CACI International Inc (CACI) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning, everybody. I'm Brian Gesuale, senior analyst at Raymond James, covering the defense and industrial technology space. Miss seeing everybody in person in Orlando, but fingers crossed that next year, we get to meet in person again. Today, though, we're very happy to have CACI here to give us an update on the story with the company's Chief Executive Officer, John Mengucci, to take us through that. And without -- we're going to do this in a fireside chat format. [Operator Instructions] But without further ado, John, welcome. Thanks for joining us.

Brian, as always, thanks a lot for having us. And yes, we absolutely miss sunny Florida. So hopefully, at some point, we'll end up back there again.

Yes, no doubt. Well, let's jump right into this. I think people are fairly familiar with the CACI story. But maybe just give us -- level set folks a little bit and tell us how CACI fits into that government tech ecosystem with a brief overview of the strategy, the broad mix of clients that you have from a mix shift perspective and really how you see yourself differently than other government service firms.

Yes. Brian, thanks. So CACI, company founded 1962, predominantly a professional services and in a small tech flavor, always have been focused on federal government customers exclusively. During our recent history, over the last 8 years, we've made a material shift towards focus on deepening our ability to address the technology challenges across the federal government. We purposely reshaped the portfolio away from pure professional services to add tech and also high-end expertise work. So today, we're a nice mix of what we call expertise and technology. On the expertise side, that's still delivering people to support our customers' missions, but we also have built a rather strong technology portion of our business. So the way we like to talk about our business, expertise informs tech. Technology is growing significantly faster. We'll be talking about some of those measures in a bit because technology is really what's driving the larger contribution to margin expansion. We've been focused on 2 very specific areas, continually growing top line better than the market growth rate with ever-increasing margins. And it's ever-increasing margins focus that has really driven a very different look in CACI today than we may have been 7 to 8 years back. We do a lot in the enterprise tech space. Think about that as financial services, business applications, cloud migration, Agile, Agile software work and the like. On the mission technology side, think about space, think about SIGINT and EW, cyber, ISR, Counter-UAS and the like. So very differentiated government services company in that we lead with technology first. I'm sure we're going to talk a little bit about M&A. An absolute strong credential for this company is our ability to fill gaps using M&A as well.

Great. Thanks, John. And we're going to talk about a lot of this technology as we get further in. But I want to start off with a topic that's front on every existing shareholder, potential shareholders' mind and that's the budget environment. We have had an administration change, a change in Congress with a lot of funds being prioritized for nondefense uses. Can you talk about what you're seeing in the initial days of the administration? I know it's early. How you might think about the next 2 to 4 years looking and really how all this compares to the prior 4-year period?

Yes. Brian, at the high level, it's another administration that is very focused on what we do well, on agility, on being an innovative partner and really being an efficient and running a cost-effective business. Budgets, all of the right things from where this company sits, are continuously going to be funded as we move forward. Now if we take a step up, macro level '21 budget's here. '22 budget, we would expect there to be little to no changes on that budget with the current administration. But I think in the longer term, you have to look at our budgets remaining relatively flat. It's just a fact of life that there's an awful lot of bills to be paid, COVID and the like. But we can't get rid of the fact that we're a national security company, we're a national security country, and there's an awful lot of threats out there. So if I look at the Biden administration, pre-election versus post, they're still focused on the things that they mentioned prior: cyber, control of the electromagnetic spectrum, really focused on the resiliency of our networks out there, understanding cyber threats and how broad that landscape has actually gotten because of COVID. And then you have to take a look at I'm constantly being asked, "So is it going to be counter terrorism? Or is it going to be China? Or is it going to be Russia?" And I keep saying, "Replace the word or with and," right? Because -- just because we're undergoing COVID, we may have some bunch of pressures doesn't mean bad actors out there say, "We'll give you guys a year," right? It's always a threat. I've been very much focused on everything in the nonkinetic space. That's what our technology solutions have always been around. Because at the end of the day, I think this administration, more than others, is going to have to face not only bombs and bullets, but bits and bytes. And how do those threats come out as in how do we defend this nation against those. And we're that kind of well-positioned company.

Yes. I would agree. I don't see any digital detox in any near-term future.

Right.

John, you mentioned this in some of your kind of intro comments about the company. But you really have transformed your business over the last half dozen years or so, moving away from what I -- that by the pound business, service business towards being what I consider to be more of a digital prime with significant amount of technology. Can you talk about how you've remixed the business over the last 5 years and what it might look like in 5 more years, if we can just look out over a horizon or 2? And what your vision is for CACI?

Yes. Brian, thanks. Yes. If we went back 6 to 8 years, we were spending a lot of time talking about sequestration. We're talking about a lot about direct labor, talking about how the hiring environment looked, talking about government, government shutdowns and just spent so much time talking about those tactical, nonstrategic areas. So we had a choice to make about 8 years back, which was, we're always going to have government shutdowns. We should assume that. We should always run most of the years under a CR just because there's a long -- I'm a big fan of [indiscernible] person. In 24 years out of 26 years, I think calls that a trend. But very much taking a look at our company saying where the dollar is going to be spent, where what are the threats, and then how do we use either internal investments, partnering and acquisitions to take this company out of those discussion points? So basically, moving us away from just providing people and providing differentiated technologies in well-funded areas. So a purposeful strategic shift, a multiyear transformation plan that had investments internally, it had acquisitions out there. We invested in technology. We did the LGS acquisition to really focus on intellectual property creation and how does that help us deliver technology solutions differently to the federal government. So a non-OEM-like kind of delivery model and more in that I'm going to invest ahead of customer need. So the positive thing for me is I get to sell them multiple times across the federal government. The hugely more positive thing from the customer standpoint is technology is actually relevant and ready without these multiyear 8-, 10-year ACAP1 programs where we're doing a lot of thinking, a lot of design and lot of redesign work. So if I could position this company to be somebody who would invest ahead of need where we own the intellectual property, both my shareholders win and my customers win, and it drives better-than-market top line growth, and most importantly, it drives bottom line growth. Because bottom line growth to this company is the actual seed corn to be able to reinvest up into the front end and continue that cycle going forward. And by doing that, purposely moving this company away from ongoing recompetes, which are very prevalent and they're still here today, government services business, I want to spend a higher proportion of my discretionary funding on winning new business versus hanging on to the revenue that I had today. So that's gone very, very well, and we're very, very proud of it, but long from done.

Yes -- no, I would agree. I mean to think that you could add the technology, make the business more sticky to accelerate organic growth and you've had a really nice run in margins, too. So it's been really good to see. I do want to unpackage that prior question a little bit more and really peek into some more specific markets and capabilities. I'm going to focus on 3. Let's just start out kind of one at a time. Let's talk about the space business that you've built up here. It sounds like you have momentum there with some laser technology in a market that we think is just seeing really good growth. Can you talk about how big that business today -- is today for you? What your addressable market might look like? What areas your technology -- what problems it solves? And maybe who the market leader is as you start to think about this overall segment for yourselves.

Yes. So when we think about space, Brian, we're thinking about space technology. I wouldn't see us being a company that's going to launch some geo satellites anytime soon. And most likely, I won't be building a large -- a unique capital-intensive facility here. With the acquisition of Six3, that really got us into the satellite ground station world, but not so much dishes and the like. More about what's the AI and machine learning that we were doing long before we came up with terms like AI and machine learning, how do I take massive amounts of information coming from space assets at all different layers and how do I look at that information, how do I consolidate it, how do I catalog it, how do I run a pile of different algorithms on it to be able to present the information behind all that satellite-based data. We're still doing that today. We enhanced that greatly with the acquisition of LGS where there's been a lot of work done in the algorithmic world. The fact that a lot of algorithms have been created to look at a lot of that signals data coming down from assets and whether that's COMINT or ELINT or SIGINT data, how do I be more purposeful in looking at that information? This is really the beginning on the space side where we looked at ground-based space support. We did the acquisition of L-3 NSS, and that got us into the space support area. But the 2 areas that we're focused on, laser comm and photonics, and SIGINT, EW, cyber within the space domain of those 2 areas. So you asked about size of the market, we're not a major player there today, probably a couple of hundred million dollars worth, Brian. But what I like about it is it's in the right areas and it's in where the future is heading, right? We're going to continually -- we are soon going to go from 3- or 4-wall assets to 500-satellite constellations up there, sending just absolute larger amounts of information down. So how are we set up to be able to either do some of the laser comms from asset down to ground or between space asset, space situational awareness? And then in the SIGINT, EW, cyber space, the space domain is no different. I've been in the marketplace for 30-some years. And we used to dominate space. We used to own space. We in the U.S., and now it's as ubiquitous as space is large in those threats, both space-based and ground-based are still out there. So very much on the technology side, very much on the data processing side. And then what we're doing in photonics and laser links, we think, have a long-term space applicability from where we stand today.

Great, John. Let's talk about another exciting area for you, the cyber world. With the SolarWinds hack and the concept, the nonkinetic force, as you mentioned, continues to grow in scope and application, I'm sure a lot of this SolarWinds' repercussions is add-ons to existing contract. But I'm sure there's a bunch of new opportunities that are still in their formative stages. And I'd like you to maybe comment on maybe how this is working with existing contracts and potential new ones and then also the opportunity that sets itself with Biden wanting $10 billion for a federal cyber infrastructure, if you will.

Yes. Look, clearly, an investor -- an area of customer investment and a rather large area of investment within CACI as well. Look, as we went into COVID, that cyber landscape got large quickly, okay? So no longer were folks coming to my facility and being able to direct connect to a very secure network and then connect to our customers' networks. Now we've got upwards of 15,000, 16,000 people connecting from home, right? So they're on their own local networks there, connecting into our corporate one and then going into customer ones. That vulnerability matrix went up asymptotically, frankly. So on the defensive cyber, just in the IT domain and in the IT network area, an awful lot of work, and that's part of where those Biden funds are looking to go, is how do we build more resilient networks. That's before we talk about DoD networks and government networks and intelligence networks. SolarWinds, a really high-profile network defense item. There's hundreds, if not thousands, of ones we don't talk about on the nightly news. And those are the ones that are even more frightening, which is every asset is connected to some network out there somewhere. We actually do tie cyber into some of the other areas that we're very, very focused on. If we will look at SIGINT both finding signals out in space and direction finding those and geolocating those and then what do I do with them, it sounds an awful lot like cyber because I've got an offensive piece to that as well as the find and fix piece. So we're really working on the convergence in the multi-mission world of if I have a signal out there, if it's RF in nature, I have to be able to understand it and to be able to characterize it and then being able to deliver cyber payloads perhaps to some of those devices that are emitting today. So that $10 billion of proposed cyber infrastructure spending, frankly, long overdue. But then as you mentioned, a lot of on-contract growth across a multiple, either of our IT programs or our mission ones making certain that we are cyber-resilient going forward. Whether that's a handheld device or whether it's a long-term, long-standing IT network, both of those need to be protected. On the technology side, you're going to see this company go more towards the mission space.

Great. And then the third one I wanted to hit on was something that you've been building out for the last several years, your counter-drone technology. Certainly, a lot of need with the proliferation of drones, and we've seen the importance of that in the bipartisan support there. How big of a business is that today for CACI? And how do you see that market opportunity from a size standpoint? And really, how do you capitalize on that when you start to think about the different types of customers that can adopt that technology?

Yes. Brian, so we look at Counter-UAS and all things Counter-UAS. For us today, it's several hundred million dollars worth of business. We've got both DoD solutions with a CORIAN system. We've had SkyTracker out there for the last 4.5 to 5.5 years. It is a major growth area for us. We've doubled, doubled down twice there. Picking up LGS, being able to look at a heritage Bell Labs company that has done just extraordinary work in the areas of mobile technology, 3G, 4G, 5G, LTE and the like help us understand how those signals get parsed, how they get chopped up, how they get sent in the RF spectrum and then how do we find those? Because at the end of the day, any UAS out there is a flying iPhone, for lack of a better term, right? It's an RF device. It's being controlled either by the ground or with wave points that have already been put into it, but it's constantly out there squawking. It is a huge issue for deployed forces. So by bringing LGS in and working at how do I decide for more of those signals, doing the acquisition of AVT that sort of brought us even more broad Counter-UAS technology has made us, what I would say, as a market leader there. We have got solutions. We are one of the government's small number of certified providers of Counter-UAS solutions today. We're out there field testing against swarms of drones. Not only can we combat those with -- in the RF space, but we're using EO/IR sets in ways to know those drones and the like. So numerous modalities in the way that we can find the UASs on numerous ways so we can go out there and attack those. And that's a double-digit growth area for us year-over-year, Brian.

Great, John. That's great color on that. I wanted to pivot back to something that you kind of started this out with and really kind of try to triangulate towards organic growth here over the long term. You've sized your technology addressable market at about $90 billion, I think in the past, growing around 3% and the expertise part of the business at about $145 billion growing 1% or so. They're fairly equally split as part of the mix, I think, anyway. How should we think about those core market growth rates in each of those areas? How the growth rates could look over time? And really, how you're envisioning a durable organic growth rate for a long period of time?

Yes. So first off, all of those areas are very important. We've been focusing a lot on the technology space, but at the end of the day, expertise informs tech. So for those customers, we have people embedded with them. Especially on the mission side, we understand what their needs are sooner. We understand more discreetly what type of technological solutions we need to be investing ahead of customer need. So that has worked very, very well. We're seeing double-digit growth in our technology areas and rather flat in our expertise area. And that's the reason why with this fiscal year, we started talking about and reporting on enterprise -- I'm sorry, on expertise and technology revenue. We really wanted our investors to not only understand strategically, but see the shareholder value and why that shift. Why do we continually do investments and acquisitions and partnerships in that technology space? Because it grows far faster than our expertise area and at far better margins. So double-digit growth technology, flat in the expertise area. And as we grow technology faster, it's actually better growth, and that's actually the house where we drive margin expansion. On the enterprise tech area, that's everything cloud, that's everything Agile software-driven, two great credentials for us. We currently are the prime contractor on the 2 largest Agile software development programs out there. That is a core competency for us. We're able to develop software more reliably from a technological delivery and also from a cost point standpoint as well. So really nice movement there. We play on both expertise and on technology and also on the mission and on the enterprise side. And at the end of the day, it drives a nice top line growth by driving growth better than the markets growing at ever-increasing margins.

Great, John. Let's maybe shift over a little bit, and it's kind of been a common thread through a lot of our discussion to profits. CACI has trended EBITDA significantly higher over the past several years and really solidly into double-digit margin territory. Can you help us understand how much of that is this favorable mix shift in your revenue? How much of that comes from changes in delivery, whether that's your shared service center or other things that you may want to point out? And also, can you remind investors how COVID impacted margins in calendar year '20?

Yes. Sure. Margins. I've always been a believer in the entire time I've been in this space that there is a quality or earnings measure at some point. So if we were to go back 7 to 8 years, we were a company that was spending the majority of our bid and proposal money on what we call in the sector winning recompetes because the government loved to recompete services kind of work every 3 to 5 years. With the advent of lower price technically acceptable and Better Buying Power 2.0 and sequestration, all those things screamed, "get government services for less." And when the government wanted to get government services for less, what you could add in there is let's differentiated. Let's just focus on, you and I have had many discussions around that, how much for a pound. And when you get to that point, it's tough to differentiate. You're only differentiating on price. And what happens is margins erode. And if I'm a shareholder, I'm not looking for eroding margins, I'm not looking for reasons why margins can't grow. I'm looking for a company that's doing both. So when we look at our -- I hate to say a shift over to profits, but our absolute focus on it is that the more technology we're out there delivering, it just makes sense, right? If I'm in a highly differentiated area versus one that has a thousand of competitors, just based on competitive measures, my margins will be able to grow. I'll be able to bid higher margins. The way I differentiate on the technology, and I have to have a technology investment arm in that, that's another level of differentiation, and that drives our margins there as well. So the majority of what we've seen have been the mix of work that we go after, the fact that I want to go after more new business than recompete work, the more that I want to go after longer-term business. And a metric on longer-term business, if we went back 5 years, the average duration of a contract in our backlog was 30 to 36 months. It's now 16 months. That's a material shift. So that means that for every dollar I spend in bid and proposal funds and research and development funds, the majority of that is going towards new business because I'm recompeting far, far less. I mean there are a lot of expertise jobs out there that are being recompeted every year. As a taxpayer, I'd have to ask why not, if I can continually get a lower price, right? It ends up becoming a commodity. And that's not what CACI wanted to be about as we reshaped. Some of the savings have come from just simply running a cost-efficient business. We created a shared service center almost 3 years back now. We are looking to save between $20 million and $30 million a year. We've more than exceeded that number. Some of that has gone to the bottom line. But frankly, others of that is what's driving our investment model in being able to keep our rates the same, invest the same number of dollars, if not greater, because the base of our business is now larger, but we're investing in intellectual property. So you asked another question around COVID. I mean who's not tired of COVID? I am, and I'm tired of it. My absolute first job is do your care for our employees. We do everything we absolutely can. But from a financial side, I think we talked about $50 million to $100 million impact by COVID over the first half. That played out just about as we expected. Maybe what we and the rest of the planet didn't foresee is that this was going to go on for longer than our second quarter. So we still have some impacts out there. One impact that was greatly supported -- I'm sorry, that was greatly mitigated by the work we did with our customers was the CARES Act Section 3610 that allows us to keep a highly classified workforce in this field today. Had it not been for CARES Act, we would have had thousands of people leave the national security space, leaving their clearance behind to find work somewhere else. And that just wasn't a good solution for this nation, for us or for our government customers. We are still seeing what we would call indirect impacts. We are -- oddly, we are seeing task orders for current work we have take a longer time to be turned on. So you sort of scratch your head saying, but that's current work. But if you related it to how our customers, you have people coming in 1 week and off the following week or they're on shift work. So those are your day-to-day KOs. On the acquisition side, we actually have seen things carry out just as planned. But that's a different set of folks running those kind of acquisitions. They're evaluating proposals and the like. You can do that in a very different manner. So we've got our share of impacts on the -- I hate to say on the positive side, on the flip side of the impacts. Maybe we use headwinds and tailwinds. We've got some fixed unit price work that we're seeing less cost. So therefore, it's actually making us more cost effective. And when you're doing fixed unit price work, that obviously drives higher profits. About $30 million of that during the first 2 quarters was attributable to that kind of work. Can we keep that kind of cost delivery model in place going forward? Perhaps pieces of it. But -- and so it's more operational growth. It's more cost-effective manners. And then COVID, of course, we're not making any profit dollars on any hour billed to the CARES Act. So you can look at that being a headwind today. But I'm not focused on profit margin on dollars the government has given us to keep this workforce in place. I'm just focused on keeping those folks in place.

That was a very thorough answer. While we're talking about people, really the lifeblood of your business is people. Can you talk about the market for talent, particularly as you move up the value chain and those skill sets are harder to find? Maybe focus on a few areas. One, that little company called Amazon, how they're starting to trend from a hiring perspective. They have quite the ambitions here. How impact -- how you're thinking about voluntary turnover and maybe utilization as people took fewer vacation dates and just kind of mash all those together and give us what your talent outlook is.

Yes. Love Amazon, great partner, phenomenal cloud offering. Microsoft, great cloud offering, great partnership there. Look, hiring environment, it's the same, Brian. I mean, if I had to go pre-COVID versus post-COVID or I guess just say during COVID, the number of great, talented people out there are still the same number of great, talented people. We have to reach them in very different manners. We're all on Zoom calls. It's much less in person. Clearly, attrition is down. I'm not sure there's the same number of people looking to make material career changes during COVID, at least within the sector. It's a dispersed workforce. That's been a little bit of a challenge for us, but a huge positive. I've been telling folks that things like having your employees work remotely, that's not a new idea. It's always been out there. It's just been exacerbated and sort of pushed forward because of COVID. I just reviewed some COVID survey data internally just this morning. And I have a whole lot of people who are excited about working from home and also getting work done. So will that continue? Yes. So attracting talent, still doing very, very well there, providing more additional training has worked very, very well. And just last year, finally building a corporate-wide internship program, 250 interns, excited about that, announced it the end of February, early March. That was alive for about 35 days. COVID hit. We have 250 remotely placed interns. One of the highest ratings ever by that intern class on being very much connected to the technology. We've given the greatest number of offers to the seniors coming out of that internship program. So things are going to continue to change, how we find talent, when we bring them in. But at the end of the day, 3 years back, we built a corporate-wide network across this nation, making sure that we could find cleared people in other areas other than Northern Virginia and move out to less populated areas, and that served us very, very well. Our focus there was doing a classified software development in multiple areas, more dispersed. Call us lucky, call us good, COVID has that same look and feel to it. So we've actually had quite a large number of folks continue to be able to work. And that's a great retention factor, frankly, as we come out of COVID, people knowing that they can get a quality day of work done whether they're in one of our facilities or not.

Yes. I think that's very true for a lot of industries. This remote work is going to certainly permeate in some ways longer term. We've been focusing really exclusively on the organic part of the business. Like clearly, M&A has been instrumental in your growth. You've highlighted a handful of deals that you've done, and it's really been important to shareholder returns over the past 30 years. It's also caused some volatility in your shares over the last few years. You're underlevered, from my perspective, or soon to be, depending on what your threshold is, given that you generate such strong free cash flow. So I want to ask the question I get asked most frequently. What is it that you're looking for in a target? But I want to spend more time on topics like are there large companies that you find interesting? You don't have to name who. Would you ever consider a stock deal? How much leverage would you take on from a comfort perspective? And any other thoughts you might have as it pertains to acquisitions?

Yes. So let's start where we start. We're a strategy-based company. Strategy is a place where we come from. And when we look at gaps, either in customers or in capabilities, we're going to look to 1, 3 measures: we're going to invest internally, we're going to acquire, we're going to partner. Partnering is easy. These are more commodity-based things that we don't want to invest and create ourselves. Customers are very familiar with the different commoditized tools and platforms out there. That's the easy piece. Really get down to investing or acquiring. And it's always been a belief of mind that, that comes down to the time line that we have. If I have time, if I'm investing ahead of customer's need and I prime that research and development pump in the right manner, if I'm always able to invest ahead of need, which means I'm going to be there with intellectual property that I own and technological solutions, which means I have less technology capability gaps as we get further out in time. But we do have technology or what we call capability gaps, and we have customer gaps. And if the time line is such that I need to get that in a very fast manner of time, one thing, we're not embarrassed by it. And actually, it's a core competency, a competitive differentiator for us is that we have the ability to acquire on a very -- on a rather quick manner and a well-established pipeline and a well-defined process internally, whether it's how we look for candidates; how we like to partner with them prior to doing any kind of acquisition; how we like to pay a good price for a great company; how well we can integrate that company; and frankly, at the end of the day, not destroy value, but actually create, create, create value. We are, as I mentioned, consistent with our growth strategy, very focused on technology, both in the enterprise and the mission area. So if I looked at capabilities on the enterprise technology side, I like the hand we have. We are very, very well versed with DevSecOps, with cloud technologies, with Agile software development. So that's not a deep of a look there. I think on the mission side, we're always out there hunting. We're always out there looking. The portions of technology we're involved in, RF spectrum, EW, SIGINT, cyber, those threats change continuously. It's not something we can build once. And for 20 years, we can enhance that platform for another 30 years. Just this bits and bytes world isn't the same as bombs and bullets. So we're always looking for great cutting-edge technology companies who understand how to find everything in the RF spectrum and how to combat those because the acquisitions that we've done in the mission technology space are the reason why technology is growing double digit year-over-year and is driving fantastic margins out there. So it's not by accident that we're sitting here looking at companies within that space. Let's see, you talked about how attractively valued our stock is and some other angles around M&A. Look, leverage levels, we've always talked about that being south of 4, 4.5x. But then you can also say we're bringing in $600 million of cash, and that 4.5x leverage has been out there since the days we're bringing in $300 million of cash. So what's nice is having that as that waterline, Brian, is a good reminder for us about making certain we are focused on shareholder value, but we can delever much, much more quickly. It's true that leverage today, below 1.9x. We're looking at different M&A targets out there. So do we look at something large or something small? Frankly, I pay no attention to something large versus something small. I truly don't. And I say that statement for 10 years running now. At the end of the day, if I can do a $1 billion acquisition that fills 5 gaps versus doing 5 $200 million deals that one by one fill 5 gaps, if I find a $1 billion company, I'm going to go do that because the integration time line is smaller, the disruption to both businesses is a lot smaller, and there's synergies that we can generate there. But what I'm not looking for is buying large companies to go buy scale or go buy some of the same revenue I already have. If I -- my strategy is laid perfectly, which it has been now, which is let's identify where those gaps are. I can grow organically in the areas I want to grow organically without buying more of the same. Where I need the help is where I don't have the customer relationship or I have that right nugget of technology that unless it's put together with my stuff, I can't go out there and win in that world, and that's why I'm going to do those. So at the end of the day, there's a strategic case, a financial case, there's a cultural case. And whether big or small, we have to be able to meet those check marks. And when we do, we'll go after it.

Great, John. That sounds terrific. We're actually out of time here, but I really appreciate you going through the story. It was a great update. Your answers were very candid, and we appreciate that. I want to thank all the audience members out there as well. Thanks for joining us. And hopefully, I'll see everybody in Orlando next year and we'll get to hear the story live from John, not digitally. So thanks, John. Appreciate it. Everyone, have a great day.

You bet. Brian, thanks so much.