Inspired Limited (INSE) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good afternoon, and welcome to the Inspired plc half year results investor presentation. [Operator Instructions] The company may not be in a position to answer every question received during the meeting itself. However, the company will review all questions submitted today and publish responses where it's appropriate to do so. Before we begin, I'd like to submit the following poll. I'd now like to hand you over to Mark Dickinson, CEO. Good afternoon, sir.

Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the FY '23 interim results presentation for Inspired plc. Presenting for you today is myself, Mark Dickinson, Chief Executive Officer; Paul Connor, CFO; David Cockshott, Chief Commercial Officer. We should remind ourselves what Inspired does. We help corporate businesses, so these are the larger businesses in the economy, deliver net zero and respond to climate change whilst controlling their costs. And we do this by helping them with the four Cs, cost, consumption, carbon and compliance, which are increasingly nondiscretionary for every business in the economy. What I want to do today before we go into the actual segment or divisional performance is just remind ourselves of the Inspired platform and the -- and what it means from an investor's point perspective. So if you're [ opening ] an investment in Inspired, ultimately, we operate within 3 strong macros. We all remember the energy crisis of 2022 and what this did was move energy costs right the way up the boardroom agenda. So now we find a strong macro in terms of helping organizations with their energy crisis defense as Boards of Directors do not want to experience in the future what they experienced in 2022. And Inspired is well placed to help businesses with this defense policy. ESG, as a macro, increasingly becoming revenue-critical for most businesses. If you're a B2B business, you could have been working with your customer for the last 5, 10, 15, 20 years, and ultimately, you will not be able to renew that customer unless you're able to make an ESG disclosure to comply with their obligations from a reporting perspective. These disclosures require the processing of a lot of unstructured data and the solving of complexity. And Inspired, standing shoulder to shoulder with businesses, helping them make these disclosures so they can maintain the revenue lines and meet their regulatory and statutory obligations. The final macro is net zero carbon. For the U.K., we have to achieve net zero by 2050 and businesses need to play their part. For this macro, we actually help those businesses remove those units of carbon, reduce energy consumption so we actually make a real tangible difference to their response to climate change, not just an analysis of what it could be. Within those macros, we have great recurring revenues, strong compliance drivers and repeatable demand from optimization projects that remove those carbon emissions and reduce their energy consumption. The financial case for Inspired. If we think about the business back in 2017, it was really a single-service energy procurement advisory business. It was only capable of delivering low single-digit organic growth. We effectively went on a buy-and-build process to transform that business and diversify it into a full suite B2B sustainability service provider. As we did that over the last 5 years, we doubled EBITDA and delivered 21% CAGR revenue growth on a H1 '20 to H1 '23 basis. As you look at our platform today, it's capable of delivering double-digit organic growth into the future with 14% organic EBITDA growth being the expectation for full year FY '23. In doing that, we're confident we're able to generate in excess of 80% cash conversion. And that really all starts to underpin our ambition to double EBITDA in absolute terms organically by the end of FY '27. We have some compelling differentiators. We're the player of scale in the marketplace. We solve complexity and process a lot of unstructured data, millions of pieces every month, which mean our relationships with our clients are deep and wide and very sticky, leading into high retention rates. Every business we meet is a prospective client, so our addressable market is large. And the solutions we provide our customers to help remove those carbon emissions and deliver their response to climate change, they're technology-agnostic. So we're able to always focus on the best solution for a client at a certain time. For all of the untreated data we process, for all that complexity we solve, we do that using our proprietary software platform, which is increasingly becoming recognized as a market leader in the industry as we don't just use it ourselves, but make it available to any organization who wishes to technology-enable their ability to reduce carbon emissions and reduce energy consumption. And ultimately, currently today, we have more than 60 organizations using our software platform. There's a -- clearly, as we look at the marketplace, we are observing asymmetry at the moment between the valuations placed on businesses like ours in the public markets and the valuations placed in the private markets. In the public markets, you'll see our organization currently trading at 6x EBITDA, whereas in the private markets we're seeing businesses value it between 10 and 15x EBITDA. So clearly, there's some work to do to actually start to make sure that the public markets appreciate the organic growth engine and appreciate the transformation in such a way that we are well placed to be a winner in the strong macro themes of energy crisis defense, ESG and net zero. As we've made that transformation, one of the key drivers for that double-digit organic growth is our Optimisation division. Now ultimately, that has a consequence, has an effect. The first one is that, ultimately, it has different revenue streams. And whilst we still have the strong recurring revenues from Assurance Services, ESG Services and Software, we also now have a more volatile revenue source in relation to the projects that meet the repeatable demand of our clients to reduce the next marginal unit of energy consumption and the next marginal unit of carbon emissions. What we see in those projects is because we actually not only design the solution for the customer, but we help them procure the equipment, we source the contractors to install the solution, we manage the quality assurance, we see a lower EBITDA margin in the Optimisation Services business simply because we're taking that cost through our P&L as we operate as a turnkey solution provider for those businesses. So as people look at our blended group margin, the changes in that are very much a function of our blend of product mix and solutions as opposed to a change in margin level by division. The working capital profile of the business also changes. What we can control is delivering a great service to customers. We can control being diligent in the way we analyze their data and being creative in the way we find their solutions to reduce carbon emissions and reduce energy consumption. What we can't control is ultimately the precise month or week when those customers will actually make the decision to deploy capital or allow us access to their premises to make the interventions to actually make those changes. So that leads to variability in both cash generation on a month-by-month basis, and ultimately, EBITDA performance. And we saw that between June and July where the first half of the year would have had lower cash generation, which was impacted by projects moving from instead of being done in February or March being done in April or May, but we see that correct itself in July, which is simply a factor of the realities of running a business that can make that difference to clients. We think about our CapEx in order to actually ensure our business is delivering the state-of-the-art solutions to clients, can process the data so we can find those carbon-saving opportunities, we need to be technology enabled. Energy has always been a laggard in relation to technological investments, and we've been correcting that. So it's not just about making sure that we are technology enabled to have a platform that can deliver double-digit organic growth year-on-year today, but also making sure we can maintain that over the next 5 years. So the work we do in our Software division at the moment is focused on making sure we stay relevant, not in years 1 or 2, but relevant in years 3 to 5. The final part of the process is we've managed our transformation through acquisitive growth. We structured our deals with performance-related consideration. We did that to make sure we can strike a balance between managing our investors' downside risk but -- when we were acquiring businesses during COVID, and which turned out to be a sensible thing to do, and also to make sure that the businesses remain aligned and the vendors are aligned with effectively our interest to have this double-digit growth engine not just now but into the future. So we bring all that together now into the half 1 performance. Really pleased with the fact that we achieved that double-digit revenue and EBITDA growth as we aimed to do at a top line level. EBITDA margin remained consistent, which is fantastic. You can see the cash generation point as illustrated there, where cash generation up until the end of June was lower than we would have expected, but then actually corrects itself in July purely due to that individual weekly, monthly phasing of projects when we can actually make intervention on client side. The growth on our top line has yet to flow through down to adjusted PBT and EPS, which is largely down to interest rate cuts. And Paul will walk you through that as he now talks about the divisional performance.

Thank you, Mark. So we'll start with the Assurance division. So still the largest profit contributor to the group, the Assurance division, despite the fact no longer the largest revenue contributor. So you know in the period in terms of a couple of themes continuing from what we saw in FY '22 as the division emerged from the energy crisis. We delivered revenue in line with expectations, so broadly flat, so I guess what happened at the top line in the division. In FY '22, you'll note the division incurred higher churn and this was as a result of the challenging commodity markets that our customers were facing. If there was ever a time for our customers to go to market or tender for assurance services, the energy crisis was a stimulant for that. But on the positive, that presented more opportunities for additional tenders for us to acquire new customers. So FY '22 represented a record period for new business growth. Pleased to report that momentum has carried on in the first half this year. But also pleased to update that our retention rates have recovered from a reduction of 5% in FY '22. So you recall, historically, the division has generated retention rates of circa 85%. Those dipped slightly to 80% in 2022. And we expect those to recover to 85% for the full year in FY '23. Because of that change in customers at the top line, that's why we guided to revenues in this division remaining broadly flat. So when you lose a customer, generally, that loss is incurred in your top line pretty quickly. But you'll note, we're often securing contracts in the Assurance division up to 6 months in advance of those contracts going live, and we only recognize our revenue in the Assurance division across the life of the contract in which we're providing those services. So hence, you end up with that transition and evolution of the book impacting growth rate in the near term. Pleased to update the market that we're expecting this division to return to growth in FY '24 and into FY '25. Margins, as we saw in FY '22, reduced and this is to ensure we sustained the level of service delivery to our customers through a challenging period. So you'll recall the Assurance division very much falls on the land side of our land-and-expand strategy in terms of client acquisition. So we acquire customers within the Assurance and ESG Services divisions and then cross-sell into our Optimisation Services division, where we generate that material lifetime value. If we're not able to deliver the right level of service in the Assurance division, then those opportunities to cross-sell and generate lifetime value are clearly restricted. And therefore, the priority through the crisis was supporting our customers and sustaining that level of service, which had an impact on OpEx and therefore adjusted EBITDA margin in the period. If we go forward to ESG. So again, on the land-and-expand side -- of the land side of the land-and-expand strategy for client acquisition for the group, we saw a doubling of revenue in the period, which is keeping pace with the CAGR revenue growth we've seen for this division since our organic entry back in the first half of 2020 across which period we've generated CAGR revenue growth from outstanding start of just under 120%, which is really pleasing. Now contributing 5% of group revenues and expect it to start to contribute to EBITDA for the full year FY '23. Noting the ESG is a focus for our land-and-expand and client acquisition engine, you'll note some customers there we've acquired during the first 6 months of the year, which presents that opportunity to generate that lifetime value through cross-selling and providing services in the other segments of the group. Optimisation. So really -- the Optimisation Services very much driving that strategy to double EBITDA organically over the next 5 years. So we saw a 14% increase in revenue in the period. We're expecting that to accelerate for the full year and that's because of the profile and timing of projects between H1 and H2. So a comparable profile to the profile we saw during 2022. So we expect the Optimisation division to contribute 40% of full year gross margin in the first half of the year and 60% in the second half. As a result of that acceleration through the 6-month period, that drove a working capital outflow in the first 6 months, which reversed in the subsequent -- the period end, which we'll walk through when we get to the group cash flow statement. You'll note an improvement in margin in the Optimisation Service delivery in the first 6 months of the year, driven by product mix primarily, but also continuing to improve our operational leverage from our existing customer -- our existing cost base in this division. Since emerging from COVID in 2020, you know the division has delivered a pleasing 39% CAGR revenue growth, which we expect to continue in the near term. Software Services. So back on release of the prelims in March, we indicated that we expected acceleration growth in the Software division after a slower growth period in 2022. And that growth is going to be driven by 2 things. It's going to be driven by client acquisition to the group. So you'll note in the year we've seen -- or a 6-month period, we've seen 10 competitors of Inspired in terms of all their intermediaries licensing our platform. And also, 5 direct customers as well, energy consumers, which again provides opportunity for lifetime value through the provision of other services within the group. Also particularly pleasing, because of the rollout of the new modules and further modules in the period within the division and for our software, we've seen a 20% increase in the revenues on renewal of licenses in the period from existing customers, which is supporting that growth rate for the full year. So what does that mean for group performance over that period? So you will have seen a 21% CAGR revenue growth since 2020 because of that 38% CAGR revenue growth across the same period in Optimisation, demonstrating that change in mix in the pie charts below there. That's translating because of our growth coming through the Optimisation Services division, which naturally has a higher cost of sale as we manage an end-to-end project for a customer and therefore incur the cost of the equipment and external installation, organizations and contractors, through our cost of sales. That naturally impacts our blended EBITDA rate at the group level. So we've seen that 21% revenue growth translating to 11% EBITDA growth and a 7% PBT growth with PBT not keeping up with EBITDA. Noting that as a result of our deployment of CapEx into our tech-enabled service over the period of time, we've incurred amortization charges for that internally generated CapEx, which are flowing through just the PBT line but adjusted back to EBITDA because we remove all amortization per that definition. So furthermore, through the latter part of that period, we've also seen interest rates increasing and the absolute level of net debt of the group increasing facilitating the payment of those performance-related payments from the acquisitions completed in 2020 and '21. So in terms of key financial statements for the group and what that means. So that 10% organic revenue growth translates into a 10% operational adjusted EBITDA growth in the period. Margins remain stable. Note that we expect margin to reduce slightly for the full year because of that higher contribution from Optimisation Services in the second half of the year. That increase in EBITDA, not necessarily dropping straight through to PBT in the period because of that increase in finance expenditure through the increased levels of interest costs as touched on previously. Cash flow. So again, because of that profile in Optimisation projects across the first 6 months of the year acceleration to the period end and subsequent, that GBP 7 million movement in working capital in the period, GBP 6.4 million of that was driven by invoice trade receivables, which subsequently unwound after the period end. So the first half of the year, we generated underlying cash generation so we're moving the cost of exceptionals of GBP 3.4 million. In the month of July alone, we generated cash from operations on the same basis of GBP 4.7 million, which brings to life how lumpy the Optimisation working capital cycle can be particularly in an abbreviated 6-month period. However, we've always said that we're confident that this division, despite the rates of growth, can contribute operating cash as a percentage of EBITDA in excess of 80%. So that cash performance subsequent to the period end gives us the confidence in reinstating that guidance for the full year. In terms of cash flow through investing activities. So those performance-related payments in the period, we paid GBP 8.5 million. Expected to pay a further GBP 4.1 million in the year. So you'll recall that driven by the key strategic acquisitions completed through the kind of COVID period, and that strategic decision to structure deals in a way which mitigated customer -- shareholder risk from downside performance of the acquisitions. And therefore, we structured the transactions in a way in which we'd only pay for what's real and absolute EBITDA generation of the acquisitions [ and ] growth, and hence, why we funded the subsequent performance-related payments, which were a contingent consideration for those acquisitions through the balance sheet of the company through '21, '22 and '23. But importantly, as we go on to the balance sheet, you'll note that the contingent consideration is now all within the current liabilities line on the balance sheet. Therefore, we expect to settle those liabilities over the next 12 months, by the end of March next year. And the free cash flow and absolute net debt levels of the company will clearly reduce significantly beyond that period. Net debt at the half year, a peak point for the period, as expected. So similar to 2022 because of the skewing of, or if you like, the weighting of performance payments the first half to second half and the timing of optimization projects, all in line with our expectations. In the first half, we expected net debt to peak at the half year point and then reduce by December year-end to circa 1.74x of adjusted EBITDA. You'll note that as a Board, we've always said that we're comfortable with net debt levels up to 2x to fund M&A activity. But we also acknowledge that the market's tolerance for net debt has clearly changed, and that's something we are aware of from a Board perspective. So with the existing banking facility, so you'll note that the existing facility is due to end in September '24. And that was a 4-plus-1 facility and we took the option to extend that facility a couple of years back. So that runs through to September '24. With the facility, from the outset, you had the adjusted leverage covenant reducing towards the back end of the facility, noting that we had the need to facilitate the growth in Optimisation and the swings that can happen in working capital over a shorter period in that division. Coinciding with the payment of those performance payments, we've reset our banking covenant levels back to the previous levels of the facility, so pre those ratcheting down the end of facility back in March '23 to present that additional headroom through this period. I'm pleased to report the conversations with our existing lenders are progressing positively, and we expect to refinance our existing bank facility in the second half of 2023. I'll hand back to Mark -- Dave to take you through the update on the strategy.

Thanks, Paul. Okay. So just a reminder there of the strategy. So moving from this single procurement-focused entity into a technology-enabled full suite Assurance Services -- sustainability services provider. So whether you're landing on the ESG side or the Assurance side because you're focused on carbon and compliance or cost and consumption, immaterial to us as a business because both sides have a symbiotic nature between them where the overlapping importance of the core data and the management of its full structured data between them lend themselves to operating together. Both sides though drive that ultimate goal of the Optimisation revenue, where we're actually physically reducing clients' consumption, therefore their carbon and therefore, their costs, increasing their lifetime value to us. All of this underpinned by the technology platform that enables us to keep going and keep repeating these projects for customers to be able to drive that value. We operate with some incredibly strong macros that are making this nondiscretionary, compulsory for customers to start acting on some of these elements. Here's just a sample of some of the new clients that we've won already this half year. Some household names, things like the Co-operative, when the energy exited the market, a number of those co-ops have joined the Inspired team. But if we look at the optimization specifically because one of the misnomers is about this just being a project-based revenue. It is project but it's repeatable demand. The example we have here is a DIY retailer. Yes, they've been a client since 2018 and we've already spent GBP 9 million on it as part of a BMS rollout over the 3 years. But if you look at the chart on the bottom with the blue being the before and the green being the after line of new ideas, answering that question of where do I spend my next hand to invest in reducing their consumption, reducing their carbon, new ideas, new technology on already efficient equipment, but still improving it further, this -- we've identified opportunity for a further 30% reduction. And therefore, following tender, won the work. It will provide GBP 1.2 million of revenue this year and further work into years 2 and 3 for a client that we'd already done so much for. So yes, repeatable demand. Project-based but repeatable. Just putting that into the context of our overall surface area of clients. All of our clients have these strong business drivers to act. They need to act on cost and consumption or compliance and carbon. Over 3,500 clients are all opportunities in one way, shape or form for these additional products. We don't need to be active at any one moment in time with all of our clients to really drive that aspirational doubling of EBITDA in 2027. In fact, in that year alone, we just have to be active with around 3% of our client base to hit that ambition. So a huge opportunity for the business going forward against our existing portfolio let alone all of the new acquisitions coming on board as well. So with that, I'll hand over to Mark to just take us through the acquisition story.

Thanks, Dave. So I guess, ultimately, acquisitions have been a big part of the group story historically. Twenty-one since the IPO, completed and successfully integrated. Nine before 2017 where it was all about building scale, albeit in that single service of energy procurement advisory. And that was really giving us a platform to be able to transition from earner-founders. Then from 2017, when Paul and I started working together, we've been on that diversification strategy to transform the business from single-service, low single-digit organic growth through to a platform capable of delivering double-digit organic EBITDA growth into the future. As we look at the marketplace today, we've had a stated observation that M&A activity reduce when you got into the end of COVID and also the energy crisis. We're starting to see M&A activity return to the market a little bit now. From our side, as a company, no immediate plans to go dive into that. However, we have a duty to make sure we remain informed and looking for opportunities, which do -- should they arise, which are consistent with our long-term strategy and which would be accretive to value for shareholders. Clearly, if we got to that stage, then we'd have to be collegiate with shareholders in developing those opportunities. So it's kind of one of those things where, ultimately at the moment, we've gone through a process of -- and focusing purely on organic growth. That continues to be the driver going forward because we've got a platform that's well placed to evolve and deliver that doubling of EBITDA over the next 5 years, but equally making sure that we keep our eyes looking forward for those M&A opportunities should the market start to accelerate in that regard. Where does that take us to for the full year outlook? Full year performance is expected to be in line with expectations. That's underpinned by the strong performance in H1; the cash conversion phasing that we've seen in the first 6 months corrected itself in July, which gives us confidence of our full year cash conversion targets; and the pipeline of Optimisation opportunities in front of us for the second half of the year, albeit being cognizant of the things are outside of our control such as when clients will actually make their capital deployment decisions and when they'll allow us to actually be on-site to deliver those interventions with the buildings. If we bring that all together as an organization, as a platform, we have a finance engine now, which is capable of delivering double-digit organic growth in EBITDA expected to be circa 14% for the full year, deliver that 80% cash conversion and ultimately talk to the strong macros where if investors want to have exposure to ESG solutions, they want to have exposure to companies that are delivering net zero, they want exposed to people who are helping support defense against the energy crisis then Inspired is effectively a pure play bet on those macros. That's meeting the societal needs of the four Cs in a business, which is the player of scale in this marketplace, which has strong C-suite relationships with its client base due to the processing of unstructured data and the solving of complexity, all backed by our own proprietary software platform, which is increasingly becoming a market standard for the industry, which altogether underpins our ambition to double EBITDA organically over the next 5 years by the end of FY 2027. Thank you very much.

That's fantastic. Thank you very much, indeed, for your presentation. [Operator Instructions] As you can see, we have received a number of questions throughout today's presentation. Thank you to all the investors for submitting those. Perhaps -- I could perhaps hand over to you, Paul, in the first instance, just to go through those questions and read them out where appropriate to do so, and I'll pick up from you at the end. Thank you.

Yes, absolutely. So a question here. Why are you paying a dividend while noting waivering covenant? So I guess the point to bear in mind here is in terms of the covenants, the covenant would usually taper towards the back end of the existing facility. Clearly, the covenant requirement back in 2019 is very different to the requirement of the business today, and therefore, the tapering of the facility is -- doesn't rightsize the covenant level to what the group is trying to achieve strategically. So the reset, it wasn't necessarily a waivering of covenant. It's a resetting back to the previous levels as opposed to tapering down to the end of an existing facility. From a dividend perspective and interacting with net debt, we've always considered ourselves a dividend-paying stock. We continue to do so. Ultimately, the business is cash generative. It's a highly cash-generative business, albeit we acknowledge that net debt levels of the group have been at a higher level in absolute terms versus EBITDA in terms of Board appetite through '22 and '23 and at start '24 because of that strategic decision to continue to execute M&A in the COVID period and subsequent to COVID, but doing so in a way in which we downside -- we mitigated downside risk to investors through structures of transactions in which we pay contingent consideration for what's real. But we'd fund that contingent consideration through the balance sheet of the company as opposed to further dilution incurred from additional equity raises at the outside of -- outset of executing those acquisitions, which, as a consequence, knew would result to the group [ winning ] that higher level of net debt through that earn-out period, which comes to a conclusion, as I touched on earlier, on the back of the '23 financial results. But also the key point is we're still operating within a place comfortably whereby we [ sought ] the 2x the Board has always talked to in terms of appetite and tolerance for net debt, albeit we acknowledge and are aware of that are put in terms of valuation is the group's absolute levels of net debt, noting that albeit the Board's tolerance and execution strategy hasn't changed, the market's appetite for net debt and leverage companies, particularly at the small cap end of the market, has shifted and we are cognizant of that. And the pleasing point in terms of future forecast and outlook is the free cash flow and net debt profile of the business starts to look materially different once we get beyond H1 '24 when we make those final contingent consideration payments that are sat within current liabilities. Further question. Yes, sorry, a question just coming up at about the same time. Do you think the debt positions hold back the valuation share price? So I guess, ultimately, a consistent feedback to us as a Board from the market is that the market's tolerance for net debt in the current climate has shifted. So we're still operating with the parameters the Board set out since pretty much IPO. But we acknowledge the market appetite for that has shifted, and we are cognizant of that. We're in a place whereby the contingent consideration structures were what they were and we took that decision to form that through debt rather than incur further dilution back in 2020 and 2021, and we're in a place where that concludes at the end of this financial year and the net debt profile of the business starts to look very different thereon. But we acknowledge the consistent theme in terms of what could be impacting the equity story is potentially the net debt levels -- or absolute net levels of the business, albeit within the Board's tolerance levels. I'll take this one as well and then I have a couple for the guys. Re ESG Services did not make a profit in the period despite doubling revenue. Yes. So the performance, both in terms of revenue and profitability, are breakeven effectively for the period, it's in line with expectation. But you'll note in line with upgraded expectations this time last year. So the division has been very much performed at the top end of management expectations at the start of 2022. That gave us the confidence to upgrade expectations and indicate that the division will start to contribute to profit this year. But ultimately why hasn't it in the period, because we've continued to invest in the group division. Having proved concept in 2020 and '21, we increased that investment going into 2022. The division performing at the higher end of our expectations during that period increased our expectations. I'm pleased to report they're performing in line with that increased expectation for the full year this year. Further question, which -- sorry, again, which are partly connected, but we'll come to this one first. Mark mentioned the private valuations versus public valuations. There's a disparity currently. Does this put you at a disadvantage in terms of M&A opportunities, but also make you a target? I'll let you take that one Mark.

Sure. So I mean, I guess, if you look at it, there's clearly -- it's public domain information, there's clearly an asymmetry between public market valuations and private capital valuations. I guess in terms of being a target, once you're in the public markets, you were sold at that point in time. So it's not down to us to try and sell the business again. What will happen with that situation is if you get to a stage where somebody sits there and decides there's better value off the capital markets, then that will be something that we'll deal with at the time as a Board of Directors, being cognizant of making sure that we have the best capital structure for the business and the best result for our investors. I guess, kind of ultimately when we start thinking about it in terms of our own M&A, clearly it has an impact on if we're in a competitive process for those businesses, all those targets that we may have. You'll note, to date, of our 21 acquisitions, I think only 3 or 4 have ever been in a competitive process. Our ability to sit there and source acquisitions at cost-effective multiples has been really strong. Because often we're buying capability, so we're often buying relatively subscale businesses. So to that end, if we were competing for a big platform business, absolutely, the current market situation would put us at a disadvantage. As it stands for us, because we've already done our work to diversify our business to create that double-digit organic growth platform, for us, now, M&A would be more about enhancing capability than wanting just to buy immediate scale because we can deliver a strong, what we'd consider normally a kind of top end of the range performance, especially given that we can see a credible pathway to doubling EBITDA organically over the next 5 years, there's not many businesses that achieve that.