into H1 this year, can we see a positive OCF and then probably build on that in H2 and show a conversion of 65%, 70% EBITDA?

So I don't know. I think -- so it's not just last year, right? Typically, end of H1, we do have a negative OCF purely because of the payment cycles that we go through, right? I don't know whether I want to say that you'll get to a positive number at the end of H1, but we will certainly strive to be in good shape in H1 and then accelerate through H2, right? So I think typically, the way our business works -- and I don't want to set sort of expectations, which I can't meet. Typically, the way our project cycles work, things do go into 12 months sort of cycle in terms of when we convert to cash. So typically, for us, at least for the last 4, 5 years that I've been around, we will finish H1, if not negative, close to 0, but most likely negative, right? The question is to what extent, right? So I think we'll -- we are very focused on execution. So hopefully, I think it should be a good number.

Okay. Sir, just one more question on the data center deal, which we convert this year, right, by the end of this year. What I can see is that most of the growth which we will see in this year will solely come from that deal of INR 350 crores approximately. So what about the other business which we have in the transit space, which was supposed to grow at 30%, north of 30% growth and the banking, which was growing at 20%, 25% in the last couple of years. What happened to that?

Yes. So I did not make that statement. I think you are making it, but most of the growth will come from that data center deal. Look, for sure, the data center side will contribute to business, not just that deal, but maybe more deals than that. I have no doubt transit will grow. I have no doubt banking will grow, right? So I feel like I don't think that statement is accurate at all. So I'll sort of contest that a bit, right? So I would say data center will go strongly. I already made that statement. It's a question of how much can we execute until the end of this year. It's not a single year deal. It's a multiyear execution anyways, right? So part of it will come this year. Will transit grow? Yes. Will banking grow? Yes. Will the AI side grow? Yes, right? The question is how much. And I think as the year progresses, we'll come back and we'll sort of report that.

Ladies and gentlemen, due to the paucity of time, that was the last question. I now hand the conference over to Mr. Ashish for his closing comments.

First of all, thanks for taking the time out to join the call. I think if I was to really summarize the situation for us, from a demand standpoint, you've seen that in the order book. You've seen that in the pipeline. I think we see a lot of strength across businesses. From the execution side, we do have some things to work on, which I've been fairly transparent about. And I think we will continue to chip away at how do we convert the order book into revenue in an accelerated fashion. That will be the focus in Q2, Q3 and Q4. And I'll come back and I'll talk to you as we finish Q2. Thank you so much for taking the time out. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. On behalf of Aurionpro Solutions Limited, that concludes this conference. Thank you for joining us, and you may now disconnect your lines. Thank you.