Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited ($CP)

We're going to get going with our next session with Canadian Pacific Kansas City, CPKC. Keith Creel, CEO, is back at the conference. Thanks so much for being here, Keith. I appreciate it. And Keith, maybe just a couple of quick opening comments, and we got lots to talk about.

Yes, I imagine. Yes, imagine. So listen, high level, thanks, Scott. It's always a pleasure to come and address your conference and all the investors that are here with us and not with us listening. I can tell you kind of a 3-year check-in. CPKC just celebrated our third year anniversary of kind of our forever story. We brought this railroad together to create a very unique network, end-to-end network to enhance competition, increase competition and enable more markets to be connected and to grow. And that's exactly what we've done in spite of the macro. This railroad has created some industry unique results over the last 3 years. This year, no different in spite of a pretty challenging first quarter with quite a bit of demand fundamentally. The grain is running extremely well, strong harvest in Canada. Operational efficiencies is exceeding my expectations, and I've got pretty high expectations. The network is running well. Same is true about most of the bulk franchise, except for coal. We said this in the first quarter. I think right now, quarter-to-date, RTMs were up approaching 3%. If not for coal, it would be 3% more. So that's a bit of a headwind. We think will normalize, at least not be such a drag in the second half. But again, in spite of all that, we're still on track to hit that CAGR of mid-single-digit RTM growth and low double-digit EPS growth. So the year looks good, and I think the fundamentals are supportive, and we're continuing the railroad exceeding expectations. 3 years into it, we're doing extremely well.

So maybe let's just start there. You talk about this 3-year journey. What's gone better than you would have thought? And what's been more challenging?

Well, the macro, obviously, I never expected a freight recession. We probably put the railroad together from a growth standpoint at the most challenging time. But in spite of that, because of the things that have gone well, our synergies, what we've enabled and uniquely created on a revenue standpoint, if we go back to our Investor Day, I think we guided to about $1.5 billion of revenue synergies by '28. We're going to clip that number early '27. We're going to exit this year, close to that number, probably 1.4. I think we exited last year at $1.2 billion. So we'll be between $1.4 billion and $1.5 billion. That's on the revenue side. On the operating side, again, we're exceeding expectations there as well. So in spite of the macro for those synergies, price power, value of the service, integration of the railroad, those have been very, very supportive and accretive to our journey.

And you mentioned never predicted a freight recession. And listening, we had all the trucking companies here yesterday, and they'll tell you it's over. But I think they'll say it's probably more supply-driven in the U.S. than demand driven. Are we at a point where, in your view, macro becomes an additive to your story? Or are we not there yet? Just this is again more of a supply-driven truck phenomenon in the U.S. and maybe not the demand tailwinds that you're hoping for?

Well, I think the demand is still too soon to call. I think fundamentally, the driver shortage is changing the dynamic. I think it's eliminating what has been for a long time, a very unnaturally depressed trucking price market. So as that adjusts and the fundamentals for rail has become more attractive. And if you've got a unique service, especially where growth has existed in spite of the macro given Mexico and given the United States, we're kind of in a sweet spot to benefit from both. So we've grown in the macro when it's bad, I think it gets more supportive as it kind of neutralizes and becomes a tailwind. That's exactly what I see. So I think our story is a bit unique. So we don't have to have a whole lot of demand. If we just have kind of the unnatural dynamic that's been in the market eliminate itself, we're just going to push more traffic to the network. And with this product that we just introduced 2 weeks ago with SMX, which is replicating the model of the Midwest Mexican Express. Again, that's a game changer for us.

Can you -- can you touch on that more?

Yes, it's all about transit time. So what we created the industrial logic of what we did with our 180/181, which is our Midwest Mexico Express is take advantage of the route miles and make the border seamless and create kind of a train that can't be touched by truck going from Chicago to Monterrey and on to St. Louis Potosi, which feeds kind of the Mexico City market. We've done that. We've resulted in increased demand. I think for about -- the growth over the last 3 years. That train is 75% full. If it continues, I think we'll be in a place with a better macro. I feel very confident about this. We'll probably add another train next year at some point. And that success, the opportunity is even greater connecting the Southeast in Atlanta to Dallas as well as to Mexico. So this partnership with CSX, when we envisioned the merger, the route didn't exist. That was kind of a bolt-on that we uniquely did literally the weekend of our Investor Day a couple of years ago. We've invested heavily in it. We've just launched a service now that allows transit times that are truck competitive. We can get to Dallas from Atlanta in less than 2 days. We can get to Monterrey markets from Atlanta in 3 days, and we can get to Mexico City in 4 days. And again, a truck can't touch that. So in a market where truck capacity is tightening, where costs are going up, again, that's very supportive introducing it now, I would suggest it's never been in a better time to go out and improve the product and to grow the product.

I want to pivot for just maybe a few minutes to talk about the M&A backdrop, and then we'll come back and certainly, I want to spend some time talking about.

A few minutes. I'm going to hold you to that. Okay.

Yes. So you probably -- you've been one of the more vocal on the merger. And one of the comments that you've made that I think was the most interesting to me was when you say the risks are too great. And they'll certainly make up the case that this is in the public interest and talk about taking share from trucks and that means for fuel and safety and all those sorts of things. But your comment is that the risks are too great. Talk about that, please.

I think perspective matters. And if you think about my journey, this is my 34th year in the industry. It started in the United States. It did start in Canada. I lived through the BNSF merger. I lived through the UP/SP, the 2 meltdowns, I lived through the Conrail as a young Operating Officer. So I understood at ground level, what happens when things go bad when it comes to operational risk. So if you think fast forward to today and you think about the scale that this creates, you think about a place like Chicago. In Chicago, historically, if I go back to 2014, again, my journey has been a long one. I and Matt Rose sit in front of the STB when Chicago melted down and I got roasted because of Chicago. And the reality is my network was dependent upon the belt. I remember the day before I went to the hearing, we had 14 trains between Minneapolis, St. Paul and Chicago staged on our railroad waiting in line to get into the Belt. But the Belt is an asset we all use. And one of the 2 heaviest users, you put them together, they are the heaviest user is NS and UP. So when I think operationally, what can happen if their network is get in trouble. You put a network together that large that is that connected to Chicago. And this is just one of many cases. And it melts down. It affects all of us. It affects my network. If I go to the NS, and this is a very unique situation for us tied to these transactions over the years with the Conrail carve-out. Before I came to CP, part of the concessions are part of the agreements that were made, CPKC today and has had and will have for the future, trackage rights over the NS Mainline from Chicago that connect us to Eastern Canada through Toronto. We have crews that operate out of our terminal in Chicago that live in Elkhart, Indiana, that changed crews on the mainline on the NS, which pro forma will become UP. If that terminal, and that's the first major terminal least in Chicago gets congested and trains start to bubble out of the yard into the mainline, my trains can't get to Toronto. So again, those are just a couple of the touch points and there are multiple locations. There's concerns in Kansas City, there's concerns in St. Louis. And not speaking just for me, I'm intimately knowledgeable about these operational risks. But when you get to that point with the scale, with the gravity to suggest that there's not risk. That's bigger than me, it's bigger than Jim. Jim is not going to be here forever. I'm not going to be here forever. 10 years from now, 20 years from now, management teams have to run these networks in a way that benefits commerce in the United States of America. That's what the U.S. rail network exists for. And if it goes in the melt down mode because it's too complicated or because you don't have the right talent set to be able to figure out how to put our deducted together again, we all bleed. So it can't -- if it fails, we all fail.

Two just quick follow-ups. You have a Transcon network in Canada. It works. Could you argue, right, having Transcon in the U.S. reduces the risk around Chicago? And is that part of the argument for why it's in the public interest or something like that?

I think, again, scale matters. In Canada, there's 30 million people. I don't think you could financially support a third railroad, number one. The geographies, the distance between terminals, it's not even a fair comparison. In the United States, it's 10x that. It just is. There's way more complexity. There's way more risk. And so the argument to compare the 2 industrial logic, if you don't understand the nuances, it sounds good, it reads good, but it's actually not true.

Apples and oranges.

Completely different.

And then I asked you on the Q1 earnings call, like is there any potential for, hey, we can agree here, we can agree there. And you gave, I think, a one word no, right? Is there any sort of change in that one word, no?

No.

No. Okay. Fair enough. Okay. And then last one, and then I promise we'll move on. The -- if ultimately, right, hypothetical, right, ultimately, this is approved, is it natural then or needed or necessary that leads to 2 or 3 or 4?

Yes. I think it's inevitable. It's probably the best way to say it. I think we all have a fiduciary responsibility to equip ourselves to best compete. And if this pro forma occurs to suggest or think that any of us can set still, I think, is naive. I don't think that's going to be the outcome. Now how it all shakes out, who gets with who, who best fits with who, who can create the best synergies, who can create the best network to compete against that mammoth, -- that will be too determined. But does it suggest or think it's going to set still? No. And the regulator knows that, too. This is the first step if it gets approved to a duopoly. I like this. I think Jim likes to talk about getting on a plane and going from New York to L.A. I want to go one way, 2, but I want to have the option. And if I go to Chicago, I think maybe some people floated this idea a couple of weeks ago of consolidating and going to potentially one main airline in Chicago. You put Delta together, United and American Airlines together. It didn't take long to say, no, I don't want to go to Chicago and have less options. I want to go especially in Chicago and have more options, not fewer. And that's kind of the compare. If you consolidate the 2 railroads, think about the world, reconsolidate to 2 airlines. I just don't think that's in the nation's best interest.

All right. Let's turn back to CP, and then we'll get some questions if there are some. So earnings in Q1 were down a couple of percent, right? Guidance is we get to double-digit earnings growth for the year, right? To me, one of the big changes is cents per RTM down 4 in Q1, and it sounds like we're going to have a big inflection in Q2. I think I heard you or maybe John say last week, cents per RTM now up 10% in May. So talk about that inflection. How much of that is just fuel? How much of that is lapping carbon tax? How much is like underlying price mix? That's a big number, up 10%, right?

So you're hitting all the key points. So what was against us in the first quarter is not now. So we've lapped the carbon tax. FX has moderated. We don't have a big headwind from FX. The fuel surcharge is in place. And then our mix of business, we're moving more of the high cents per RTM business. Automotive growth is double digit for us. That's accelerating. So again, we're in a place now that we're in good shape for our guidance. When you look at it, I think in last month, it was 5% or 6% when we did our earnings call for April or 10% this month. We've got strong pricing power. Again, we'll get back to that place where you're going to see 200, 250 basis points of OR improvement. The railroad is running extremely well from an efficiency standpoint. So again, I don't think we have any challenge getting to the rhythm as long as we don't have some kind of macro shock that I can't predict.

And that 200 to 250 margin improvement, is that -- that's -- I know you guided that's a Q1 to Q2 sequential. Is that what you're referring to?

Yes. And for the full year, we still have a path to margin improvement in spite of the fuel surcharge, which is going to be a bit of a drag against it.

Okay. And so overall, how do you feel you're tracking relative to that double-digit?

The year is playing out exactly the first quarter, the way we thought it would in second quarter, I think we're a little ahead. So we're in a good spot.

Good. I asked this also on the call, but maybe we've had a little bit more time to sort of think about it. Not a huge thing, but I still find it -- and you've got less of a lag than the others, but I still don't really understand why rails have monthly lags on surcharges when truckers and FedEx have weekly lags. So is that -- you've been a thought leader, you let them going from 2 months to 1 month. I don't know that.

You initiated a thought in my mind, too, and I actually had a discussion with one of our Board members about this that came from FedEx, obviously, and he explained the logic and the way they approached it at FedEx. But the history is a bit different in the rail industry. We had the most responsive fuel charge mechanism in the industry. It adjusts every 30 days. So is there a chance for refinement? Yes, there is. But you also get to a history where historically, especially in the U.S., there were some pretty aggressive cases with fuel surcharge, where regulatory involvement. And maybe that shelf shocked us a little bit in all honesty. So I'm not saying never, but I'm saying right now, it's working pretty well. There's puts and takes, may not be ideal, but ours is pretty good. I think ours is -- in spite of all that backdrop, I think we're in a good spot. So I don't think it's worth risking.

Okay. I would think, given that history that it would probably have to be one of the Canadians that would lead that if that were to happen.

Likely.

Right. Okay. You talked about path to operating ratio improvement this year. Just thinking bigger picture longer term, right? A few years ago, you led the industry on OR you think ultimately, you think you get back to that lead there? Just talk about the path to that.

Yes. The way we're looking at it is we grow the revenue and the top line and continue to operate the railroad well, we should naturally realize 1 point to 1.5 points, 100 to 150 basis points a year of yearly OR improvement, and that's exactly kind of the rhythm that we're on. So that take long, we'll get back to that mid-50s number.

There was a question -- I don't know if there's someone with a mic, but well, -- we'll get you the mic. So, maybe if you could walk back. I'll ask one more before and then the Michael will come to you. Just talk about state of the network right now. When we look at like train speeds dwell time, like maybe there's like a little bit of pressure, but like that doesn't always tell the whole story. How is the railroad running right now?

You know what, I -- in all honesty, we just had the best first operating quarter winter that I've ever experienced in railroading. And I think it's a combination of investment, process technology. We've done some very unique things using AI and algorithms and train speeds. We took a very -- I don't want to get too much in the weeds, but something very unique. Historically, in Canada, when it gets really cold, you have blanket slow orders. And you literally cover a path of railroad that might be for layman's turns, 5 subdivisions, 500 miles long. You slow the train based on the temperature and you fly it to the whole 500 miles. This past year, using technology, we've eliminated and we've isolated and we go to certain segments and you only slow the train down on those certain segments. So you end up realizing train speed and you have a safer outcome. So using technology again, you get to a place where technology can give you still yield benefits. So that was beneficial to us. The investments that we've made, combining our operating systems last year as problematic as it was, and we've kind of lapped the date, we're right in the period when things were really challenging last year. We learned a lot, and we've changed a lot, and we've integrated more. We can look at the network holistically, Canada and the United States now that we've got through the system cut over to run the railroad more efficiently. And then we're continuing to be better on process. I just shared this with one of our one-on-ones -- maybe 2 months ago, I took a trip from Shreveport down to Laredo. And just in that one trip, you identify probably between both segments, about 3.5 hours of train speed changes, 3.5 hours of speed. And you apply that to every train that moves through there, it starts to impact your bottom line on the asset turns. We did the same thing last fall going from Shreveport up to Ottumwa. So again, we're in stages. You don't get it done overnight. We're investing. We go out there, we see things, we challenge things, we change things. That's part of the culture, pursuit of operational excellence that we -- that's part of what PSR is in all honesty. So it's a gift that keeps on giving.

One just really quick follow-up. So when new administration in the U.S. a few years ago started, one of the ideas was there's some big technology things that all the rails can do and can be beneficial to us. Does the fact that like there's now a merger trying to happen and somewhere else for it, somewhere else against it. And so there's a little bit of disagreement on this side. Is that preventing the industry from getting together on progress on some of the technology things that everyone wants to do?

I don't think so. I'll be honest, this drama that occurred at East Palatine it mobilized the industry, and I think it all made us realize, and I was part of those conversations, just because you have proprietary knowledge, if it makes the railroad safer and the industry better, we should share best practices. And that kind of initiated a renewed commitment to do that, and I don't -- I haven't seen this merger change that.

Okay. Good. Here's the question.

Keith, a quick question. You mentioned a lot around Chicago here in the Beltway and how that's an existential risk to the network if there's a melt down with NS and UP potentially and how that would impact your railroad. I think the question that Scott asked was also about if there is a merger, isn't that dispersing traffic to other gateway markets? And can you maybe just address that because Jim just said in the previous session that he would love to reduce his exposure in Chicago.

Yes. Some, but it's a rounding error. Last application I looked at it, and I don't think a whole lot has changed with this one. If they take 200 or 300 cars a day out of the belt, they're handling 2,800 cars a day. It's -- the end of the day, it means everybody gets 20, 30, 50 more cars of capacity. But it's not what happens when things are good. It's what happens when things are bad. And the reality is pro forma, they still remain and would be the largest user of the belt in CSX. And the way things work operationally, if you get into the details, when you protect your own network, and Jim speaks about this, too, and it's true, I agree with them. Part of the dis-synergy of having 2 separate networks is you're going to protect your own, and we're all using the belt. So if UP's own becomes much larger and if normal things happen, I'm in proviso and there's a train coming in that's going to the belt, and it's got some cars that were misswitched into the train that maybe go to the harbor. -- where they normally should be going into the belt. Well, the operating guy or gal that's sitting in proviso, they're not going to stop that 200-car train and switch out 10 cars. They're going to put them in the belt and pay the belt charges and let the belt do the work. Well, I think you could only go to just a couple of weeks ago, CSX made changes. at bar yard and put more traffic in the belt and the belt because it's a shared asset, switching cars by the same crews and the same leads, they're trying to digest that today. So think about the scale of a UP, if that happens when things go into meltdown because it's 40 below 0, like it was in 2014 or they have a significant derailment. And if they're taking 4 trains in a day, we don't get trains for 2 or 3 days, now they're trying to plug in 10 or 12 trains and everybody else that has to get in line. You just can't separate yourself from that kind of risk. So as much as unless Jim says I'm exiting the belt, it's a problem because there's still significant users of the belt and the belt is part of their operating model. They can't exit the belt.

We'll get to you in a second. There's mic up here for David, if we can. You have a question -- sorry. Go ahead, yes.

Maybe just any update that you have on USMCA timing and how you guys are if there's any, I don't know, updated information.

Yes, not really. I know that I was in D.C. not long ago when the contingent from Mexico was there meeting with our counterparts. They're obviously -- I think it's news, they're more advanced than Canada. Canada is kind of holding the line and waiting, I think, my view, not their words, my words, they're probably waiting for a more optimal time. I don't think anybody is going to get in a hurry with the midterms. I don't think it's news to say that probably they're waiting, they'd be in Mexico, perhaps U.S. and Canada to see how all that shakes out and see how power shifts and what the courts are ruling. I just think there's so many things up in there on tariffs and elections that it says we'll get an answer later, not sooner, but it's going to get resolved. Trade is too important between the 3 nations. And the thing that excites me the most is when it does, then the money that's sitting on the sideline that is waiting to know where to be invested will be invested. It will get unlocked, whether it's more manufacturing in Mexico, more manufacturing in the United States or Canada. When it comes to us, we connect all 3 uniquely. And I think in the end, we benefit from increased trade uniquely. So much like this merger, it's seasoning a lot of time, a lot of resources. I want the regulator to decide, is it complete? If it's complete, let's get through the process. Let's let the facts be known and heard and understood. Let's get to a decision. So we all know what's next. Is it status quo? Is it not? But being paralyzed to me, it's not good for investors. It's not good for customers. It's not good for the nation. We just need to get on with it.

Two questions. I have two because you made me wait. First on operations. President Trump sent out a message last night in support of the Railway Safety Act, which looks like it would create restrictions and slowdowns for hazmat cars, among other things, to main crews, which I know you have strong views on. So one, what are your thoughts there? Are you worried about that passing and how that could impact operations across your rail and the entire network? Two, the last few days, I've heard on the margins some frictional comments on pricing where one intermodal provider was saying that one of the rails was offering heavier-than-normal rebates to BCOs and potentially up in Canada, one of the rails was being aggressive on pricing on the intermodal side as well. So I wanted to hear your comments on both of those dynamics.

Okay. Let's start with President Trump. There's political math and there's common sense math. So worried is not a good word. It's too soon to be worried, but very aware that politically his voice matters. And that voice, that position is supportive of union's position on those proposed Railway Safety Act. Now common sense-wise, a lot of those things were proposed had nothing to do with that accident and do not make this rail industry safer and traps investments in antiquated technologies and sets us at a disadvantage when we should be investing and innovating. So this process is going to play out. I'm not going to dismiss President Trump's sweet. I read it yesterday, and it's not helpful, but there's still going to be a battle based on fact. Congress will come together, how the T&I committee, I think they start tomorrow. So we don't know yet what this amendment is going to entail. Is it going to be exactly the RSA provisions or not? I'm not sure. But there's a lot to occur between now and then. It's got to go through the House. It's got to come out of the T&I Committee, it's got to go through the House. It's got to go to the Senate. It's got to be coalesced together. This is a long drawn out process.

And I'll just jump in and say we'll have -- on our next panel, we have a rail regulatory panel, we'll have the AAR there, and so we'll get some.

So we're going to challenge as much as we can with facts. Now the part about rates and I call it kind of ghost to the past. I see some of those things sometimes and what's going on. I hear rhetoric about share shift. I happen to know the share that shifted, and I'd say it this way. If it's a customer that we had that expects me to discount my business, my service, my rate to retain their business and when my cost is lower, I can't make money on it. I can't make the math work. I don't know how my competitor does. And I don't chase business. We didn't bid this railroad to create bidding wars and chase business. We're going to pick our partners. They're going to be strategic. They're going to value our service. We're going to be fair to them. We're going to give them a unique product, and it's not going to be at a bargain basement rate. It's got to earn cost of capital. It's not just contribution plus. It's got to earn its seat on the train. So to me, that's choosing to walk away from business. That's not share wins.

We have a few minutes left. Just a couple of more things I just want to touch on, Keith. So you talked about from a -- let's talk markets for a minute. Coal comps are going to start getting easier, right? Grain comps inevitably will start getting harder. Where do you see -- as you look ahead -- and we know what Q2 is doing, but you look ahead to the back half of the year, where do you see best growth potential? Where do you see the most risk, if anyway?

Well, let me correct the narrative on grain. Grain comps actually because of what happened last year, farmers sit on the product. They didn't move. So literally, we've got a whole lot of compare opportunity where it's going to be much more favorable this year through December.

And then it goes all year.

Yes, absolutely. The behavior didn't change until January, honestly. So that's good. When it comes to coal, I'd say the compares change. The shipping will change. We've had very close discussions with Elk Valley now, what used to be tech. They're going to make some mining changes. So they think the second half is going to normalize. So it's not the headwind, we think second half, still going to be a drag for the year. And then the balance when it comes to potash, intermodal, domestic as well as international. I was in Southeast Asia last week. I was in Taipei. I was in Singapore. And our main customers, strategic customers, they're bullish on the demand that's moving in all honesty. So again, I think that sets us up well. And I think this macro change that's occurring when it comes to trucking, I think that's very supportive, and I think we remain in a position of strength.

We talked about the inflection in RTM, right? One of the other big changes that I see in the business is CapEx now is at a sort of lowest level in years. Cash conversion is getting meaningfully better. At the same time, you're no longer trading at a big premium versus other rails. Like how do you think about those 2 things as it relates to capital deployment?

Well, Chris rightfully and Nadeem rightfully decided that we've been spending at a very high rate, given the integration, given the investments. We got to a point infrastructure-wise where -- we decided to shift to locomotives. We haven't done that since 2011. We bought 100 last year. We got 100 this year. And likely we'll have 100 next year to modernize our fleet. So we got to a place where we need to reduce the spend. So we took it down about 15%. We've taken the money redeployed. We've increased our buyback. So it's more about balancing and managing the balance sheet overall. And I think Chris and his recommendations and the team are doing a phenomenal job doing it. I don't expect that to change. I don't know if you want to add any color to that, Chris.

No, I think that's exactly it. So we've taken capital down to $2.6 billion to $2.7 billion this year. That feels like a number that we can sustain for the next couple of years. And we don't believe in hoarding cash on the balance sheet. We believe in returning to shareholders. So you saw us buy back 4% of the stock last year. We've announced a 5% buyback program this year. We've raised the dividend in the last 2 years, and I think you're going to see a continued strengthening shareholder return profile.

Tony, did you have a quick one?

Very quick, how do you personally define enhanced competition? And second, do you foresee a world in which they get a merger approved but burdened, they go through it in any way, you can live and thrive as 4 independent carriers?

Four independent carriers against that mammoth.

Yes, we're all cooperating because you've got access places you want. You picked some good assets.

Yes. But I think you're naturally at a reach disadvantage, and I know this well being the smallest guy. I think that scale matters. So I think that warrants the industrial logic, you got to do something about it. And then the earlier question is my views on concessions essentially. enhanced competition. Okay, got it. I just want to -- let me just say this, it's not just defined by intermodal benefits. It's intermodal, too, it's rail to rail. It's both. You can't just talk about one side of the ledger. And at the end, I'm going to go to Linda Morgan's words. To enhance competition, the benefits got to be greater than the harms, and it means more choice, not less choice. And to me, when you're suggesting and excluding 99% of the traffic, effectively, the CGP, which is, as I understand it, the applicant's definition to enhance competition to solve to the regulations, it's only 1% of the traffic. And some of the most exposed traffic when it comes to less options and market concentration is excluded from CGP. Automotive, automotive parts, bulk trains, it's just okay. If it really enhances competition, then put it all in put it all in there, but you don't. So I just think those are fundamental facts that you can't get away from that when they're fully heard and understood and debated, and they will be. UP is going to have their data to explain it. We're going to have our day. Everyone will have their day and the regulator ultimately are going to draw the line in the sand and say, this is what the law says, and this is what we believe to be true, and I think it could possibly lead to a no. I think the facts are that compelling. I'm not going to speak for the regulator, but I do believe as long as the regulator can remain independent, and I believe that will happen, that they're going to make this forever decision based on those facts. And I don't think the facts are supportive of solving enhanced competition. I just don't think it happens.

Real quick, I know we got to wrap. You made a comment, Keith, you're not going to be here forever, right? I was just thinking about this -- I think end of this year, early next year is officially your 10-year anniversary as CEO of CP. I don't want to age you because you're...

I'll be 58 next week. Okay. I'm -- still I'm not 68. I got a lot of runway left in me, Scott.

Any -- do we need to start thinking about succession planning at CP or...

We have been thinking about succession planning or I have since 2017, my very first Board meeting. I think it's my responsibility to my shareholders. If I get hit by a bus tomorrow, this company is bigger than me. it's got to run. We have developed very capable people within our company in all key positions for succession. So that's number one. Number two, this is my legacy. We're 3 years old. when I feel that the company is ready to hand over to my successor and continue to build upon the success we've created. Again, it's bigger than me. It's not my ego. I'm going to step aside. That's not happened today. It's not happening tomorrow, but this company is prepared for that day when it does happen.

Hopefully, no time soon. No time soon. Thank you, Keith. Thank you, Chris. That was awesome.

Thank you.