IAC Inc. (IAC) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us for the fireside chat with IAC. I'm Jason Helfstein, Head of Internet Research for Oppenheimer. Very excited to have Chris Halpin, COO and CFO of IAC and the now CEO of People Inc., Neil Vogel. So gentlemen, thank you for joining us. Neil, I think we've got you. This is your first Wall Street event, I guess, post earnings since the rebrand of People. So thank you for being with us for rebrand to People.

Thanks for having us.

We needed a new brand. Everyone knows the People brand. But for the Wall Street people, it was easier to digest than Meredith Dotdash.

And for our people, it was easier to digest than Meredith Dotdash.

The sales calls go...

Lot of happy people. People.inc is the greatest e-mail address of all time.

That gets back to like what we all should have squatted e-mail addresses at the beginning of the Internet. So everybody fireside chat this morning, if you have questions for participants, please use the link on the bottom or e-mail me at [email protected].

So first, I want to start out, Wall Street should be familiar with your stock. So just Chris, real quick, give us like the 2-, 3-minute overview of like IAC and its goal for kind of shareholder value creation.

Sure. Thanks for having us Jason. So we are a digital holding company. We have a collection of wholly owned businesses, the largest of which are People Inc, which we'll talk about, and Neil runs Care.com. We also have Vivian Health, a leading player in health care staffing, digital marketplace, The Daily Beast and our search business, which continues to produce cash flow. We also have large minority interests, the most prominent of which are our 24% stake in MGM Resorts, the leading gaming and entertainment operator in Turo, where we have a 32% stake the #1 digital marketplace for cars and transportation. We have $900 million of cash at parent. It was $800 million and change this past quarter, but essentially $900 million, which -- and no debt at parent. There is debt at People, which we attractively refinanced in June. And then we have some smaller growth investments as well as our headquarters building that we own free and clear of any debt.

Great. So with that, Neil, I want to jump in. So I kind of joked a little bit about the beginning to rebrand to people. I think for most folks, it's obvious why People Inc. is just better brand than Meredith Dotdash, which is like saying SpinCo 1, SpinCo 2 and Wall Street [indiscernible]. But really, look, the goal here has been to really take these iconic brands that people have known for a long time, which were largely supported by paper and really make them digitally perpetual brands. So really talk about kind of where we are in that journey of kind of digitizing people and also kind of finding -- removing some of inefficiency around the print media?

Yes. I mean you said it. We are -- we're the biggest publisher in America. We're primarily digital at this point. We have some of the most powerful household name brands, People, Food & Wine, Travel and Leisure, Real Simple, Better Homes & Gardens, you can go down the list. There's 40 of them. There's probably 10 or 15 that you would call a household name. Our name is a bit messy. We cleaned it up, but I think the little -- the understory of why we changed the name was we thought People was obviously great because everybody knew everyone -- when you met somebody at the cocktail party, you said I run Dotdash Meredith, that's People. So we're just now understanding it's People. It makes sense, like Coca-Cola is Coca-Cola. But the real thing is it's we are content made by people for people. And I think the promise of what we do and the promise of our brands is that the value and expertise of what humans can make in a world where lots of artificial is really our story. And by highlighting the sort of the specialist of our brands and the specialist of our relationships, we've been pretty successful. It's a fun little nod back to timing for those like old media heads, a little Easter egg. But in terms of where we are in a transition from print, I haven't even had to answer that question in a while because we're well on the other side of it. I think when we bought Meredith 3 years ago, there were 12 or 13 monthly, weekly magazines, now we have 7. The print business for us, we run for 2 reasons. We run 1 for branding because it's interesting. Our fastest-growing digital brands almost all have print counterparts. And we run it for cash flow. And Chris has said and our CFO, Tim Quinn said a number of times. We target EBITDA probably enough to cover our corporate expenses. So we've probably been targeting around 15% EBITDA as revenue goes down. We're probably beaten that by a little bit. But print for us is very healthy. And we looked at print like we looked at everything else. I said it is part of a media mix of a brand. And if we can make a product that people really love, that accrues value to the brand, we're going to still make it. And if we can't, we can't. And we have a very healthy subscription business. The print ad business is going to remain challenged for obvious reasons that we don't need to get into. But people love getting the print books and our print is in a really healthy spot right now. But what it does is -- what it dovetails into is we have brands. Some of our brands are north of 100 years old, and we have these relationships with people, and it is people, lower case people. And it is our job to always be in front of where human beings want to interact within style and where they want to interact with people. And if they want to interact with us on our O&O websites, great. If they like our app, great, if they like our new applications like MyRecipes, even better. If they want to be on social, great. And I think what we've proven is we can continually grow audience in an economically viable way because we have these great brands, and we're very good tactically at figuring out how to connect with people.

Got it. So is there -- like of those different, I guess, we can call them channels that they could interact with your brand, are there certain channels that are more beneficial to you than others if that's where the consumer is...

Yes. I mean it's fairly obvious. And you know this for those who follow our business, we -- the primary way we make money is O&O sessions on our website and things that we also own like events and things. And that's probably 64 -- that is last quarter, 64% of the economics of our business, right? 2/3 of the economics of our business comes from our O&O websites.

Digital revenue.

Yes, 64% of our digital revenue, right? And I'll jump to your next question. That is the part of the business that to outsiders feels like is in the most flux, right? Because to get traffic and audience to your O&O websites, historically, a lot of that traffic came from Google, and it's increasingly fewer visitors from Google. We've done a very good job with the diversity of how our brands interact with people and connect with people, whether it's e-mail, whether it's our own new products, whether it's direct traffic, whether it's Google Discover, which is our Apple News product, whether it's syndication to Yahoo!, or MSN or all these places we put our content, we've been really good at a healthy sessions number. And while we've been doing that, we've been rapidly growing off-platform sessions, right? TikTok, Instagram, very importantly to us, Apple News, which we're probably the biggest publisher partner of Apple News, our healthy events business, we've been doing some influencer stuff. So what we're doing and the mix is different for each of our brands is ensuring we have a super healthy audience that loves and trust our brands. And when you have audience that loves and trust your brands, you can do many, many things. And the strength of our brands permissions us to do many things. And for us, we view it as a really exciting time. There is opportunity in the [ thrash ] and opportunity and the change, and we like where we're headed.

So to that point, I think you said on the earnings call, the long-term goal is 10% digital growth. You're almost there. I think it was 9% most recent quarter. I guess you sound quite enthusiastic. I guess like is there a scenario where there's like potential upside to a 10% and whether that's through the creation of like new brands, using the data around -- we can get into D/Cipher, but leveraging the data, what you know about consumers. Just like is it just 10% it? Or is there an opportunity over time to find?

I mean, look, there's always an opportunity to exceed expectations. I mean there's always an opportunity to miss them, too. Let's hope that's not going to happen. But I think if you break our business down into pieces, as we continue to diversify and grow different audiences, if we get some real traction around MyRecipes, which is our recipe locker, which we can talk about around the People app, around a raft of new things we're doing to connect directly to our customers. Some of our event businesses have a lot of momentum. If that clicks in, that's potential upside. You mentioned D/Cipher. For those of you that don't know, D/Cipher is an ad-targeting tool we use internally based on our really intent-driven contextual data that we now can use to target the rest of the open web. That really opens up the TAM of how we can sell ads, 3x, 4x and opens up CTV also, if that kicks in, that could be some nice upside. And we've said that will be -- that should be material what we're doing next year. Again, some of our licensing opportunities are really interesting. Our events businesses continue to grow. The events are a little bit smaller, but there's some real momentum there. And we haven't talked about it yet, but we're probably the largest commerce referral partner to the major retailers, the Amazons and the Walmarts of the world. And we have really interesting partnerships with them and a lot of momentum behind those. And if those things really get going, there's upside there, too. So the -- the good thing for us is, I think we feel pretty good about the 10% because of the diversity of like the potential ways we can win because you could also make a case why some of these things aren't going to win. But look, there can always be upside. And as you know, like, look, if you're running a media business today in the current climate. If you are not optimistic, you should probably be doing something else. But we look great assets, really talented team, tons of support from IAC, we feel really good.

So maybe I'll offer like either of you to ask those questions. So on LLM licensing deals, it would seem that your content has a lot of value to Agentic search. Now -- and again, whether it's like agents want to bring the most up-to-date information to a consumer asking something in addition to whatever the training, right, the history, I guess do you have views on like these should be like fixed deals, variable, should you be paid like per call? Like if you give information, if somebody asked an agent, oh, what was the results of like the latest award show or something like that and you generate the results, but they never leave the search to go to you, should you get paid something. So how are you thinking about like over the long-term?

I'll take a shot and then Chris fill in. So that's actually -- you asked the right question. You actually asked it the right way. We've done a couple of things. One, what makes a licensing deal happen; and two, what form of licensing deal takes. And for more licensing deals to happen, and remember, we have one deal with OpenAI that we're very pleased with. They've been an excellent partner. They've helped us with D/Cipher. It's been, I'd say, high end of the range outcome for us in terms of how it's helped our other business. But the other LLM producers, creators, whatever we want to call them, are going to have to have a bit of a change in attitude and look at the world like OpenAI does, like what you said, the value of high-quality content is really important. I think they're realizing as they develop more, it's more and more important, and they're going to have to have a change in attitude. Second thing, and it's not mutually exclusive from the first is we're going to have to have some more leverage in these negotiations. And one of the things we did around July 4 is we partnered with Cloudflare, and we blocked basically every LLM crawler with the exception of OpenAI, which we have a deal with and Google, which we can't because Google has one crawler for search and AI. You say what you want about that. That's a whole another conversation.

Different webcast.

Different webcast. And what has happened, and maybe it's a coincidence, maybe it's not, is since then, the discussions with the major LLM providers have picked up a bit, right? All of a sudden, now that they can't access our quality content, which, as you said, they need for grounding, they need for source of truth. You need quality ingredients to make a high-quality product, right, that there's now beginning to have discussions of, okay, interesting, some approaches to us about like different ways that they can -- people can get access to our content and different economic arrangements. Now you listed a bunch of them. One can be -- it could be all the way from the bucket of, which is pretty much clean licensing with OpenAI, all the way over to like a pay-per-crawl model, right, or a pay-per-use, almost what you said as your last example. I'm not sure it would be -- and it could even be pay per output. It's all very, very, very early. All these things are being considered to the extent that we can manufacture and make some more leverage and to the extent that LLM makers realize they need us, I think these will happen more quickly. There's nothing is imminent. There's no guarantee any of these things turn into anything like we're sort of operating as if they won't, but I am hopeful that they will. I don't know, Chris, if you want to add anything to that?

Yes. No, I mean I would agree with all that. I think it's a little bit to Neil's point, where the LLM developer is in the 5 stages of grief.

Totally.

That they have to license premium content. And that also, to Neil's point, premium content versus trash or commoditized content and a constant pace of new content coming into the model is essential for what they're trying to do. To the structure of the deals, as Neil said, we very much like the structure we came to with OpenAI. But there is an element of what are the objectives of the LLM developer and operator what are they trying to drive and aligning incentives and economics around that, which is a little idiosyncratic by LLM developers. So we and others are working through that. We have real conviction of where it's going to end up, but it's a question of time.

And remember, there are the major LLM, like the headline names that everybody on this call would know, but there are literally thousands of entities creating different LLMs that need a way to access our content in a way that is economically viable for us and helps them and whether they do it through one of the existing LLM, there's so much to sort out and everything is changing so quickly, but it's very, very top of mind for everybody.

Yes. We all know that like there are models getting the results from Google, right? So even firms who have a paid deal with Google, like they're not probably not being paid directly. I mean, are you willing to be litigious about this potentially? I mean you've got a nice corporate overhead budget with lawyers and whatnot or just not want to talk about that right now.

I mean I think there's -- what we would say is we are going to maintain all of our rights that we could have. And we understand that we need leverage on our side. And if we feel like that is a clear path and a viable path to leverage, maybe that's something we do. But again, I would say we'll see.

And then maybe, Neil, just talk about it and you addressed this on the call, but you've already managed some of like AI overviews of 50% of searches -- you've actively managed away from search traffic. So just maybe just talk about how you've been able to do that?

Yes. And let's frame some numbers around this, and Chris said this earlier. 28% of our sort of like O&O traffic comes from search. 64% of the economics are of our digital economics are tied to sessions. So it's, call it, 18% of the full bucket of economics is really what we're talking about. We like saying Google Zero. Yes, exactly. We like saying Google Zero internally as a rallying cry, but it's not going to go to zero. It's going to go to something. So there's some risk, some subset of that number. We -- and Jason, we've been talking for a long time. We've been very aware and we were doing things very early when -- sort of Google has always tried to keep a little bit more travel for themselves and very much accelerated after the pandemic. And because we had so much traffic from Google, we were very keen to know what they were doing. We very quickly realized that Google is operating in the interest of Google, not in the interest of anybody else, they should, and we had to get in front of that. So we started to do 2 and 3 years ago, things that felt very unfashionable, really do things to drive direct traffic, really do things to drive e-mail traffic, really do things to drive syndication. And we've been investing and investing and investing. And it turns out that, that was the right choice. Now we weren't right about everything, but we were right about that. And as the world has evolved, we've been able to do all these new things and launch some of our own new products and do some other things that we've been able to as Google Discover, which is like their Apple News and another factor, like -- as the share of search has gone down, we've been able to plug it with all of these other things. And it's not any one thing. It's a full basket of things. We are constantly trying to find new ways to connect directly with our users. I think we've gotten a little bit better economically on our O&O also over that time period. So we feel pretty good about it. Again, as we talked about on the call, it's not going to be the growth driver of our audience, but it can be very healthy, and I think it's going to grow a bit. I think third quarter, again, we talked about specifics around tough comps, it might be down a bit. But like long-term, I think it grows a bit. We feel good about it. I think what we also feel good about is the different places our brands are permitted to live, right? So we've built a really nice off-platform business where we can reach audience on behalf of advertisers and about half of our brands TikTok, Instagram, all the social places. We're the biggest partner of Apple News, as we said. That's a really big licensing source for us. Again, our events, our experiences, we're doing some influencer stuff. There's a lot out there. If you have the brands that have the gravitas to hold together in these environments and to thrive, you can do great. And we feel pretty good about it. But that's what we've done to sort of like fill the bucket.

So let me ask you there's 2 questions in the chat from investors and then just we'll get to other things. So one was folks just want to know why the company isn't being more aggressive with share repurchases given the kind of implied like value in the shares today?

Certainly. We didn't buy back last year, and our Chairman, Barry Diller, talked in the February earnings call about we got to the other side and it was a new chapter. We bought back $200 million of stock, 4.5 million shares in the first 4 months of the year. That was very much an approach of let's buy $200 million of stock. And we did that. We messaged or tried to signal last quarter in first quarter earnings that we were looking again at M&A, but we were still considering buybacks. That is the message. We've heard loud and clear from investors that they would -- that you would love us to continue to buy back our stock. We understand it. The discount that we highlight in our own materials is even more pronounced with the way the share price has responded since our earnings a week ago. So that value capture in buying our shares is -- would be even greater. And we are exploring it. It's an active area of discussion. It is -- we hear the message of we can walk and chew gum at the same time of both doing buybacks and exploring M&A. And we have multiple avenues to capital should something interesting in M&A come along. So the cessation of the buyback, my only message would be it was driven by the directive was to buy $200 million of stock. We did. And it doesn't mean we won't buy back our stock again. And we understand the message from investors regarding the desire for continued buyback, especially given our liquidity.

Great. And then another also kind of corporate question, just where does corporate overhead from -- obviously, doing some of the parts, there's a value of corporate overhead you have to deduct. But like from an expense standpoint, like where do you think corporate overhead shakes out on an annual basis after some of the changes that have been made?

Yes. And that was a key point of focus coming out of last year. The '24 total corporate overhead is benefited by a $10 million insurance settlement that we talked about. So you can think about our run rate last year, we were sort of in that $100 million range. We said we wanted to reduce it. We will continue to chip away. We had a RIF earlier this year. We've also taken actions to improve efficiency. That is a recognition of both the smaller scale post Angie spin of the companies that pull on IAC's resources, but it's also just good management and improving our efficiency. We were about $22.8 million of corporate in Q2. I think the run rate we're at would be slightly below that. We'd look to leave the year, we've said in the $80 million to $90 million run rate corporate expense and targeting the lower end of that and then continue to improve. We've also talked about strategic divestitures of our holdings that are less core. Our Chairman, Barry Diller, talked about People Inc. and MGM being core. You can think about our other assets. We view them as strategic assets in their respective industries. And we've said going back to the end of 2024 that we are open to strategic transactions around them where we view value and we generate value for shareholders. As we do that, we can continue to simplify our corporate structure. There are certain functions that are just essential to being a public company that happen at corporate and which we bear. We could allocate them down to the businesses. Neil and team would be annoyed by that as with the other businesses. So we just keep them at corporate. But there's some baseline, but we can always be more efficient, and that's very much my goal as CFO.

Great. So Neil, I want to go back just -- if you can comment on the ad market broadly. So were there certain headwinds that you saw in the second quarter at all that have since dissipated? I think there's like a general -- I think overall, most feel pretty comfortable where the ad market is. But like any thoughts you want to share on the ad market?

I think, again, we hit a lot of sectors. So it's very much sector by sector, the bad first, like sort of like CPG, food and beverage is tougher. Some of the other sectors we're in are doing a little better. Chris can give very specific color on that. But what I would say is overall vibe in the market is -- I think it's good, good, not great. There's still some uncertainty. Tariffs are not great. All of the commentary on what is going on economically. The ad market is very much leading, right? It's the easiest expense. It's the easiest thing to turn on and turn off if you're the CEO, particularly digitally where you can really buy in real time. But I think comfortable, I think, is a very good word. It's good, not great, decent spotty. Chris, do you want to add, you go industry by industry?

Yes. I think we've said health and pharma has been solid. Tech and travel. Tech is one that's been in a bit of a winter for a number of quarters, a couple of years coming off of the pandemic trough, but that we've seen strength there. Travel, I think a number of the brands are looking to -- or players are looking to spend more to drive more demand as a bit of that cycle has turned. Retail is spending, again, looking to drive into back-to-school and the holiday period. As Neil said, CPG, food and beverage, tough, home. And home has been tough for a while, but...

Has auto been weaker also?

Auto is kind of weak-ish, but it's a small category for us.

We have a huge auto exposure.

Not endemic. It's more just comes and goes in a small player.

Got it. I mean to that point, like there's...

One other point because we've talked about this point before between premium direct and programmatic, and I think your audience would care about that. Where we saw the real softness post Liberation Day in early April was in the programmatic market, where we've been up, say, 15% plus in pricing year-over-year. That quickly fell to flat to up a few percent. That has come back. It's -- we've seen some strength in July and August and hope to see that continue into -- I think the words we've used are fairly healthy. I could see that continue. And then premium has remained solid, but it does go sector by sector.

And roughly what percent of digital is programmatic?

It's about 30%, 25%, 30% of revenue.

Got it. So I mean, the CPG category it's funny. In some cases, like there's blaming tariffs. In other cases, it's just consumers are focused on value, and therefore, they may -- they're chasing generics and kind of house brands. So what's interesting is just you know a lot about consumers and CPG just at people...

People, right.

Right, people large. So I mean, just given what you've been doing with D/Cipher, which is really about like understanding audience and like it just seems that there's a huge opportunity to leverage that and help these massive CPG companies to do off-platform advertising as like almost like a standing up an ad tech business.

Well, we agree. And again, to simplify this, D/Cipher allows us to take our -- what is probably our best asset that was always powered our own ad business, but now draw a straight line into real value that this data can create. We believe we have as good, if not better, first-party data than anybody in our business because it's not like we have a cookie or an individual identifier that is guessing what you want based on some history you have. This is real-time data. If you're on how do I get my kids fever down content on very well or you're on how to make an Apple Pie on July 3, we know exactly what you're doing. So it's real time. So when you know that and you can take that URL or that web page, and you can map it to any other page around the Internet or map it to a household and connect it to CTV, you have real, real insights. And it's why we created D/Cipher. So what D/Cipher allows us to do is, again, we can -- we get from a good partner, they spend a $20 CPM super simply, and they buy a whole bunch of ads around us. Well, they also have a bit of that budget that is always going to be for reach. We can say, give us that budget too. And we'll make it perform very similarly to it performs on our sites, but we can do it much cheaper, and we'll go out and we will buy that inventory for them, and we will resell it to them at a very good margin. And we open up 3x to 4x the TAM for us to do this. We're very optimistic about early results. I mean the numbers are small, but the percentage growth is really substantial quarter-over-quarter. We think it's going to be a meaningful contributor next year. But as you said, for us, it's a bit of an ad tech challenge, right? It looks a little bit like a DSP. It is a DSP in some ways. But it is...

And there are some DSPs that trade a pretty big multiple.

Listen, we're happy to be a DSP, right? Right now, we have some DSP partners. We can use it like again, -- you and I could set up a DSP today for $300,000. That's not the trick. The trick...

I think mine wouldn't work too well.

Maybe -- the trick is to put the real value in the D...

All the ads we go on oppenheimer.com.

The trick is to put the ads and the data in that DSP that makes it effective. And we're increasingly optimistic, and we hired a guy named Jim Lawson, who I think you know, who ran a small public company called AdTheorent, who did something like this for a long time. We are investing heavily behind this. And look, we really believe in if you go back to that investor deck we did where there was like on-platform, off-platform distributed, like the ability to use our data to target distributed content across the open web is really substantial. And we're in the game now, and we'll see where it leads.

There's one massive point, too, that makes this possible, which speaks to the challenges of broader open web, which is we talked about how high our percentage was of premium, which is a credit to the performance of our inventory, but also to our direct sales force. These other open web publishers have pivoted massively to programmatic because they've had to. So we can see because of all the signal needle has and because of the proprietary clustering and insights of what is most performing relative to a behavior pattern, we know that inventory is being mispriced on the programmatic markets on a purely cookie basis. So where we can guarantee and realize performance on price versus where we can buy it creates a -- what we would view as super normal margin relative to broader ad tech and is why we view this as highly accretive, both on a revenue growth, but also profitability basis for People Inc.

And our challenge now is with the question is, well, why wouldn't everybody do this right away? And right now, it's an execution question. We have to get the word out. And the way people buy ads in ad tech, as you know, is not a very efficient market. There are a lot of people that have -- there's a lot of things forcing behaviors. We got to break through some of that. And at the end of the day, decisions follow the money. And if we can do a good enough job, we're going to get this worked out, and we feel pretty good about it.

Great. Okay. I want to spend we have 5 minutes left. I just want to hit on a few non-People points. So Care.com, $50 million EBITDA business, Chris, potentially much bigger. Take us through the path to get there.

Sure. There are 2 key parts -- 2 segments to Care.com, the consumer business, the enterprise. When IAC bought Care in 2020, it was heavily, heavily a consumer business. That is a direct-to-consumer, predominantly subscription product across childcare, senior care, pet and others. We built up the enterprise business, including through a great acquisition in 2021 that was made that really increased the size. The 2 businesses are -- the 2 segments are now 50-50 on a revenue basis. Enterprise, they both had huge pandemic tailwinds. Enterprise had it earlier -- had the reset earlier is doing well. That is a key tailwind. It's about executing, adding logos, growing within those presence and continue to scale, very good business. Consumer had a huge pandemic tailwind. That masked some core deficiencies in the product. We brought a new CEO in there in 2023, Brad Wilson. He got in and identified that deficiencies in the product as well as marketing were really negatively impacting both retention and recapture and new subscriber addition. That team has spent a lot of time, including with some new executives, rebuilding the product, the platform, payments. We relaunched it in June. It is all about -- in parallel with that, launched a rebooted marketing campaign and a more active presence. That is very much increased funnel, conversion, retention, bring in value-added services, recapture of lapsed subscribers because someone will go into care for -- or check for child care, will want to come back either for new child care or for senior care or pet or to find day care center as their lives evolve and their needs change, continue to bring them back in and recapture. The goal is to get -- consumer has really been -- we've had declining users -- declining subscribers and revenue there since end of 2022. We're seeing -- it's early, but we're seeing green shoots from those activities. And our goal is to get to revenue stability in consumer and eventually growth by the time we exit '25 to set up for overall growth in '26 and beyond. That business should be growing 10% to 20%. As you said, it's EBITDA positive, free cash flow generative today, but margins long-term should get to 15% and 20%. It's all really in the 4 corners of the Care business. It's just about us executing.

And then lastly, Vivian, most folks don't really talk about and know that much about it, but how big is it today and kind of where do we see it going?

Sure. Vivian is a strategic asset in health care staffing. We -- on the platform, we have 2 million nurses and clinicians. It's almost like a LinkedIn for nursing. We sit as a marketplace on the one side between the nurses, on the other, between the health care systems and staffing agencies. They grew rapidly in the pandemic boost in travel nursing, et cetera. It's been a sort of a nuclear winner in that space for a couple of years. We kept growing, slowed down. We've had stability. The business is EBITDA and cash flow positive now. Think of it in the mid-8 figures for revenue. It is really a strategic asset with what we view as perhaps the only or maybe one other player which is proprietary to an agency has our scale of active nurses on the platform. They have instituted AI in a way into their processes, workflows, user experience that no one else has. We think they have the opportunity to revolutionize health care staffing and fulfillment. And Parth and the management team there are executing and driving it forward.

Great. So with that, I think we're getting to the end. I want to thank you, Neil and Chris, for the time. If anyone has any other questions, feel free to e-mail us, and we can connect you with the company. Have a great day, everybody.

Thanks, Jason. It's fun.

Jason, thanks, everyone.