Let's do it. All right. Good morning, everyone. Thanks so much for being here. First fireside of the day, so you guys all get brownie points and as much coffee as you want for being here. For anyone that I haven't met yet, my name is Eve Burstein. I cover U.S. Life Science Tools and Diagnostics here at Bernstein. No relation. It's Bernstein. I promise. Not nepotism. It's my pleasure to have Bio-Rad's CFO, Roop Lakkaraju, with us here today. Roop, you joined Bio-Rad in April 2024 from Benchmark Electronics, where you served as Executive Vice President and CFO since 2018. Roop, I know this is not your first conference this month.
Yes.
Thank you for being here.
Of course.
And we're going to skew a little bit more long-term, a little bit more-
Great
strategic. Hopefully touch on some topics that you don't always get to cover in these conversations.
Fantastic.
And I certainly have my list of things that I want to ask, but want to make sure that we cover things that are interesting to you guys as well. The Slido account is open. If you have questions, please throw them on there and we'll make sure to ask them. All right. Let's jump in. This is a really interesting time for Bio-Rad. There's a lot of change both outside of the company in the end markets and life science tools in general, and then within the company as well. You've got a lot of the management team that's-
Yep.
quite new over the last three years. What does this new team bring to the table, and where are you focusing at this time?
First of all, Eve Burstein, thanks for having us here at the conference. We appreciate the opportunity to chat with you and all of you in the audience. We've got a relatively new executive team that's come on board within the last 2-3 years. Norman Schwartz, who's been CEO for a bit of a time really brought this new team on board, and when you look at the pedigree of this team that we have today, they come from what I would say, we are operators. We come from environments where we've seen what good looks like, and we understand the work it takes to evolve a company, if you will, especially in today's challenging markets.
You alluded to the end markets being challenging and these sort of things, and they definitely are, and that has an impact on our business, whether it's on the tools side or the diagnostics side. For us as a team, we really have been focused on understanding the business from the ground up. What is our portfolio? Where do we have a right to win? How do we do more where we have a right to win? Where we don't have a right to win, how do we need to evolve our portfolio and our technology? If we can't, then what do we need to do?
How do we look at M&A as a supplement to helping us get to market growth rates, which we've not consistently done from a historical standpoint, but also then expanding the margins for us and driving further free cash flow generation. All of these things are outputs, if you will, from a financial standpoint, but it really is dependent on what's your strategy, what markets are you going after, and what technology and unique differentiation do you have within the marketplace, because you have a right to win and therefore you can drive growth.
Makes sense. We're going to talk about your technology in a minute, but let's stay on sort of this corporate governance topic first. I'm sorry to have question number 2 actually be about another company that's not you, but Bio-Rad has a meaningful stake in Sartorius.
Yes.
I'm not going to ask you about tax which is usually what comes up when you get that question.
Yeah.
Let's talk strategy-
Yeah.
since you're using that. Why was this stake originally established, and what was the strategic rationale for Bio-Rad to use its money in this way?
Yeah, from a CFO perspective, having that sort of investment on our balance sheet is nice to have, if you will, right? It's been a fantastic investment, and the investment really started in the late 1990s into the 2000s. I wasn't here at the time in terms of what was the rationale for that investment. But when you think about Sartorius from a historical standpoint, it's a tools company, and that's where it started, if you will. They obviously in the 2010s bought Stedim, which is bioprocessing capability, which really then propelled them into being a market leader in bioprocessing. Today they're really thought of as a bioprocessing company.
When you look at where that investment stake is for us, at the end of the day, one question I get quite often is, "Oh, are you looking to buy Sartorius?" and these sort of things. I think that's one thing historically that the company maybe didn't articulate as well as it needed to be articulated. When you look at Sartorius, very successful company. They had a capital markets day earlier this year. They have really strong plans in terms of driving growth as well as margin expansion themselves, and ultimately further shareholder value creation. From our standpoint, as we look at Sartorius, it is a monetizable asset. We're not interested or we don't have the ability to go acquire Sartorius.
At the end of the day, for everything that I just started out with my opening comments, we have a lot of work to do for ourselves with a focus on Bio-Rad and what we need to improve as Bio-Rad, let alone worrying about Sartorius as an investment stake. It'll continue to be a monetizable asset and investment on our balance sheet. If there's a strategic reason to utilize that, it's at our discretion to do so. Otherwise, we're going to stay focused on driving top-line growth within Bio-Rad and margin expansion within Bio-Rad, as well as further improvement in free cash flow.
Makes sense. All right. Now let's talk about Bio-Rad.
Okay.
Let's talk about your technology and where you may have a real right to win. We'll start with Droplet Digital PCR. Here, y our technology is really recognized for its high level of precision. I would say that competitors are sometimes recognized for their faster run times. What are the use cases where a customer is optimizing for precision? What are the use cases where they're optimizing for run time? Then going forward, how do you see the field and that potential tension evolving?
Yep. First of all, we arguably helped create digital PCR within the marketplace and have been a market leader since the 2010s to the current date. When you look at our technology, it is Droplet Digital PCR. There's other technology in the marketplace that is plate technology, and therefore it's a little bit different. Our unique approach from a droplet digital standpoint allows us to get a magnitude of concentrated wells to be able to get the results in a more focused way, if you will. Really, at the end of the day, digital PCR gives you or it enables you to get absolute quantitation. Where do you want absolute quantitation? You want it in situations where in oncology areas, in minimal residual disease areas, wastewater management areas. These are the kinds of areas that digital PCR has tremendous applicability.
Really, at the end of the day, if I simplify all of it's about rare event detection. That's where you use digital PCR. When you look at our technology, there's a few different aspects beyond it being droplet digital differentiation. What we also have is the largest assay library of anyone. When you talk about having a moat around an area and a right to win, it's these cumulative areas that we have. One, droplet digital, in of itself, that's a technology. Number two, our assay library, which is over 400,000 assays. Why that's important is it gives you the opportunity to apply the technology in more areas. Because of that, we also have the greatest amount of technical publications written using our digital PCR area. We have over 12,000 technical publications. That, again, is a significant leadership position versus anybody else in the marketplace.
This is why we are so excited about Droplet Digital PCR, and the opportunity for us as a growth driver as we move forward.
It makes sense. You mentioned things like MRD, for example. I think today people think about MRD as an NGS area. When we talk to experts, some suggest that in the very long term, as the cost of NGS continues to come down, it will not only potentially prevent PCR from moving into historically NGS areas, but it could also then start to encroach on those historically PCR areas.
Yeah.
How do you think about that?
Yeah. The cost of NGS and the timeliness to result within NGS or sequencing technology is improving. However, I think we're going to be hard pressed to say it's going to be a displacement. Really, they are complementary areas. If you think about sequencing technology, it's about identifying what it is you're looking at. Then you use PCR technology or digital PCR for either absolute quantitation or approximate quantitation, so they really are complementary areas. I think, depending upon how very long term you look at things, yeah, sure, maybe the cost of it and the time to result is going to improve. But I think it's hard pressed to look at what you have to spend for a digital PCR instrument and say it's going to displace NGS broadly.
When I walk into customers and research organization, what you see is numerous technology capabilities in that research lab, right? You will see real-time PCR. You'll see qPCR. You'll see digital PCR. You may see sequencing, depending upon what they do. So all of these are complementary areas and used for specific application purposes versus displacement, if you will.
You talked about the work that the executive team is doing, really looking at where you have the right to win. Then going out and winning more. What does that look like for you in digital PCR? If you've got the right to win, what are the priorities? What is it that you're working on in this business?
I think it's important to recognize that even though we arguably created the digital PCR area, over the course of the early 2020s, the market shifted, and we started out in the mid to high end of digital PCR in terms of use cases and technology use. As the market evolved, and especially as budgetary challenges emerged in the 2020s, you saw the price point that the instruments needed to be at from an entry level really come down quite considerably. Unfortunately, because we were in the mid to high, we didn't have that entry-level instrument. This is why we went out and did the Stilla acquisition, which closed on June 30th of last year. It's also Droplet Digital technology, and therefore, there's a lot of synergy and R&D leverage from that standpoint. It's a very modular, highly efficient architecture.
It was a perfect complement to our existing legacy instruments that we had from a digital PCR standpoint. When we look at the portfolio we have, we have the broadest portfolio in digital PCR of anyone, all the way from high throughput to that entry-level instrument. Depending upon what that application use case is, we're able to support those customers along that continuum, if you will. The other part of it then is having this assay library as large as it is and have as much applicability across different applications really gives us that further moat, if you will, right? Then, of course, the validation through technical publications.
All of that further reinforces our market leadership position, and therefore, when we go to have these conversations with customers, what you're really supporting them with is not just, here's a highly efficient, effective instrument, but what you also have is this assay library and validation from a technical publication standpoint. We look at digital PCR as a critical area, not just for the tools area, but potentially into the diagnostics area.
To date, what we've done from a digital PCR in diagnostics is actually utilized partnerships. We have partnerships with folks like Biodesix or Gencove, Insight Molecular, wherein they took our digital PCR technology and have applied it specifically in diagnostics applications. What they've shown is the validation that the digital PCR is a critical component of their solution and therefore reinforce that diagnostics capability and applicability. I think as we think about it long term, there's an opportunity for us to move digital PCR into diagnostics applications. That's part of how we create the next generation solutions where we can create a right to win and help support that top-line growth. These are the kinds of things that we're doing, which then accelerate that margin expansion.
Great. All right. Let's talk a little bit about the end markets, because however good your technology is and-
Right.
whatever you're doing execution-wise, to some extent you are at the mercy of the end markets. So, a couple of questions about specific ones. In Q2, you said that later stage and commercial stage biotech customers were showing improvement, but early-stage biotech wasn't really. That's in contrast to some peers that did highlight some improvement in spending in early-stage biotech in the preclinical area. Is there something about your exposure or customer base that's different that might make recovery take a little bit longer to show up? Or do you think maybe not such a big difference, potentially more of a communication difference in how you talk about the end markets?
I wish it was a communication difference, quite honestly. It's always interesting to see how your technology is affected by the end markets and the situation. For us, when we look at our tools business, there's a considerable amount of our tools business that's on the A&G side. Then there's a large portion of it that is in the broader biopharma. Where we've skewed historically on biopharma purposefully coming out of the COVID period is that discovery stage, that early kind of stage company, especially in areas like cell and gene therapy. For any of us who've been around, even though I'm relatively new in the industry, cell and gene therapy is not what it was, if you will, from a research standpoint. It's still important, but the amount of demand and activity is not there.
Because of our skewing from an overall market positioning standpoint, we find ourselves in a place where the money, yeah, there's some money there, but it's not the kind of money that's flowing into later-stage companies or those closer to the commercial realization. So one of the things for us to evaluate is there an opportunity or the ability to pivot into those later stage where the money is flowing? The challenge is you have to displace an existing company there or competitor, right? That's not an easy thing to do, especially if they've already been involved in clinical-stage activity. So if someone were to change out technology, you start from scratch again. So that's a challenge.
So we're really thinking about, okay, if the money is really going to be concentrated in other areas of the marketplace, how do we start to play there? What do we need to do? These are the kinds of conversations we're having from a commercial standpoint.
Can I ask you, how do you start to play there? What do you need to do?
Well, I think this is where because we have that right to win and the capabilities of our technology, you make a value pitch to the customers. Maybe you don't displace a competitor in existing clinical-stage work, but if there's an opportunity for us to supplement new programs that they may be kicking off, and therefore they can utilize our technology, that's an opportunity. So that's maybe a way to try and do that. We're not going to displace those that are already in clinical activity, but how do we get ourselves placed for new activity as they evolve.
Yeah, it's a long road.
It potentially can be. Obviously, I think the easy answer is if more money starts to flow into those discovery areas. As I'm sure you're going to touch on this, Eve, in a moment, you just look at the volatility in the market still. There's money flowing, yes, but it's not uniform in terms of where it's flowing or month-to-month how much is flowing. This is what not just us and Bio-Rad, but us broadly within the tools and diagnostics market space are dealing with.
One place where we are seeing quite a bit of volatility is in academic and government end market. Well, I say quite a bit of volatility. I'd say generally low levels, but there have been some encouraging signs. For example, NIH funding and-
Yeah.
distributions have been up. What is your base case of what happens in the academic and government end market? For example, do you think some of those improvements that we have seen in the NIH are real changes in the way that they are operating? Are they the beginning of the trend? Or are they just kind of random noise? Do you think midterm elections have any impact? How do you see that end market playing out?
Maybe I will start with the, excuse me, the latter. I do not know that I would expect to see midterm elections really having an effect on NIH spend. It is interesting because we talk about A&G. A&G, there is the U.S. considerations of A&G. Right? With NIH and these sort of things. Europe has its own talk track, APAC, and then China all have. I can walk through that just a little bit. As we think about base case for A&G, when we look at the strength we have had in our instrument placement and sales over the course of last three quarters, a lot of that is the QX700 series products, which is the newer products t hat we acquired through Stilla.
That is A&G. A lot of that is in the A&G space. What you are seeing is even though it is a soft market on a global basis in A&G, customers are buying our technology in a soft market. They are not buying the instruments to be paperweights within their research labs, right? The intent is to do activity, to do research. That gives us confidence that it is a matter of time, and the time is really about the sentiment. Are they going to have confidence that when they are going to be given money or when they are supposed to be given money that they will actually get the money?
I think the biggest thing I hear when I speak to our customers or from our commercial teams as they do pulse surveys that we have completed on a regular basis by our commercial teams to us, it is really about the sentiment. It is not yet feeling confident that the money that they are supposed to get, they are going to get. That is very much a U.S. kind of point, if you will, to be made there. Now, the other part of this is NIH and how the government now is deploying the money is different, right?
They are prioritizing multi-year grants versus what they had done previously. None of that was communicated effectively. I think these research institutions are really trying to figure out, okay, how is this going to work? Is this how it is going to continue to be? How do we need to adapt to this world? Therefore, until they figure that out, I think they are still going to be cautious within that time frame. Now, interestingly enough, for the 2026 NIH budget, I think the White House is looking for further cuts.
Congress is obviously pushing back and saying at a minimum, we want it to be flat. Flat would be nice, right? No doubt about that. Ideally, it would be up slightly. So I think there is still a lot to be played out in the U.S. As we think about areas like Europe, Europe is a little bit of a different conversation because the European institutions, the government funding is moving into other industries, right? Whether that is defense or energy, these sort of areas. You are seeing a further deterioration in available funding in those environments.
APAC actually has been positive for us. Nordics and APAC, ex-China, I will say. Think about that as Japan, Korea, Australia, et cetera. In China, I think it is still yet to be determined exactly how things are, and part of that is China for China. Part of it is the government looking for potential further reductions in healthcare costs for the people. I think that is going to continue to evolve. Now, for us within China, China is a mid-single digit kind of revenue environment for us, so it is not that significant and a little bit more skewing towards diagnostics versus tools. Each has a dynamic in of itself, right?
On the tools side, you have a lot of China for China. On the diagnostics side, you have challenges like rate reimbursement changes and these sort of things. We were affected by that in our diabetes products in 2024 and into 2025. It is a complex environment out there whether it is on the A&G side or the biopharma side.
Yeah. You talked about a couple of potentially promising things in A&G but not all that many. If we do not see improved confidence in the U.S., for example, if we do not see a change in how funding is flowing in Europe, w here does growth for Bio-Rad kind of cap out?
Well, I think there's an aspect of maybe the funding isn't as strong, but research still needs to continue. Right? We have to have healthcare research for all the different reasons. Now it becomes where there's going to be opportunities to find new revenue streams, how do we win in those situations? I think this is where the technology, the differentiation, and where this concept of a right to win come into play even more so, right? Because it's that much more of a competitive situation. This is why the strength of your portfolio is so important. That's why we are very much focused on evolving our portfolio so that we have many more areas of a right to win that can help drive towards that market growth rate, and really drive or accelerate that margin expansion.
I want to talk about some of the ways that you're evolving your portfolio. I want to talk about R&D both internal and external. But reminder to everyone in the room, if you guys have questions, throw them into Slido and happy to ask them as well. Otherwise, I'm going to keep going. Let's start with external R&D. You've had some issues with acquisitions recently. You've had impairments of Dropworks, of Curiosity Diagnostics. What went wrong? Was it picking the wrong targets? Was it integration once you got them in the company? What have the learnings been? How do you change going forward?
Yeah, Eve, I think you're being nice in terms of your comments on our M&A efficacy prior to the Stilla acquisition, which is just last year. I think if we tease it apart, Bio-Rad, from a historical standpoint, has always used inorganic activity to help acquire differentiated technology that then drove growth. We've got tremendous M&A activity that's been successful in the past. If we look at what we've done, let's say 2024 and before for the prior 8- 10 years, the company pivoted to early stage companies, early stage technology acquisitions. What you had is a challenge of, okay, we have to help develop this technology and productize it, and then we have to commercialize it and drive commercial success.
Those acquisitions during that 8- 10-year period, because they were so early stage, really the level of technology and understanding of it maybe wasn't as strong. Now, with all that said, we're talking biologics, and there's no guaranteed kind of result, if you will, on how things might interact or react. This is why we've pivoted over the last couple of years and said we're not really going to look at those early-stage companies. What we want is companies, we want to identify companies, whether it's on the tools side or the diagnostics side, that have products in the marketplace, that have market position, that already have revenue that can accelerate our margin expansion and be accretive in a relatively reasonable timeframe. The Stilla acquisition, it was accretive within 12 months as an example.
That Stilla acquisition is central to the digital PCR furthering of our moat. But also that Stilla acquisition and the QX700 products have been central to the double-digit growth that we've had over the past three quarters, anywhere from low double digits to a little bit more than 20% in the last three quarters. So it's central to that. We really have pivoted our M&A strategy in that way. It's not so much science experiments, if you will, but companies that have products in the marketplace that because we've got the commercial infrastructure we do, because we have the R&D capabilities we do and the manufacturing capabilities, now you can really accelerate the leverage that you can get on those acquisitions. What we've said some quarters ago that we're looking at acquisitions, we're not looking for transformative deals.
What we're looking at is companies that have revenue in the ideally $100 million-$500 million range, tools or diagnostics, that can really help support that top-line growth and gain that leverage on the margin, and then allow us to accelerate that margin expansion just more broadly.
I think tools has. There's been sort of an evolution in how companies think about M&A. There have been periods where the goal very much has been what you're talking about. You want growth to be accretive, you want margin to be accretive, and that's enough. Then I think there are some maybe time periods or some players where they're looking more for acquisitions that will deliver synergies specifically within their portfolio. What is it that you're looking for? Is accretive growth, margin expansion enough, or are you also looking for those synergies?
I think you're always looking for synergies, if you will, that can support the ease of integration, if you will, and gaining that leverage through that acquisition. That's a must-have. I think for us, especially as we think about our portfolio and how we want the portfolio, both on the tools side and the diagnostics side, to continue to evolve and really improve our product portfolio. It's not just about. We're not interested in buying revenue.
We really want to acquire technology that is going to create a further differentiation with our customers when you marry what we already have in terms of capabilities and technology that can further the value to the customers that we're trying to drive. Because when you can drive value to customers, you're going to have a stronger relationship with that customer. And over time, you have that customer for a longer period of time, and therefore, that gives you that predictability and that consistency to really drive towards that market growth rate that we seek to have.
Is it fair to say, y ou've already said you're not doing anything transformative. Is it fair to say that you're really looking for things within the core technology areas that you're in today?
I think so. I want to be careful in that we don't want just another me too. If we already play in a particular area. As an example, the Stilla transaction, I apologize for keep coming back to it, but I think it's a perfect example. We're a Droplet Digital company in terms of how we founded digital PCR. Stilla was a Droplet Digital PCR capability, so that synergy is perfect. What it allowed us to do is expand our portfolio of Droplet Digital PCR instruments. When you look at the ease of use of the Stilla instruments, those QX700 instruments, how modular and how efficient it is from an architecture standpoint, it now gives us R&D leverage into the future.
Not only did it expand our portfolio for the markets and create value for our customers, but because of its modular architecture, now you can gain further R&D leverage, right? The software is easy to use, these sort of things. That modular architecture, we can converge our legacy architectures into this sort of architecture if we so chose, in a very effective way, right? We are looking for deals wherein its technology that's going to allow us to be differentiated, but then how does that help create further leverage, whether it's R&D or commercial or manufacturing, so that helps us accelerate that margin expansion.
Great. You've announced two reorganizations in the past two years. One was in 2025, one was just announced in 2Q. That's a lot of change.
It is.
How do you change enough of what's going on within the company so that you can pursue the goals that you're going after, but not change so much that you disrupt or risk the relationships that you have with the customers that you're serving?
Yeah, it's a great question. I think first and foremost, we seek to be customer-centric in everything we do. At the end of the day, if you don't have customers, you don't have revenue. If you don't have revenue, you don't have a business, right? Customers are central to your success. Having that customer centricity is critical, and so the things we do and how we evaluate our business is really with that in mind, right? You mentioned the two restructurings that we've done in February 2025, and then this most recent one in Q2 of 2026. These are not just restructurings for the sake of restructuring, right?
We are purposeful, and one thing hopefully that's come across here in our conversation is that we've been on a journey for the last couple of years. It isn't something that was just overnight, that all of a sudden we decided. We've been methodical in how we think about our business, our strategy, where we're winning and where we're not, and what do we need to do about it. Because at the end of the day, Bio-Rad has a tremendous opportunity to create shareholder value in terms of both its execution. It already has a very strong base in the marketplace, both on the tools and diagnostics side. Now, how do we build on that even further? I think this is everything we've been talking about.
Now, as part of that, what we've also identified, and this is well known, when you look at our cost structure, it's one that's not as efficient as it needs to be, right? We are very purposeful in the improvements that we're making. Then there's more evaluation that we need to do because our cost structure has to be aligned to our strategy. As we continue to think about our strategy and evolve our strategy, this will continue to be an evaluation process, if you will, right? But all with the intent of how do we make our customers successful, because that's first and foremost.
The customers are clearly a key stakeholder group, but another important stakeholder group is your employees.
Absolutely.
In a situation where you do have these rounds of restructuring, how do you maintain morale? How do you make sure that you maintain the talent that you need to keep competing?
Yeah, that's a critical point. As much as we have customer centricity, we need to appreciate our employees as well, right? Because only through our employees can you build a successful company. That can't be lost. As we think about, we've got a new CHRO that's come on board, and she's got a tremendous background and set of experiences in helping drive transformation and evolution within the company she's been a part of. She's been central in helping us think about that aspect exactly, Eve. How do we keep How do we win the hearts and minds of our employees so that they are focused on helping us drive and execute this strategy?
There's numerous things that we, c ommunication is central to that and helping people understand what we're doing, why we're doing it, so we spend a bit of time on the why. As part of that, really, it's not just at the corporate level, but you have to have those local conversations.
I or other executives, when we travel out into different parts of the world and we meet different parts of our employee constituency, spending time with them and listening to them and hearing them and helping us understand what's on their mind and what we need to do more and better, if you will. That's a very proactive kind of engagement that we have to have. I won't say that we're perfect because there's stumbles here and there, but at the same time, that's natural, right? Through those, you also learn. But we have to have the hearts and minds of our employees so that they can help execute on the strategy that we want on a long-term basis.
Great. All right, well, we've got 2 minutes left. I've got one last question. I know you get this question a lot, but I really like it, and I think it's the right one to ask, so I'm going to ask it anyway. What do you think the market still doesn't fully appreciate about Bio-Rad at this point?
That's quite the question to finish up on. I think there's a few different things that I don't know that the market doesn't appreciate, or maybe I'll say it this way, just to reinforce, right? I think the first is one question that I get quite often is, "Is our CEO on board with what's changing, how things are evolving?" Because he's been a part of the business for a very long time. He's seen a lot of change and growth in this company. I think anyone who knows the CEO role, I can't imagine anybody understanding or thinking that you can do the magnitude of changes that we are without the CEO being central to that. That's one aspect. He is absolutely a part of the process and it's a team inclusive of him that's helping drive these changes.
The other aspect is that, and I think I said this earlier, we are on a multi-year journey. It'll continue to be a multi-year journey because one thing that we noted recently is, and this is when you compare this against peers, it's not that interesting, but when you consider where Bio-Rad is coming from, we want to get to a mid-teens operating margin, right, within the next few years. That's a point in the journey. That isn't the journey, because ultimately, we need to get towards peer-level operating margin, and that's really the focus. As part of that, how we can drive top-line growth on a more consistent basis, because we've not historically done that, is a central part of that.
Those are two pieces of Norman is involved in everything we do, and he's central, and he's got a strong voice because he knows these markets so well. This is a multi-year journey that we've been on, and it's going to be additional multi-years in order to drive the success we expect to drive over time.
Well, I think that's exciting. We're going to be watching carefully. Hopefully we'll get a chance to sit here in a year and two years and see how that journey is going.
I look forward to it. Eve, thank you so much.
Awesome.
Really appreciate it.
Roop, thank you so much for your time.
Thanks.
Really appreciate it.