All right, good afternoon, everyone. I'm Tejas Savant, and I'm the life sciences analyst here at Morgan Stanley. Before we get started, for important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley Research Disclosure website at morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. If you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales rep. It's my pleasure to host Bruker this afternoon, and on behalf of the company, we have Gerald Herman, CFO, and we also have Justin Ward, Head of Investor Relations, here in the audience. Maybe, Gerald, just to kick things off, you know, just wanted to get a pulse check in terms of, you know, most of your peers being impacted by softer pharma funding, you know, headwinds in China. You actually had a pretty solid second quarter and saw, you know, growth in bookings in both biopharma and in China.
You know, you raised your organic growth outlook by 50 basis points as well. So, you know, just to set the stage, I mean, looking back, what drove the strength in the quarter for you?
Yeah, so we had very even performance across most of the portfolio, actually, in the second quarter. We put up some very strong organic revenue growth. Actually, if you look at the full first half of 2023, we're putting up over 15% organic revenue growth, and that's across a number of different end markets. You know, our academic and government research markets, which are quite significant for Bruker-
Mm-hmm.
-were quite solid, both on the order performance as well as on the revenue side. I think just generally, our, you know, biopharma experience was pretty positive, and we can talk more about why that's a little bit different than what some of our peers are seeing. We did see a little bit of softness in order performance in some of the more cyclical areas-
Mm-hmm.
-industrial, in the applied markets, and a little bit of deceleration in our order performance on the semi space, but, I'd be happy to talk more about that as well.
Mm-hmm.
There's certainly some encouraging signs, I'd say, on the semi side as well.
Got it. So let's start with the geographies. You know, starting with China, topic du jour. I'm sure you've, you know, you've not gotten a single question on it all day.
Yeah.
So, um-
I don't know.
What are some of the stronger end markets there, and where are you beginning to see, if at all, sort of signs of weakness? Does your current backlog essentially mean that you won't see China decelerate at all this year, or has something changed relative to the second quarter?
Yeah, so China is a really interesting story for us. I think, again, somewhat different than some of our peers. Overall, we had a significant order bolus in the first quarter of 2023, driven largely by the low, low-interest rate loan stimulus program from the Chinese government. We would have probably had an outsized benefit relative to that. And so in China, we did see some deceleration against a very, very strong first quarter order performance in China in the second quarter. And then in the third quarter, so far, we continue to see solid growth in China from an order perspective.
Mm-hmm.
So we had thought that we would see a kind of pull forward-
Mm-hmm.
-of orders resulting from that first quarter strength, but actually, it doesn't seem like that's entirely the case. So fundamentally, when you look at our full year expectations around China in orders for the full year 2023 and compare it against the full year of 2022, we're still expecting double-digit order growth-
Mm-hmm
... in China. That's being driven largely by our strength in the academic government research markets in China. We don't have as much. We're somewhat underrepresented, I think, in the biopharma space in China.
Mm-hmm.
So we're not experiencing those same countercurrents that some of our peers are. But fundamentally, our overall performance in China has actually been quite solid. So the way we see it, another considerable important element to highlight here is kind of the strength of our backlog in China. For a variety of reasons, supply chain, COVID, our, we are experiencing some import/export restriction delays.
Mm-hmm
... coming out of the U.S., in particular, but outside there as well. So our ability to execute on some of our backlog in China has been more challenging than in some areas. So our backlog levels in China are quite high.
Mm-hmm.
And so our expectation is the revenue performance for China will, you know, continue to hum nicely through at least this is a multi-year challenge for us-
Mm-hmm
-to get our backlog down in China. So our expectation is, you know, improved, continued strong performance in China on the revenue line. And it remains to be seen. There's been some chatter, more recently around potential economic stimulus-
Mm-hmm
... programs being proposed in China. We don't have any definitive, anything further specifically to add to that, except that we're hearing some of that on, on the street as well...
Got it
... in China, in that market.
You know, a couple of things to follow up on there.
Sure.
So on the stimulus, if we do get one in the back half of the year, are we in a situation where we might see sort of diminishing marginal returns on that stimulus, where you know, that activity led to a spike in ordering and placements earlier on the last round?
Yeah, it's hard to tell. I mean, we don't have any specifics about what the stimulus might be. If it's directed largely to business investment-
Mm-hmm
... which we're hopeful of, as opposed to consumer investment-
Mm-hmm
... then I think there's certainly a possibility that we will continue to see an outsized element of benefit from a stimulus program, from a stimulus program like that. I don't, we're not seeing any, I don't think we expect to see pull forwards or, you know, pre-ordering under those kinds of conditions. And typically, these are very project or research project specific. So it happens to come in over a period of time. Even if the stimulus is identified at a certain point, you know, the benefits start to accrue over at least a quarter or two. So I would expect to see some benefit coming out of that.
Got it. Another sort of theme we've picked up on in some cases is local competition, particularly local competition that got qualified over the course of the pandemic.
Mm.
You know, customers, I guess, have gotten habituated to those instruments, and they don't feel the need to pay a premium for, you know, a better instrument. Is that something you see at all?
Well, we have pockets of our portfolio in that are marketed into China, where we have seen some local competition. But we're not really in the broad consumables market in China. Our overall portfolio is more directed to high-end, high-end instruments, particularly in drug discovery and in high-end research. So our experience has really been that there aren't a lot of local competitors that can reach to that level of-
Mm-hmm
kind of science and complexity. So we haven't—we see it in pockets, clearly, and we've talked about this on previous calls. For example, in the MALDI Biotyper, we've seen some more local competition and some microbial identification tool, in case you're not familiar with it. And a couple of other areas, but more fundamentally, we're with our high-end instruments, we don't see a lot of local competition that have any impact at this stage.
Do you worry that China is likely to reset, you know, to a structurally lower steady-state growth rate?
Yeah, I mean, we've heard quite a bit about that discussion today, I'd say, in a number of other investor questions. My perspective is that, you know, look, this is a very significant market, particularly in overall research funding. If you look at, you know, if you rank the countries across the globe that are putting significant investments into research funding, and China is right up there.
Mm-hmm.
I don't see that as really being... I mean, structurally, I don't see that as turning away. China is a large growing market in its broad, its just fundamental state, so I don't see a turning back on that. In fact, what we see, at least locally, you know, is the academic and government research markets continue to be pretty solid there. I think that's a sign that the Chinese government continues to think that that's an important sector for them.
Got it. And just staying on the geographic theme, any sort of risk of contagion from a weak China to pockets in Europe, or is that not something you really anticipate?
Yeah, I mean, at this point, with the, the nature of our portfolio, we're not really seeing a downturn...
Mm-hmm
in the China experience at the moment.
Yeah.
I think I know this is counter to some of the currents that other people are talking about, but, you know, in our portfolio, we're not seeing a significant decline, so we're not seeing any risk of that kind of moving into another, environment. And I'd say just generally around Europe and the U.S., you know, good, solid, you know, European and U.S., budget funding is still there. And even when it isn't as dominant as in the press, as others have discussed from time to time, we see a very stable environment there in the academic government space.
Got it. You know, switching to, you know, end markets, and it's a nice segue on the comments you just made on the academic and government-
Mm
- end markets. As we, you know, look to 2024 and academic budgets, perhaps, you know, face a little bit of a challenging period year, you know, low- to mid-single-digit decline, perhaps, how does that sort of impact your next year's outlook?
Yeah. So, we're still, of course, looking at how the 2023 performance impacts the 2024. I mean, some of you may know, the fourth quarter for Bruker is more than just a quarter. It's more than a quarter of our overall revenue base. So it's a little bit hard to give too much forecasting on 2024. But just in the broader academic and government research markets, those tend to be, again, highly durable for us. You know, irrespective of what chatter goes on around NIH budgets up, down, or around, it's our experience has been individual, you know, research projects get funding, and they tend to be the highest prioritized funding in a project.
You need instruments in order to do your research, and if you're doing cutting-edge research, whether it's in proteomics or spatial biology or cellular analysis, you need instruments to be able to do that. So I think our expectation is that the 2024 outlook, just generally on the academic and government research side, will be, you know, stable and solid. I don't think we've. Even in relatively turbulent macroeconomic conditions, we continue to see the academic and government research markets stable and generally speaking, growing.
Got it. And then shifting over to industrial, you know, you acknowledged we're seeing-
Mm
softer, you know, more cyclical market conditions in, you know, semiconductor metrology and some other pockets there.
Mm.
But then you also mentioned, you know, some green shoots and perhaps, like, signs of stabilization.
Yeah.
Could you just, like, share some color on that?
I think from the industrial, so first of all, I mean, we, like every other company, are subject to the macro economic environment. Certainly, we have certainly seen some softness in the industrial and applied markets. That's t rue in China, that's true across the U.S. and even in Europe. What is more unique about our portfolio is that we tend to focus on niche markets.
Mm-hmm.
Some of those, in many of those cases, in the industrial and materials science area, for example, research activities for larger industrial companies still needs to go on.
Yeah.
It's not so much about investing in a new plant facility as much as it is. If I'm looking at new polymers, for example, I need instruments that help me to do research in that space. If I'm looking at chemicals, I need instruments that help me to analyze the chemicals in a certain way, especially if I'm putting out new products. So our products tend to be a little more durable in these industrial downturns. I don't think that we can expect kind of the torrid growth rates of industrial and applied markets that we saw in prior years.
Mm-hmm.
But I think our product portfolio positions us to be in a more durable place relative to those. So the dips may not be as deep as you see. And then I do think, you know, in some pockets, in particular in the United States, lots of, you know, forecasting of, you know, recession and other experiences. But we seem to be moving closer to, you know, a softer landing in the United States.
Mm-hmm.
That's a large industrial base, clearly for us and for other companies in this market space. So we do see real, real, you know, you know, opportunities in those areas, and particularly with the portfolio that we have developed. We think it's. We're well positioned to capitalize on this.
Got it. Same sort of question really on biopharma. I think it's about sort of mid-teens in terms of revenue exposure for you. What is your sort of, you know, mid-cap or pre-revenue company exposure there? And what's providing you, you know, more insulation against a softer funding environment?
Yeah. So we, we don't really have as much visibility into the maturity levels of each of our biopharma companies. We, we tend to be more focused on the end user-
Mm-hmm
customer, which doesn't always give us that kind of visibility. Many of those could be, you know, in a collaboration environment where we don't see the end user. So I can't comment so much specifically on, you know, the early-stage biotech-based companies. But what I can say generally is we, you know, our tools are designed specifically for, you know, high sensitivity, high performance, high throughput. And that's a broad spectrum of tools that we've introduced into the biopharma markets, everything from NMR to our proteomics product portfolio. So I think just generally, our exposure is a bit lower than it has-
Mm-hmm
... than other peers, and we're trying to grow, and we had great—we saw a really good acceleration in biopharma in 2022 and again in the early part of 2023. So some, even some, softness in biopharma is not really as troubling for us as it might be for some other companies. I would say, though, that we continue to think that the biopharma market, end market itself, is really important for our long-term growth. It's an area in which we have targeted solution packages, not just instruments-
Mm-hmm
- but solutions in the front end and the back end, including sample prep, including automation tools, including digitization and software-related, applications that will make a difference ultimately for the whole lab program-
Sure
- for biopharma companies. So the prospects are really good.
Mm-hmm.
I think it's just a question more of, kind of the timing and what is the current environment. I do think, you know, the, the environment in the United States seems to be improving slightly as well-
Mm-hmm
From what we've seen historically. And I would say, you know, the European markets continue to be a little bit soft for us there-
Got it
- on the biopharma side.
Switching to segments, and, you know, let's, let's do Nano within BSI first. I mean, clearly, the, the PhenomeX acquisition has been a point of conversation. Maybe just to, you know, frame that decision, can you talk about, you know, how it fits into your portfolio and, and, and how you sort of, you know, went about the, the thought process?
Yeah. Well, first of all, we have had quite a bit of attention on this particular opportunity, and I'll just talk about what it is and why. So, PhenomeX is the company that you're referring to. We made a tender offer for all the shares of that company. We are in a public tender offer process right now. It is a process that is, you know, developed and going on at the moment, so I can't say too much about it. But what I would tell you from a strategic perspective, PhenomeX is a combination of IsoPlexis and Berkeley Lights. These are two companies focused on cellular analysis. We think that this is a really interesting strategic asset for Bruker. It has two key elements for us.
The first is that it's, it has the ability to actually do phenotyping at the cellular level, both DNA, RNA, and antibody phenotyping, which we think is ultimately a really important element in the cellular analysis space. And then secondly, it has a really powerful set of a platform called the Beacon Platform, which focuses on cell isolation, capture, and further on analysis. We believe that to be also really quite critical for further study in the cellular space. We, we think it's really interesting for us because it has lots of synergies with a number of our other instruments, particularly in the spatial area. But not only that, when you complement some of our portfolio in the proteomics area-
Mm-hmm.
There's a number of our instruments that could be follow-on after cell isolation or capture, for example.
Mm.
So, it's an attractive asset to us. It fits neatly and squarely into our Project Accelerate 2.0 initiatives, which is why we think it's an attractive opportunity. Now, the topic that's been getting the most attention is really the cash burn-
Right.
-of this particular target. And, I guess what I can say is we will be going through the traditional process through a public tender process. Once that's completed, our expectation is that we will close the transaction in the fourth quarter.
Mm-hmm.
Once we do that, we will talk more specifically about the dilutive and accretive framework of that acquisition on Bruker going forward for both 2023, if it completes in 2023, and then in 2024 and thereafter and beyond. But more importantly, it's important for the investor community to understand that you know we are on and will be on, assuming this closes in the fourth quarter, we will be on an accelerated path, multiyear likely, in order to bring this particular asset to break even in a meaningful, profitable position.
Mm-hmm.
It is like every other acquisition Bruker has done historically. You know, it's going to need to hit the profitability targets that we set. We have a target framework that's fairly well known-
Mm-hmm
... especially since our Investor Day, and fundamentally, all our acquisitions are going to have to hit those targets over time. So I think that's what I can tell you about that opportunity. Very excited to hopefully close on it and talk more about it in the fourth quarter.
Got it. Just one follow-up there. In terms of the development roadmap for these instruments, I mean, especially on the Beacon side of things, there's a little bit of rejiggering going on, you know, in terms of the original instrument and then, you know, having a more circumscribed version at a lower price point and so on. Do you have any sort of, like, early insights into, you know, plans for both the Beacon as well as, you know, those follow-on sort of instruments?
Yeah. I think it's early for us to talk about that. I think, you know, once we own the asset-
Mm-hmm
... and have looked at the R&D pipelines and our whole-
Got it
... how it fits with our overall broader portfolio, we'll be able to talk more intelligently about that, and we will-
Got it.
-communicate that.
Got it. And, Gerald, not sure you can answer this, but I'll ask it anyway.
Okay.
You know, in terms of, you know, we used to cover, you know, Berkeley Lights and IsoPlexis, and then, you know, putting those two companies together, and we were at roughly around $110 million in OpEx for the combined, you know, company. Do you see sort of significant room to sort of, you know, cut that and then sort of fold it into, you know, your sales infrastructure, et cetera, at Bruker?
Well, again, I think we'll talk more about the financial and strategic synergies. Clearly, there are some.
Mm-hmm.
I think it's important for the Street to know that.
Mm-hmm.
Clearly, our perspective is that there's going to need to be some right-sizing in order to hit some of those, you know, profitability targets I mentioned earlier. But we'll flush that out in a little more detail as we go through it.
Got it. And then, you know, touching upon some of the earlier stuff you mentioned on, you know, the spatial opportunity-
Yeah
... how are you thinking about, you know, the proteomics-based, sort of, in situ imaging market? You know, you've got Akoya there now, you know, Tecan acquired Lunaphore, et cetera. And then same question really on the transcriptomics side, you know, where you have a bunch of, you know, in situ imaging players, you know, 10x, NanoString, et cetera. Where do you kind of like see yourself in that space?
Well, so first of all, it's an emerging market, right?
Mm-hmm.
I mean, there's a lot of players. There's going to be some consolidation. You're starting to see some of that playing itself out already.
Mm-hmm.
I think, you know, what Bruker has done historically from a legacy perspective, is being able to introduce, you know, high-end, sophisticated, science-based instruments into very complex areas and be highly successful at that. In our experience in being disruptive in markets, we can give you many examples of those. But, I think that, our expectation is that, you know, we will continue to deliver-
Mm-hmm
... that kind of disruption into the spatial biology area. And I think the market itself is evolving. There's going to be some winners and losers. It's very early to call that.
Mm-hmm.
I mean, everyone is chasing, you know, market position and trying to jockey for, you know, what, you know, where they're ultimately going to stand. I think we do have an interesting portfolio, you know, already with the Canopy CellScape product. It has, you know, very high sensitivity, throughput, field of view. There's some characteristics and features of that particular instrument that we think are going to give us you know, advantage. It's gonna take a bit of time.
Mm-hmm.
There's attraction element that's required. We've gone through this process multiple times with, in some of our other more sophisticated instruments. You get connections with KOLs, key opinion leaders, and then they move to research papers, and that's how you kind of develop over time, your broader, you know, market position. And I think that's what everyone is attempting to do at the same time. So I think there's gonna be a shakeout. It's gonna be a matter of time, which tells who's gonna win.
Mm-hmm.
But in our case, I think we just have a history of really strong science imaging capabilities, and I think you'll see that played out over time. You combine that with our—we have a genomics product portfolio, which will be launched at some point in 2024.
Mm-hmm.
I think you start to see more of those dimensions, fulfilling themselves in a different way.
Got it. One question on the NMR side. You know, where do installation lead times, you know, stand today, and what internal sort of process improvements are you doing to bring those down? And just in terms of visibility into 2024, right, you had a few, you know, push-outs over there. How are you thinking about that?
Well, interestingly, you know, with a product that's as sophisticated as these ultra-high field systems, there's always a twist or a turn. It's often about the facility readiness of our customers.
Mm-hmm.
In some cases, they think they're ready, and then they discover that they're not. And some of you may know, for the ultra-high field systems, the 1.2 gigahertz systems, you need a two-story facility in order to house the instrument. So fundamentally, there are times when people think they're ready, and they're actually not. So there's a little disruption from the customer side, and then, you know, secondarily, but still importantly, you know, these are highly complex instruments, not only in terms of their size but their scale, their, the complexity of our magnet-
Mm-hmm
... activities, the wiring production inside them, the probes that are used in them are very, very sophisticated instruments in their own right. So, some from time to time, you know, there are issues that occur there. We test them at the factory, and from time to time, when we get them delivered to the customer location, they need more rework, and so they have to go back to the factory. So we do have some fits and starts in this space, and I think you've seen historically that we work our way through those.
Mm-hmm.
It spills sometimes one quarter into another, or in this particular case, in the second quarter into the, you know, the latter half of the year. But we work our way through those, both the customer issues and certainly our technical issues get resolved. And so it tends to be a little more lumpy, but-
Mm-hmm
... the fact of the matter is that these particular instruments carry, you know, significant ASPs, you know, usually in the $9 million-$15 million range, depending on the features, and they have a very strong margin profile for us, so.
Got it.
It's important that we make sure that those instruments are properly installed and accepted at the customer level.
Right.
It's important for, for many reasons.
Switching to CALID, and specifically the Ultra launch, you know, at ASMS. Can you just, you know, highlight some of the new features of the platform and what initial customer feedback has been?
Mm.
How do you sort of think about the competitive landscape and where the Ultra sort of slots in?
Sure. So the Ultra is, you know, part of a broader proteomics portfolio. It's a platform. There's multiple products that fit in that platform. The Ultra, in particular, is the high end. It's sort of the Ferrari of our portfolio as it relates to, you know, proteomics and both throughput, sensitivity and our ability across multiple dimensions to be able to see the proteome and discover it in a completely different way.
Mm-hmm.
So, we think it's the high-end product that we've launched recently. There will be other launches relative. You know, one of the great things I think about our innovation cycle at Bruker is that we're constantly innovating, even in those market positions where we have a, you know, solid position. And as to, you know, the competition, very clearly, you know, the competitor is a very strong player in this space, has a lot of experience historically in the proteomics space, including in the mass spec world. So we have a lot of respect for that competitor. And then, generally speaking, we continue to believe, you know, we have a strong instrument relative to theirs.
Mm-hmm.
That's what-
Mm-hmm
... I guess you would expect us to say. But we believe that to be, well, ultimately borne out by our customers and what they say and how they continue to look at our instruments going forward. And again, the other point I would have been making to a number of investors today around the proteomics space is, having competition is not always a bad thing, particularly in an emerging market. In the case of proteomics, what we see is good, strong, you know, I think responsible competitors, like the one we have in this particular case, is really, really, really healthy for the market itself.
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Because what it does is it allows for expansion of a market at a rate faster than you might otherwise see. Because these instruments, theirs, ours, and others, provide insight into the proteome that you might not be otherwise able to see. And fundamentally, if you look at the overall performance of visibility into the proteome over even the last eighteen months-
Mm-hmm.
You know, you're starting to see proteins and protein expression in a way that wasn't possible even two years ago. What that allows for is a deeper understanding of the proteome and the elements within it. And so we're starting to see specific study and research areas pop up in the study of the proteome, that weren't even considered or thought of two years ago, 'cause there was no visibility to it. So I think competition helps us to, generally, to expand the market faster in a way that where certainly we, Bruker, will benefit, but of course, others will benefit. And mostly, hopefully, you know, humankind will benefit from the higher faster discovery, and that's really ought to be the goal.
Got it. Quick one on capital deployment. I mean, following the PhenomeX acquisition, you know, what are your capital deployment priorities? And as you think about, you know, assets, particularly those that are not yet profitable, including perhaps, you know, in proteomics, I mean, there's a lot of-
Yeah
... interesting work doing that. How are you thinking about, you know, areas of interest and sort of size or the flavor of the transaction?
Capital deployment's a really hot topic, not only, you know, at the Street, but certainly even within Bruker.
Mm-hmm.
We've got a lot of, you know, competing demands for that capital. But generally speaking, our capital deployment strategy hasn't really changed. It's really about investing in the business.
Mm-hmm.
How we do that, we do that through a significant commitment in R&D, probably the highest, you know, rate of R&D spending across the peer space. I think the second area is continuing to invest heavily in CapEx.
Mm-hmm.
Our capital expenditure levels have increased dramatically. That's really around, you know, driving, you know, productivity, expansion, and optimization in a way that's really important for the long-term.
Mm-hmm
... growth for the company. And then we, of course, have elements of, you know, we have dividends we need to pay.
Mm-hmm.
We have share buybacks, actually, at some level, and of course, we have M&A opportunities.
Right.
As long as our M&A pipeline, which is pretty full at the moment, I would say, of interesting opportunities, you know, those opportunities must fit into the strategic imperatives of our Project Accelerate 2.0, and they need to have kind of the profitability target achievement that I was describing earlier. So a lot of a lot of opportunity for us, and we're very selective. We've got a rather prescribed-
Mm-hmm
... approach to that whole capital deployment program. But, fortunately for us, we've got still quite a bit of runway, I think, in the picture.
Got it. One last painless one on the guide.
Sure.
You know, just in terms of what you've seen over the last couple of months here, you know, you talked about not seeing, you know, the weakness in China, biopharma holding up better as well relative to peers. Is the step down in the organic constant currency growth in the second half forecast, do you view that as conservative or reasonable? And as a corollary to that, you know, what are some of the knowns and unknowns to help us think about, you know, or frame 2024?
Yeah. It's like I can't do too much commentary on 2024 because, you know, we're still working through 2023. But... and as I said earlier, the fourth quarter is quite important to us-
Mm-hmm
... relatively outsized compared to other companies. But I, what I would tell you is this, when we look at the overall guidance position here, you know, we came off of a very strong H1. I think our expectations around, you know, moderating growth in the second half is pretty reasonable.
Mm-hmm.
We've seen a pretty solid, order bookings growth, even in the July and August period.
Mm-hmm.
Not forecasting what it's all going to play out, but fundamentally, those are relatively good signs for us. And I would say, just generally speaking, the overall outlook for Bruker, if you look at us compared again to other, our peers, you know, we're still at a, if you look at our revenue guidance, which we lifted slightly, we're still at roughly a 10% organic revenue growth outlook for revenue for the full year of 2023.
Mm-hmm.
As I think you know, we held our EPS guidance.
Mm-hmm
... as well.
Mm-hmm.
There's some puts and takes. Clearly, the macroeconomic backdrop is not what we would like it to see. Fundamentally, I mean, our order performance has been quite solid. And I think we talked about this in the context of China, but more broadly across the portfolio, we still have a significant amount of backlog.
Mm-hmm.
Just execution on that backlog allows us to carry forward what we need to for certainly in 2023. Then we'll talk about 2024, you know, in February, once we've had a chance to look at the overall performance for the full year of 2023. But we're very positive about the outlook in the long term.
Got it. Fair enough. Thank you so much for taking the time, Gerald.
My pleasure.
Appreciate it.
Thanks for inviting us. It's a pleasure to be here.