Started here. Thanks, thanks everyone for joining us. I'm Patrick Donnelly, the Tools and Diagnostics Analyst here at Citi. Happy to have Gerald Herman from Bruker, the CFO, with us today. There are some QR codes. If people have questions, I think you can scan them and it'll pop up on this iPad here. So feel free to do that. And Gerald, I know you wanted to run through a couple of quick remarks and slides just to start us off. Why don't I turn it over to you and then we'll dive in after that?
Thanks. Thanks very much, Patrick. It's great to be here. Always appreciate the views and the weather here at Citi. So I just wanted to clarify a couple of items as we have had some discussions with a number of investors around our overall profile as a company. And I think it's just helpful to sort of reset that. So the first slide that I have up here is sort of Bruker at a glance. And I'll just make a few comments about this. Most of you already know a bit about the business, but fundamentally it's over a $3 billion business, most focused on innovation or R&D as a percentage of revenues, around 10%. Most fundamentally, we have delivered significant organic revenue growth over the last three years, and we're delivering significant constant exchange rate growth at similar levels in 2024.
I wanted to highlight a couple of areas in the lower part of the slide that seem to be maybe creating a little confusion for some investors. So first of all, the company is heavily weighted towards the academic and government research areas. There's been a lot of discussion more recently about government funding, and I'll talk about that in the slide that follows. But fundamentally, we're heavily weighted there, but the government research funding element of that is actually relatively modest. And the other point I wanted to make related to the left-hand side of the slide is the areas of significant growth that we have seen are coming in a number of different categories, not only in the academic and government research area, but in industrial and cleantech. This is particularly true for 2024.
But also we've seen very significant order and revenue growth organically coming out of the semi metrology area. The semi markets have very strong secular tailwinds and I think continue to see good performance there. We're somewhat unusual from our peer set to have a very robust, vibrant business in that category. And I think it's really important to highlight that. And then the other piece relative to our end market is in the biopharma space. So we're somewhat underexposed relative to our peers. It's about 15%. And I think our recent acquisitions push us further into that category. But fundamentally, where we've got some softness at the moment, our biopharma business is somewhat underexposed compared to our peers. And then in the middle of the slide, you see our Project Accelerate 2.0 mix.
I highlight that because Project Accelerate 2.0 has been one of those kind of exciting areas for Bruker where we have focused more attention on high revenue growth and high margin growth opportunities. Initiatives in that space are now making up about 58% of the total revenue mix of the company. A significant step up from where we were previously. Over on the right-hand side, I think this is also an area that bears mentioning again. We have a very balanced geographic revenue mix across all the geographies. I think the heavy view has been that most of our business is coming out of Europe, but actually it's pretty balanced, a third, a third, a third, across the geographies. If you turn to the next slide, please.
I just wanted to highlight one of the areas that I'm getting a lot of questions on, not only at this conference, but I've been in several other conferences over the last couple of weeks, and I want to do a little bit of a deep dive on both the U.S. and the China dynamics. Obviously, with the new incoming administration, there's a lot of questions about U.S. government funding. There's been quite a bit of conversation about that, not only with investors, but even in the incoming Trump administration, so a couple of comments here. First of all, the U.S. represents about 28% of the total revenue base globally of Bruker, actually not as large as some people think.
Fundamentally, as I mentioned earlier, when you think about this roughly 40% weight in the academic and government research area, that slice of the end market is actually characterized by a number of different pieces. And I highlight them here on the slide. There's academic funding, which is driven largely by endowments. There's U.S. government research funding, which is what I would describe loosely as NIH, NSF, DOE, that type of direct government funding. And then there's a number of other areas of funding in the academic government research field that are still very significant. The medical research institutions and hospitals category, where here I'm describing things like the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, St. Jude's Hospitals, Mayo Clinics, others that are largely independently, privately funded, make up a significant amount of that category. And then finally, philanthropic funding.
Here we're talking about the Gates Foundation, MacArthur Foundations, and others, for example, that are funding often core research, scientific research in these categories. So when you look at the piece that is strictly U.S. government funded, it works out to be in around that, in a sort of less than 5%, the NIH category for just U.S. government funding. We have to say, having navigated through the first administration with President Trump, that there was not a lot, there's a lot of noise related to government funding in research areas, but fundamentally we did not see a significant turndown. In fact, the opposite occurred. We actually saw an improvement or an increase in NIH funding during that administration. So I just wanted to highlight that kind of just generally on the U.S. side.
And then, anticipating some questions around China, fundamentally, the company has roughly about 15% of its revenues globally coming from China. That's on a more normalized basis. It's slightly higher now because of the bolus of orders that we've been clearing through in China. But generally speaking, it's about 15% of our overall revenue. And it's important to note also that we do not have any R&D activities in China, no production activities going on in China, no Chinese content or Chinese products that are ultimately sold into the U.S. market. So our overall exposure in China, while it's still fairly significant at 16%, 90% of the revenue that's going on in China is being directed from our European operations. So a limited amount of revenue, really theoretically less than 2% of our total revenue, is coming out of the U.S., shipped and exported into China.
So I wanted to calibrate that with investors just fundamentally so that they could understand that the exposure both on the U.S. government funding side and even on the China tariffs side is really not that significant relative to what most people are thinking. So start with that.
Yeah, no, I think that answers a lot of the questions in the last couple of weeks. Obviously, a lot of NIH, a lot of China for sure. So that's helpful. I appreciate that. To your point, maybe we can start on the NIH and then we'll go around a little bit. But on the NIH side, to your point, a little less than 5% of revs. Last time around, Trump, he put out some big cuts with his proposals. And then to your point, the actual budget in the end ended up being fine. And maybe just talk about expectations here. There's been noise in terms of some of the appointments or potential appointments. How you guys are thinking about it? Again, I know that's probably been our number one question on you guys in the past few weeks, as I'm sure you've been hearing.
What's the right way to think about just the range of outcomes here as we look forward on NIH?
Yeah, it's a very good question. We are fielding this question quite a bit. First of all, it's early days. I think it's really not clear to us, notwithstanding some initial appointments into some of these areas. It's not clear to us exactly what the policy direction is going to be. Secondly, I think, as I said earlier, we have had some experience in this in the past, and fundamentally, there was a fair amount of noise, but not a lot of actual action, so it's not clear quite yet how this particular administration is going to play out. I do think, though, it's important to remind folks that if you look at that chart on the slide, we still have very stable funding from a government research perspective in a number of other markets, in particular Europe.
That was also the case, and I would expect it to continue to be the case in China. We haven't talked yet about China stimulus programs, but there was one, of course, in 2022/2023 that was very significant, and we were a major beneficiary of that kind of government funding. So I think there's a significant area of opportunity outside the U.S., even if there were some more restrictions imposed. I would say one other final comment about U.S. tariffs just generally. We weathered the storm to the extent that there were sanctions or individual companies and institutions in China that were identified by the U.S. administration as being on the sanctioned list. There was recently, in the last couple of weeks, a new list that's been generated. We've looked at that as well.
We do not see any material impact either to our backlog or to our order performance that's currently there. We don't see any significant impact with respect to that. So it's early days. I think we're monitoring the situation. But fundamentally, we think we've still got a good, strong global business, even if there were some further restrictions going on in the U.S.
Yeah. And maybe you touched on the China stimulus piece to your point. You guys were a big beneficiary kind of in that late 2022, early 2023 timeframe. Yeah, I think the view was that was far more concentrated, both timing and then also industry-wise, right? It was very kind of high-end instrumentation, which benefited you guys. How are you thinking about this round of stimulus? I would say there's a level of skepticism from investors just broadly on the tools' impact. But how are you guys thinking about it? We've heard from some others on the instrument side. They're starting to see orders come through in October into November. Those will obviously, the revenue will show up next year, presumably. But how are you guys seeing the cadence? What are the conversations on that front?
Yeah, well, we've had a lot of RFP and order anticipation, I guess I would say, with respect to this new stimulus program for 2024 in China. Fundamentally, it looks like a pretty broad program, as you pointed out, not only impacting life science-related tools, but remember, we actually play pretty significantly in industrial markets in China, as well as in the semi space in China. So we're actually relatively positive about the stimulus outcome. We have seen significant activity from an RFP perspective. We've started to see some orders in the fourth quarter as well. We understand one of our peers who has got a fairly heavy instruments weight also has seen some activity in the fourth quarter. So that's encouraging. I would say it appears as if not, as you correctly point out, the 2023 stimulus program was very concentrated and managed out of Beijing.
Here, this is being managed and handled through the provinces, and some of the allocation of funds from those provinces has yet to come through, so I do think it's still early stages here. We are still pretty optimistic about some significant orders coming through. What we've seen so far, Patrick tells us that it's going to be in the NMR space, likely in the life science mass spec high-end area, and in high-end microscopy. Those seem to be the three fields that are already seeing some actual orders in the fourth quarter. Given where we are at the moment, my expectation is that some of that will spill over into order completion and confirmation in the first quarter, which likely means we'll see some benefits in Q2, probably of 2025, and perhaps even beyond that into 2026.
Yeah, maybe on that point, I want to kind of hone in on that a little bit. I mean, you guys, the lag from ordered revenue is maybe a little bigger for you guys given the size of some of these orders. Maybe just talk through the right way to think about that cadence. It's encouraging to hear you're seeing some order activity now. I think the RFP stuff, a lot of folks were seeing a lot of that. And it was like, when is that going to convert to orders? It sounds like maybe that's starting to happen for you guys. Yeah. And then maybe just the cadence in terms of when we start to see that show up on the revenue side as well.
Yeah, you're right. I mean, we tend to take six to 12 months depending on the instruments. We do have some very high-end, highly innovative differentiated products that take longer to move through. And then, of course, because some of these instruments have high-end X-ray technologies or other innovative technology elements incorporated into them, we often have to go through a process of export clearance as well. So it takes a little bit longer, I'd say, generally in that six to 12-month range. For the highest instrument caliber, which I'd be talking about here, we're probably talking about a nine to 12-month range. So that takes us, if we don't get those orders into until Q1, that's probably more of a benefit to the 2026 period.
Okay. That's helpful. And then maybe staying on the order side, I mean, 3Q, there's obviously a lot to go through, which I'm sure we will. But the order front on BSI in particular, you guys saw continued, I think it was mid-single-digit growth in 3Q, which was honestly encouraging. I guess, what did you see in the quarter? And what's the right way to think about just that order cadence as we work our way through 4Q? Like you said, if China is a helper, that would obviously be beneficial. But yeah, maybe talk a little bit on the order trends.
Sure. So in the third quarter, we did see what we described as high mid-single digits order growth in the BSI segment, our instrument segment. And that was really very encouraging for us. Interestingly, most of it wasn't coming from China or the biopharma areas, which is where we were hoping to see a few green shoots. That wasn't really the case, at least in the third quarter. But still, very strong performance, I think, for us to get into this high mid-single digits category for order bookings growth in the third quarter is good. Most of that was coming from industrial, cleantech, and to some large extent, our semi business. So one of the things I was communicating to other investors earlier today is that the good news for investors is we have quite a number of cylinders that we can fire on.
This is an example where I think our NMR business generally was solid. We started to see strength in the industrial side. Our cleantech business was good. Semi was good. I think that there's enough cylinders to run on even to generate, like I said, high mid-single digits growth in the third quarter. Looking forward into the fourth, it's still early for us. We have some pretty good visibility in some markets. I would say, generally speaking, the order trend looks to be favorable. These are encouraging signs, I think, for us, especially since the earlier quarters, the first half of 2024, from an order perspective, there's still growth, but lighter than what we would have expected. Now we're feeling more optimistic, I think, about the fourth quarter order bookings performance. We'll see how it all plays out with China.
But even without that, it still feels like we've got some reason to be optimistic about the performance there.
Okay. No, that's helpful. And I guess when you think about, to your point, the first half is maybe a little softer, 3Q, you saw that nice step up. It sounds like 4Q in that range of 3Q is reasonable. What's the right way to frame that?
It's early for us to call it, but I think certainly we've got some encouraging signs that the order bookings performance for the fourth quarter still looks pretty solid.
Okay. And then maybe on the 4Q guide, obviously, it was noisy coming out of 3Q. Maybe you can just kind of pull the curtain back a little bit on the moving pieces and the right way to think about kind of what played out in terms of the 4Q guide reduction there.
Yeah. So I think our general position hasn't really changed much. I mean, maybe a few comments about both the third and the fourth quarter. So I'll start with, we have very significant comps. In the third quarter, we had almost 11% organic revenue growth performance in Q3 of 2023. And the number was close to 16% in Q4 of 2023. So even putting up, let's say, 3.8% organic BSI revenue growth in the third quarter, when you look at a stacked growth, two-year stacked growth profile, you're still talking about significant organic revenue growth over that two-year period. And then I think the same thing is really going to apply in the fourth quarter.
Even we've said low mid-single digits kind of category for the fourth quarter organic revenue growth, but coming off of a comp that's at 16%, that's still very, very significant growth and falls pretty much in line with our broader medium-term organic revenue targets. So I think we're pretty much on the track. With respect to the guidance, we adjusted our guidance down in the third quarter, basically for two factors, some softness that we saw in biopharma and further softness in China. We did not see the rebound that we expected in, sorry, many of us in the industry generally expected in biopharma in the third quarter and didn't expect to see it necessarily in the fourth quarter to impact anything in 2024.
And on China, there was some expectation that we would see more order performance earlier in the year in China, not only for the stimulus, but even outside of that. And that really was weaker than we had anticipated. So we brought that down. But I do want to reemphasize, I think that, generally speaking, the strength of the business in the industrial side, our academic government research profile was quite strong and stable. We had strength in cleantech. We saw good solid strength in the semi space. So we have a number of other cylinders that are kind of firing and give us the ability to, I think, kind of carry through the next quarter or so. And hopefully, we begin to see some improvement in some of these other areas.
Yeah. And then the earnings adjustment as well. I mean, I know when we chatted kind of following it, maybe a little more of that was FX-driven than people appreciated. Maybe just talk through the bridge there. FX is not, the volatility has not slowed down, obviously. So how do you think about that piece?
Yeah. As you can see from the map, we're still quite a global company. So foreign exchange does play a major role for Bruker. And in the third quarter, what we had was an uncertainty related to the election, and we had a significant weakness in the U.S. dollar, which in our case really puts more pressure on the EBIT line or the operating margin or EPS line. And that was absolutely the case for one of the reasons why our guide came down as sharply as it did at the EPS line. I would say post-election, there's been a little bit of a bounce back again in the U.S. dollar, which helps us a little bit on the EPS line. So we will see where the U.S. dollar strengthens. There's still quite a bit of uncertainty in the foreign exchange markets.
It's not really clear and probably won't be clear for another couple of quarters on where the U.S. dollar is actually going to settle for a more sort of short-term, medium-term outlook. So we do, but just to reiterate that when the U.S. dollar strengthens, we tend to see improvement in our overall operating margin performance. The opposite happened in the third quarter, which put more pressure on the overall operating margin and EPS performance for us as a company for the full year of 2024. So we'll see where we land. I'm hopeful that the foreign exchange piece starts to settle itself out and is not such a major player. The other big player for our adjustment, aside from biopharma, was we did see that softness in biopharma being carried into a couple of our recent acquisitions.
In NanoString in particular, but also our BCA Bruker Cellular Analysis business was obviously impacted by that as well. They have more significant exposure to biopharma than generally Bruker does. So we work our way through that in 2024 and to a certain extent. Hopefully, we'll start to see some improvement in the 2025 timeframe in the biopharma space that helps that.
Yeah. And then you touched on NanoString. Obviously, that's a big focus for people. And I think there was some concern the earnings reduction was going to be driven by NanoString. Certainly doesn't seem to be the case. Just kind of talk through what you're seeing there. I think it was $10 million a month or so was a reasonable run rate on the revenue side. And then the earnings dilution was going to see some improvement into next year's. Maybe just frame up where we are on that front, the visibility into the dilution and how well you guys have your arms around that.
Sure, well, I'll say just generally, just a couple of comments on the broader acquisition activities. We did a number of really strategic, important transformational acquisitions in many respects in 2024. Those acquisitions are being integrated right now into a number of our divisions. As you know, Patrick, but others may not. We do not have a kind of centralized corporate development function. Most of this activity is all occurring within our business groups. We're a very decentralized company. So these opportunities actually percolated up from those business groups, from individual divisions in those groups. And now that we've acquired those companies, they're being moved right back into those divisions. And the integration activities are going really well, I would say. I think fundamentally, the two largest ones are the most visible, I would say, ELITech and NanoString.
We can talk about each if you'd like, but fundamentally, I think the integration activities have gone extremely well with both of those. In NanoString, to be more responsive to your question, in NanoString, I was in Seattle, which is where their headquarters was about three weeks ago, and I spent time with their sales and marketing teams, the logistics, procurement teams, their R&D teams, and some of the other infrastructure elements of that business, and the integration has gone extremely well there. I think coming out of the Chapter 11 reorganization, we were concerned about the stability of some of those functions, but I would say very encouraged about what I saw there in person.
Also, there's been a number of actions taken, particularly to secure, even under a softer biopharma backdrop, for us to secure the dilution numbers that we quoted earlier, more broadly for the company, but more specifically for NanoString. There's a number of actions that have already been taken. One is consolidating a number of their locations. We've gone from three logistics locations into two, I'm sorry, from five to three. We've really re-examined some of the more expensive real estate that this business was carrying. We've moved forward with a really hard look at some of its inventory. We are planning to insource some of its consumables and instruments businesses. These are things that Bruker has done extremely well historically. Over time, kind of re-engineering instruments.
I think from an R&D perspective, expect to see some really interesting things coming out in 2025 with respect to this business. There's also some more favorable activity that's occurred on the legal side. We can talk more about that, but I think the overall dynamic for NanoString has been really, really quite positive going forward. Under the Bruker world, aside from insourcing, I mean, we've looked at some IT-related savings. There's a number of other initiatives in the gross margin category in NanoString that will bring that business, I think, into the range of dilution that we're expecting for 2025, and on that, I mean, we're at $0.15-$0.20 dilution company-wide for all the acquisitions for 2024. Our expectation is $0.08-$0.10 dilution for all the acquisitions for 2025, and we're holding to that.
A lot of the actions I was just describing, especially for NanoString, are already underway, and the expectation is that we'll really deliver that already in place as we move into 2025, so feeling pretty good about those acquisitions, about the work that's been done thus far, and certainly a lot of the synergies. You may already have heard, Patrick, but we've now combined our Acuity Genomics business with Canopy Biosciences and NanoString to make up the Bruker Spatial Biology business division, and that also has some synergies both at the leadership level, at the R&D level, and certainly from the sales and marketing perspective for us, so I'm very energized about the NanoString opportunities. I think it's really interesting, and then on ELITech, just for one more minute, I think the ELITech business has also performed at or above the original business models that we laid out.
So feeling very positive about that. The synergies, especially with our microbiology and infectious disease business, seems really on track. Our instruments placement was above what our expectations were. Our consumables business is tracking very nicely there. So very encouraged about what I've seen in those two particular cases.
Yeah, and maybe on NanoString, you mentioned the legal piece. Maybe just talk us through kind of what has played out, and then there's a couple of catalysts looming on that front. Just how you're framing that up internally and for folks.
Yeah. So just to calibrate this, I would say in the earlier part of 2024, the NanoString litigation has played out in Europe in a certain way. Injunctions that were in Germany were lifted on selected products, and in Europe, the Unified Patent Court ruled in favor of NanoString with respect to that litigation, so two major victories, I guess I would say, on the litigation front with respect to NanoString. No injunctions remain on any products anywhere in the world at this point around NanoString, and one of the things, of course, that we are doing is rebuilding the sales channel and the team in Europe to be able to offer all products to all customers with respect to that.
I think the next more significant milestone for Bruker on the litigation front with respect to NanoString is at some point in the spring or in the summer of 2025. There will be another litigation activity with respect to the GeoMx product. And we'll see where that lands. I mean, following two significant favorable rulings in Europe, as well as a favorable ruling in another case, unfavorable to 10, and another one looming, I guess I would say, with Vizgen in the United States, there's some optimism that some of this litigation overhang may go away or at least be pretty much dissipated in a more significant way going forward. And as you probably know, the biopharma softness has also impacted 10x Genomics' financial performance. And it'll be interesting to see strategically what decisions they make about whether they can continue to carry significant litigation costs in their own environment.
So perhaps some more willingness to kind of meet in the middle and move past this.
Perhaps. I mean, certainly, we feel now stronger than ever that the acquisition decision made was a very sound one and that it appears as if the technology elements that were in question at some point are no longer so much in question.
Okay. That's helpful, and then maybe on the semi side, I think you guys have broken it out. It's a little below 10% of revs or so. Exciting vertical, clearly. How are you thinking about just the opportunity there, the growth potential? What could that look like in a few years in terms of what the revenue could be?
Yeah. I think it's an exciting area for us, and as you know, we're one of the few players in the market that has this vertical specifically in our portfolio. Very excited about it. I think fundamentally, the secular trends from a growth perspective in that space have been really favorable. We continue to see good solid order in revenue bookings growth, both historically over the last couple of years, and I think our expectation is that that's going to continue. I mean, there are some mixed signals on the horizon. Some of the semiconductor industry is experiencing some challenges. I think it's more a question of sort of hooking your wagon to a particular horse, and I think, generally speaking, we've been very favorably connected to some of the stronger players in that space.
I think, just I know you know this, Patrick, but just as a reminder for investors, we mostly play in the QA/QC category and in the R&D for search for lower node activities. We're in a somewhat less cyclical, not completely out of it, but less cyclical part of the semi space. From a secular growth trend perspective, feel pretty positive about that going forward. It's right now on a trailing 12 months for 2024. It's around 8% or 9% of our overall global revenue for Bruker. I mean, my expectation is over time that will continue to grow. We've consolidated a lot of our operational activities around particular markets and pretty excited about those markets. I think that could reach in excess of 10%. I think Frank at one point had said we could see that in the 10%-15% range of global revenue.
Maybe a little optimistic, but fundamentally, I feel pretty positive about it going north of 10 for sure.
Okay. And then biopharma, you've touched on a few times just in terms of maybe a little bit of softness. What's the right way to think about just the outlook on that segment for you guys? Again, the election has added some uncertainty just broadly about what these appointments could mean to drug discovery. But what are you hearing from customers and what's the right way to think about the health of that market for you guys?
Yeah. Generally, we're still quite bullish around the biopharma markets more broadly. There are going to be cycles and softer periods, and that's, I think, essentially what we've been going through. We are significantly underexposed in that area at the moment. Many of our acquisitions that we completed specifically target more exposure into biopharma in that end market, so it is an important market for us, an area where we think we can still get significant growth. I highlight Chemspeed, for example. That was one of our more significant acquisitions in this year. I mean, that business focuses on automation and workflow capabilities. It is a very attractive market opportunity in the biopharma space, even with weakness or softness in biopharma. Most of the larger biopharma companies are focused on lab automation and more optimization of the instruments and activities they have going on in their labs.
So I think that's an example. I think NanoString is another example where you're going to see transcriptomics and proteomics more broadly being used in drug discovery. There's no way around that. I think fundamentally, the mechanics are really good in that end market. So we're very positive about it. I think we will weather the storm as others have. And then hopefully, the percentage of our biopharma exposure will go up closer to 20%. Looking forward, I mean, we certainly think we have instruments that suit the pharmaceutical markets in particular. And the order performance, especially in molecular biology, in proteomics, and some of our high-end instruments, we continue to see quite a bit of interest in the large pharma space in particular, and actually now starting to see a few more green shoots in the biotech side.
There was a time in early 2024 where we thought that was all coming back, and then it seemed to step back again, but it feels like it's coming back more dramatically in the fourth quarter.
Yeah. And then on the gigahertz side, obviously, 3Q, I think you had two in there. Can you remind us, 4Q, was there any in the guidance? And then I think you have one in 4Q, but.
Yes, we do. We actually communicated that in another conference earlier this month that we are expecting to have acceptance already of one gigahertz class NMR system in the fourth quarter. We included that in our guide because we anticipated that was going to happen, and it looks like it has now happened in the fourth quarter. So going forward, our plan is to continue to have that three to four gigahertz class systems in revenue recognized in the next year. We are increasing our capacity to be able to deliver those more quickly, but fundamentally, that's our plan.
Yep. And maybe in the last minute here, I know 25 is always in focus for investors, and you guys had given some commentary. You started at that, I think, 310 number. That wasn't officially guidance, but it was out there. The street has obviously crept lower with some of the reductions this year. I think it's around 270 at the moment. I guess given what you said on the dilution, the FX piece, all those moving pieces, is that a reasonable starting point? Anything you would flag in terms of things to be thinking about as we head into next year?
I think it's a reasonable starting point, and we'll give more clarity in 2025 with respect to the 2025 picture. As you already know, we have a very significant fourth quarter from a revenue perspective and profitability and cash flow. It's a significant quarter for us. We'd like to see how that lands. I mean, the signals are fairly positive right now for the fourth quarter. I think that's encouraging. What I would say is, I mean, I think maybe uniquely positioned Bruker is in a place where even if we land at the high end of our guide for 2024 in that 240 range, to get to 270, you need mid-single, I'm sorry, mid-teens EPS growth. I think that's pretty achievable for us. That is to say without necessarily a strong rebound in biopharma and potentially without a significant contribution from China's stimulus program.
So there's still enough other cylinders firing, I think, for us to get to mid-teens EPS growth in 2025. And we got pretty significant conviction for that.
That's great. All right, Gerald, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.
Yeah, great to see you. Thank you.