The Timken Company (TKR) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Greetings, everyone. I'm Ross Gilardi. I'm the senior machinery analyst at Bank of America. Thanks for joining this next virtual session at our Global Industrials Conference with Timken. Timken has been a tried and true supporter of our conference over the years, and we always immensely appreciate catching up with Rich Kyle and Phil Fracassa from year-to-year. And this year, no exception. So Rich, I wanted to -- thanks again for joining, everybody. We've got President and CEO, Rich Kyle; and Director of IR, Neil Frohnapple, who you all know very well. We're just going to keep this as a straight Q&A. If anybody has any questions, just zip them through the system, and I will weave them into the discussion. But I think we're just going to get right into it.

So Rich, thanks again. I think a good place to start would just be right off the back. Like what do you -- what is the hook on the Timken investment case? And why should investor buy and hold the stock for the next 5 years?

Well, first, Ross, let me say good morning, and thank you as well, and good morning to everybody on the call. And that's a good question to start, and I can probably spend the whole 40 minutes just answering that one question. I think as you look at the management team and the business and the track record that we have delivered, I'll say, since coming out of the financial crisis of 2008, 2009. So 12 years, this year being probably the 13th. We have this business that has consistently delivered 16% to 19% EBITDA margins while generating solid cash flow and through every one of those years, a return on invested capital above our cost of capital. I think the first half of that roughly up to 2014, '15, we were not growing while we were doing that, we were doing some pruning, some fixing and spinning off of our steel business. But since that time, certainly in the last 6 years, we've still been doing it on the margin, still been doing it on the ROIC, the cash flow and we've been consistently growing the company. So you look back from the time that we spun the steel business, which I think we're in a much better position today. But even since then, we've increased the top line of the company based on this year's guidance, probably more than 50%. And again, on this year's guidance roughly doubled the earnings per share of the company. So one, we've been doing it. And then I think as you compare in, say, '14, '15 to '22 -- from '22 to '27 or '28, '22 to '14, we're in a much better starting position. The portfolio alone of the company, I think, is much better. It's -- internally it's stronger. We don't have some of the weak elements that we had back in that time frame. The management team has been focused on these products, markets growth for several years versus at that time, focused on spend and some fixing, et cetera. From the position we built in renewable energy to the position we built in automation, I think our portfolio is more aligned with secular growth markets. So I think the strength of our portfolio today is better than it was then. I think on top of that, you -- that period was not a particularly strong period for industrial markets. And again, I think, a credit to what we did. We delivered those results through tariffs. We delivered those results through pandemic. We delivered those results through the early innings of inflation and now on top of that war. So -- and some pretty weak industrial markets in a couple of those years in '15 and '16 as well. So I also think there's a per strong case to be made that industrial markets are likely to be stronger as you look out in the next 5 years than they were the last 5. And I also think as you look at -- our TSR has taken a hit here last year, 1.5 years. But if you'll get 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, those results that we've delivered are reflected in our TSR. And our long-term TSR has been pretty solid. And that's all really come -- all come through earnings growth, EBITDA growth, cash flow growth, not through any sort of multiple re-rating, and we still seem to be tagged on our multiple a little bit for the company we were versus the company we are. So I think as you look forward for the next 5 years, on the downside scenario, we continue to -- if we continue to be in a volatile industrial market without consistent growth in some of these things. We feel we can still deliver good results through that and we'll still be able to grow the earnings and the top line and I think more so than what we did before. So on the downside, you continue the performance that we've had. And on the upside, you believe in a better industrial -- better industrial market and then more self-help from us, which I think, again, certainly, I believe, on both of those. And then third point of that top that off, if you do both of those and get any sort of re-rating, I think it's a very compelling investment case. As I said, I can probably talk about that quite a bit longer, but I'll pause and see if you have any follow-ups there or want to go somewhere else?

No, that's great, Rich. I want to talk a little bit more about growth drivers. And we all can have our own views on cyclically what's happening and what's going to happen. But maybe you can talk a little bit more about the structural. Are there structural drivers to the investment case that we really should need to consider that the market may be missing, whether they're positive or negative that you can address or that you would call out?

Yes. Well, one, I do think, to your point, we could all estimate what's going to happen with some of the cyclicality of some of our markets. But I do think some of our historical positions we're probably written off a little prematurely. And quite frankly, some of those are really good markets to be in right now, the bearing industry for oil and gas some of the markets that, again, have taken some hits. But I think we're -- on that point, we're a little unique in the energy space and that we participate in really across all spectrums. And certainly, renewable energy or wind energy has more bearing content than natural gas, but there's an element that we participate in all of that. So coming back to your question, though, I think certainly, renewable energy story is a secular growth story. First, for our space. When you think about what's inside a wind turbine and where the technology exists, bearings and other mechanical power transmission drive parts, huge amount of content per megawatt hour of power generated. Reliability, absolutely critical. A lot of innovation happening in the space, fairly concentrated supplier base for these challenging applications. So I mean this is something that we've taken from to 0% to 12%, 13% of the company in a relatively short time frame. And I think everything that's happening while again, oil and gas has got a resurgence right now. Certainly, I think everything that's happened in the world for the last 4 or 5 years will only strengthen the bullish case for capital investment going into that space. And so I think that's been a real game-changer. It's one of the things as you look at the cyclicality of the business, why we performed better in the big part why we performed better in the pandemic than The Timken Company in 2014 or 2010 would have been and many of our peers is we grew that business sizably through a pandemic in the middle of a pandemic, and it was a big enough part of the company at that point that mattered and offset a lot of other cyclical markets that's happening. I think the other one that's clearly out there is automation. A lot of elements of that, the traditional robotics part of that, we were a pretty small player in that, there's some -- maybe some possibilities that we could expand our scale in that. Inorganically, we'll see how that plays out. But there's a lot of other places where we are players. Our Rollon business has got a really strong position in automatic warehouse systems. Our bearing business is in a lot of different elements of -- from packaging automation to factory automation. So the automation play, again, I think the -- is also there. It's not -- for where we participate at this point, what we have is probably not quite the same scale from a direct standpoint. Then the other one is automatic lubrication systems, which -- while they go into a lot of different end markets, what's driving the secular growth of that is not necessarily construction equipment or food and beverage equipment. It's really the automation of food and beverage equipment and the automation of construction equipment. So I think that's another one for us as well. And again, I think as you look at the portfolio, we've scaled those positions, and I think you'll see us scale a couple of other ones that -- the other one that we've been working on for a few years is food and beverage, high-growth market, but a steadier growth market than a lot of what we participate in. A lot of rotating parts, a lot of regulations, a lot of strong preferences and we've done some things there, both organically and inorganically. And that would be the third one. I think you'll see scale for the Timken Company in the next few years.

All right. That's great, Rich. Clearly, the company has done a ton of work over the last decade on its -- on the mix and reposition the business in so many different adjacencies and end markets that you previously didn't participate in. What else? I mean what have you -- what about your cost structure? What else have you done competitively and just how you're really running the business relative to the past that positions you for stronger performance going forward. And is there anything in the current environment right now that causes you to think differently or approach things differently than you have in the past?

I think one of the other big ones that separates us from, I'll say, the global bearing industry is exactly what you just said, our focus on these markets and our nicheness in automotive and on-highway vehicles. So trucks and cars make the biggest bearing market in the world. It's a place we're very niche in. We're very selective where we play. Where we play, we're good, and we're valued by our customers. But it's not a place that we have been expanding inorganically and even organically, we're really focused very much on where we play in the next-generation of equipment. But that really makes a big difference for us where we are focused on industrial markets from how we run our plants to how we run our distributor network to what we do with M&A. It really does set us apart because in a market like today where supply chains are stressed, we are far from perfect. But I believe we're the best bearing industry -- best bearing player in the world of scale at responding to these industrial markets. I think our top line shows that. And part of the reason for that is that we're not tied to the automotive industry. And we're more nimble, we're faster, and we're more focused on a broad range of SKUs and low medium and high volume versus the high volume within auto -- automotive. So I think that's a big difference in how we run the company. In '17 and '18 when industrial markets took off, very confident that we were responding better to that. And that is an opportunity in the industrial markets to take market share. As you know, Ross, market share in our space because it's an engineered product. There's testing requirements, there's specifications. There's a strong desire. If you take a Timken bearing off in the aftermarket that put Timken bearing back on. But if Timken is not available, that's when somebody will look at other things, and we're very confident in '17, '18, our business model, our operational excellence helped us capture one, a disproportionate share of the aftermarket and in some cases, OEM applications as well. It's too early to tell how we're doing. I think that we really have to see the market through. And we certainly have more problems in this upmarket than we did in -- of our own in '17 and '18 from the supply chain challenges. But I think we're going to come out of this one on top as well.

So you touched on auto a bit, Rich. And clearly, Timken has reduced its auto exposure dramatically over the last 10 years. But it still is an important market somewhat for Timken. I think,, correct me if I'm wrong, the primary exposures you have are still to the German luxury car market and the light -- U.S. light truck market. Both of these markets are clearly -- seem to be transitioning sharply towards electric vehicles already and certainly at an accelerating pace in the next couple of years. Ford F-150 Lightning is -- will be the hottest selling truck in decades. And what does that mean for Timken, specifically on the transition to electric vehicles?

Well, first, I'd say it is a market where your -- it's an OEM market, platform-specific, almost always sole-sourced, designed in. So you know if -- if you have the product, if you're on the Ford F-150 and the Ford F-150 is winning, you're winning and you're not on the Silverado and that's winning your lose. So it is a -- it's one of the markets where you can certainly forecast that out for several years better than you can where we get into a lot of the fragmentation and it's harder to estimate these things. As we would look at the automotive industry for the next -- OEM industry for the next design cycle, probably look at it for us for about a net neutral. And I would say -- and it somewhat depends on what you believe if light trucks and luxury vehicles are going to continue to win in the market. So first, to your point, that's where we -- that's generally where we participate. Certainly in the United States, light truck has been the place to be for the last several years, still the place to be $4 gas, $5 gas. Will that change that? Historically, it has made some shifts there. And then luxury vehicles, both Europe and the U.S. is also, I'd say, after truck's been the good place to be. So we've been in the right markets. From an electrification standpoint, we're generally not in transmissions, and we have no content in engines. We have a little bit in transmission. So the things that are getting designed out with electrification, we don't participate in. There is bearing content in there. We divested our -- that part of our business several years ago. So we're in wheel-ends and we're in axles. In general, the electrification trends for that for us is actually a good thing as the low with battery weight, et cetera, actually makes it a little more demanding application. But we have a pretty good line of sight to what we're going to be on in the next few years, what we're not going to be on. It's not going to be the growth engine of the company, but it's -- we're going to do just fine in it as well. And if you look 20 years out, electrification, you may get into changing the axle design and the wheel ends as well. And we'll see when we get to that. But right now, we're participating in the hybrid designs, we're participating in the electric designs.

And remind everyone in terms of the -- your pickup truck exposure, what models are your bigger customer?

Our big one would be the Ford F-150, and we're on the electric version of that as well. And the content per vehicle is not materially different for us.

Okay. That's great. I'd love to get your perspective just on supply chain in general, Rich. I mean you serve so many different industries and you've got a window across the whole industrial economy here. I mean is it likely to get worse before it gets better at this point? And any -- or conversely, just any glimmers of hope you're seeing from the supply chain side. Obviously, demand is still very strong, but I'd love to get your thoughts on it.

Yes. So maybe I'll up to date -- I'll give you an up to date answer to that question from where I was 6 or 7 weeks ago when we had the earnings call, maybe start first with the inflation side. Even in our guide, we came in assuming our cost for the full year would level off from the high point of the fourth quarter last year. So up full year and up year-on-year significantly in the first quarter. Through today, we saw some relief in some areas, some increase in some areas. I would think, no, that's probably playing out as we saw up till now. And I think prior to the Russia-Ukraine situation would have probably had a pretty high [indiscernible]. That looks like a really good assumption. We'll talk a little bit more about that and what the potential impacts of that are on the inflation side. Some of the supply chain side, came into the year, we had Omicron still in the U.S. and other parts of the world, we saw some pretty high absenteeisms, supply chain delays, chip shortages, et cetera. We had, I'll say, a gradual improvement in that baked into our guide. I think, again, up to the uncertainty now -- we haven't really had any supply disruptions with the exception of Russia itself on the Russia-Ukraine situation. But the uncertainty around that, up to that, I was said there were glimmers of hope certainly from a pandemic itself. I would tell you, our plants, we still have some issues with absenteeism. We still have a lot of employees with coronavirus or family members with coronavirus in Germany and some other places of the world. But it is the best it's been probably in 2 years as we sit here today, our plants, I think, are running better today than they have in 2 years. They're not running as well as they should be. You still have delays of parts and customer demand is a little choppier, but improved. So I think you'll see that in our results for the quarter, and I think it was trending in the right direction. So now flip to Russia and Ukraine. The direct impact of that for us, about 1% of sales headed to 0%. So that's why it's not great, losing 1% in a market that's been as strong as this. That can be obviously more than offset. We own no manufacturing operations in Russia or Ukraine. We have an investment in a joint venture there, which is also shutting down and that's in the 1% of sales. So for us, the direct impact of Russia is pretty small. But I think the -- we just got to wait and see of the entanglements that our customers and supply chains have with Russia and Ukraine. There is -- for example, there's a large bearing plant in Ukraine, that's been shut down for a couple of weeks for one of our competitors zones. So there is -- I think it's too early to say what the indirect effect of that is going to be. In the short term, we see no -- besides to getting the Russia sales decline, we see no decline. Order input is very strong. Backlog's grown since the end of the year further. And if anything, we're seeing more demand from customers to secure supply, make sure they've got the bearing supply, but they also have to have steel supply. They have to have all their other supply, and we'll see what the ramifications are of that as things go forward.

Okay. So let's just -- we can come back to that. So there's a lot of great detail in there. Can you just remind us what you're assuming in your guidance on sort of supply chain issues and price cost? And is -- I think like a lot of companies, there's an assumption that things gradually get less bad or better, how we want to phrase it in the second half from the standpoint of your ability to produce and match the pricing and whatnot? I think -- is that -- hopefully, that's correct what I just outlined. But is that still realistic, do you think given what's going on?

Today, it's still realistic. I think there's more uncertainty around it, but there was uncertainty around it 2 months ago as well just for different reasons. So I think the only thing I would say, you said everything right with the exception of we did -- 2 parts to the cost side: Inflation and I'll say, supply chain inefficiencies of plant absenteeism, not having the right part to the right place and time, causing productivity issues or premium shipments, et cetera. We didn't really assume any improvement in inflation for the full year. We basically assumed the cost that we ended the year with last year would hold and we have seen some things come down. We've seen some of the things go up, particularly since the Russia situation. But I think that could still be a good assumption. But it's too early to tell, I think, with the Russia-Ukraine situation. It certainly played out that way through January and February, probably a little favorable to that. And then on the cost side, on the [indiscernible] efficiency side, we have some gradual improvement coming through the year. And as I said earlier, we got off to a good start with that. And I think as you sit here today, we're well on track for that to happen. So -- and then the third part of your question, I think, was price cost. We said we expected to get at least 4% price for the full year. With a lot of our contracts being on a calendar basis, we had the opportunity to step some of those up January 1. Again, through February actual, we're on track for that. And we're also on track for what we put in quite in our guidance, which would be a really nice step up for margins from the fourth quarter to the first quarter of this year. And with 10 days left in March, we see that happen. So we're in a good position for that.

Do you think there's room for more pricing? And do you think you may need to raise prices again if your cost outlook, as you outlined before, holds? Or have what you announced thus far kind of get you where you need to be?

Well, I think it depends on what the costs are to some degree because I think there is an expectation. And that if your cost issues are due to you're running 15% absenteeism for a month in your German plant, there is an expectation that you work your way through that and not pass that on per se to customers if it's steel costs going up, if its nickel cost going up, if it's freight costs going up, the answer to that would be yes. We would look to pass more of that through some pricing. And as I said on the call, we -- 4% is what we see as a minimum -- and I think whether 4% gets up to 5% or higher probably depends on what happens with that part of the cost side, I think, there'd be some limitations to that, just like they were last year. I don't think 4% is going to become 8%. So -- but we do have the ability to do price more in parts of the portfolio than others. And we have -- we've also done more with this last contract negotiations to make sure we have more ability to move things in our contract or shorten the contract if need be, due to the level of uncertainty. So I think we're in a good position to respond to that. And I guess I would also just say, I think I said this on a call, I said it for a while, and while we haven't gone off to a good start, I think modest to medium inflation, I think, in total is probably going to be a good thing for the Timken Company. I think we will recover those costs and pass those through to the market, and it generally means there's good demand for the commodities and steel that goes into what we make as well as what our customers make and buy. And we got off to a rough start with the second half of last year with it. But I think overall it's an environment that we can successfully navigate.

So with your distributor of customers, Rich, I mean, historically, you've had more pricing power there and your mechanisms have allowed you to adjust, I think, a bit more quickly. But I don't know, I guess my observation on the outside is you clearly seem to approach that very delicately. I mean just given all the cost inflation that's out there right now, why not try to get ahead of it even more proactively before waiting for -- not that you're waiting for anything, but for experiencing another round of cost inflation. I mean as you explained it earlier, the switching costs in the short term and all the things around product design and so forth, there's a lot of things that need to happen for end customers to switch suppliers and so forth. So why -- I mean you clearly handle pricing as most companies do very delicately, but why not be even more aggressive right now? Would have been -- are you worried that you lose market share if you did that?

Well, I'll probably take a little bit of exception to the word delicate, maybe thoughtful would be a better word from my perspective. And I also think if we raise prices today with our distributor network without [indiscernible] they kind of raise prices to their customers. Otherwise, they're getting pinched on the cost side, right? So we typically give some heads up that we're going to raise prices in 60 days or 90 days and the magnitude of it. And our distributors are our sales service arm to the fragmented aftermarket as well as the smaller OEM customer base. So -- and then I would also say that part of our channel is not where we are behind on price cost. So we have raised price enough that our margins in that space were not suffering. They may have suffered a little bit last year again because the time lag. So yes -- so I think your criticism, I think for fatigue is probably fair from a timing standpoint, I wouldn't say magnitude. So we raised prices for the most -- in most parts of the world last year in distribution twice. And one of them being late in the year that really wasn't evident in last year's results, but will yet be evident in the first quarter results this year. And I think our we've covered our cost in that space. It's -- we're getting pinched in other parts of the market.

Maybe talk a little bit about distributor inventories and just related to your reply there. I mean have you seen any sort of elasticity of demand yet, like you're seeing any impact or softening of demand as a result of the price increases that you put into the market thus far.

None whatsoever, particularly on the distribution side. I would say distributor inventory continues to be lower than they would desire in our ability. As I said earlier, our ability to respond to that to have that distributor flush with our products such that they're able to take care of our customers. It's a big priority for us. We -- I think, we still would like to get more inventory into the channel. We're -- and I think we're going to make some good progress on that in the first quarter of this year. So I think I would say that goes beyond distributors, inventory in total even OEM service channels, they're really looking to build some inventory in those places as well. I would say OEMs, not so much. It's more of a -- as you know, more of a just-in-time fairly short lead time model. But I think inventory is looking to be built, and there has been no slowdown in demand from the distribution side thing continuing to gain momentum, which would be typical, a little later cycle for us. And then I'd say the same thing on the OEM side. Demand through 2.5 months is very strong.

Got it. Okay. I want to shift a little bit more to your steel needs. And maybe you could just talk to us and remind us how your steel buy works and how the contracts work there. What's happening in SBQ specifically, which is sort of hard to follow from the outside. And how the production disruptions from auto softened up the SBQ market at all.

So last answer -- I'll take the last question first. The answer I would say is no, that the weakness in automotive, it's been up and down last year. There's still a strong SBQ market, if you will, pricing and we're seeing the same thing this year. So we use 2 different mechanisms. We use a different mechanism in the U.S. with a surcharge pass-through from them to us than we do in the rest of the world where the surcharge just gets embedded and we do typically quarterly or semiannual purchases. But in either case, essentially, our cost is getting trued up on a quarterly basis, if you will. So that peaked in -- I don't remember which month October, November of last year, it came down a little bit, came down a little bit -- came down little further, again jump back up with -- and just in the last couple of weeks. And is that just a fear factor, [indiscernible] really and wouldn't play a big role typically in scrap markets around the world, but they are obviously a sizable producer of steel. So again, I think that's an uncertainty out there. And then I think the other uncertainty is alloys, right? I mean you see nickel skyrocket and all these alloys go into making SBQ and some element as well. And that -- there's some inflationary risk there, although I think nickel is up and falling quite quickly. So I think it remains to be seen where some of that stabilizes out. For us, it has been a, say, cost issue, not a supply issue. So certainly there's been some tightness of supply, but we have been able to procure it up SBQ. We've been able to -- that has not been a limiting factor for us. And I think we had a reasonably conservative assumption baked into both our price cost assumption this year. And at this point, there's nothing that we've seen that would say we're at risk for that. But if it takes another step up in the scrap indexes, bundle or other indexes out there is a pretty good barometer for exit tends to be a global market. And if that goes from $700 up to $800 or $900, then we'd see some short-term pressure there, it drops back down to $550 then be a little more probably normal. So we'll have to see what happens here over the next few weeks. But I would say that, again, the first quarter is going to be pretty much what we expected.

All right. We've only got 5 minutes left, and I have a few things I just want to make sure we cover. Can you just talk quickly about the wind bearing business in a $100 barrel oil environment? And you've had some phenomenal growth there over the last few years. We've seen some slowdown this year, sort of like beyond 2022, if you could comment on that and how to think about that end market? And then just want to make sure we cover -- get some of your latest thoughts on capital allocation. You get these perpetual kind of questions on how you think about buybacks versus M&A. You've done both in the past. But right now, your stock is trading at a multiple, I think, towards the low end of history, and you tended to acquire at multiples higher than that. Does the valuation of the stock kind of influence your latest thoughts on buybacks versus acquisitions? And how do you factor return on invested capital into your capital allocation thought process? Sorry, a lot of stuff there, but -- to touch on in 5 minutes, but if we could -- the best you can.

Yes. Let me take the second one first, then the -- as we look at the buyback, look, we have been relatively modest capital allocation size debt pay down in the last 2 years, a couple of small acquisitions offset dilution on buyback. Definitely expect us to be more active in the next couple of years. We've moved from going into the pandemic on the higher end of our debt range to the lower end, and we've grown the cash flows. And so I think capital allocation will be a bigger part of the value creation in '22 and '23 than it was in 2021. I think the multiple does play a factor. And certainly, the buyback is attractive, also was attractive at $85, more attractive at $63. And I think it does play a role. But I also would say it would not preclude us from making an acquisition at 3 or 4x more than that multiple. And I think the company has the capability to do both. And I think we've definitely created value through the acquisitions that we've done. We've worked those multiples down in a relatively short time frame, either through cost synergies and/or growth. So I think both need to be a part of the go-forward plan, and I fully expect both of them to be a part of the go-forward plan. Again, to my comments on the call, do we have a bias to M&A as we sit here today? I don't know that we have enough M&A in the next 2 years to consume all that. So I think, again, the whitelist scenarios that you see us do in both. Return on invested capital is a very important metric to us. It's one that does a -- it's 1 of the 3 elements of our long-term incentive plan, and it's one that we drive a lot of our business decisions on. So I'll just leave that part of that. And then on wind and solar, we're looking at -- we guided to a flattish year this year. We'll see how the second half develops. We'll provide some more insight on that in the first quarter call. But whether it's flat this year or up 10% this year, I think that we remain very bullish, everything that's happened in the world in the last month, in the last few years, again, more capital is going to go into that market. We are very well positioned to participate in both, and we're going to continue to invest capital to serve that market and put technology dollars into it to make it a more efficient, more reliable energy source and more competitive with fossil fuels. And all that being said, we're going to continue to, in the meantime, serve the fossil fuel market as well. And they both are going to have a place in the market for quite a long time. But we see the renewables as a -- again, a secular game changer for the bearing industry and in particular, for the Timken Company. And we've got a lot of R&D dollars and capital dollars going into that, and I think it's going to be pretty exciting in the next few years.

On that, Rich, though, just to close. I mean do you have enough visibility to say with confidence that you necessarily see an acceleration in '23 in the wind business? I mean clearly, when you say long term, I'm thinking 3 to 4 years. I would think that the kind of the medium term is probably the hardest to call. But do you think this period where you've kind of flattened out sort of persists for more like 12 to 18 months? Or is it just hard to say?

It's -- the answer would be I don't have visibility to it. So it would be a forecast. My forecast is it will be a short flatten and it will be back to growth by the end of this year.

Okay. All right. Very good. We're about out of time. Rich, Neil, thanks so much for the rundown and the discussion. Everybody, thanks for joining this session. I hope the rest of your days are productive and have a good one. If anyone seem to have follow-up questions, feel free to shoot me an e-mail. But thank you for joining.

Thank you, Ross.

Thank you, Ross. Appreciate it.

Yes. Thank you. Bye.