Yeah, I think that's our cue. All right, let's get started. Good morning, everyone. I'm Pinjalim Bora, software analyst at J.P. Morgan. I cover mid cap software. Delighted to have here with us, CEO of Dynatrace, Rick McConnell, CFO of Dynatrace, Jim Benson, and we have CRO as well, Dan Zugelder. Thank you, guys, for coming, and welcome to the conference.
Thanks. Our pleasure.
Great. Maybe, to start off with, brief introduction, each one of you, and maybe a little bit, Rick, if you can talk about Dynatrace for the people in the audience who might not know about the story at all.
Sure. Well, at Dynatrace, our vision is to help deliver a world in which software works perfectly. The way we do that is to participate in a market that is commonly referred to as observability and application security. It tends to be thought of as on the order of a $50 billion market space, and it is getting more and more critical based upon what's happening in cloud and cloud spend. The cloud has numerous advantages, but among other things, it also causes an explosion of data and a massive increase in its complexity. And what that means is keeping software functional, performant, and of high quality becomes harder and harder. And as a result of it, a year ago, maybe even your panel at this conference, I would have said that observability is moving from optional to mandatory.
This year, we would say observability, that is to say, sophisticated observability, is mandatory. We see this over and over and over again at large enterprise customers that require observability solutions to make their software work as expected. We differentiate by delivering, as we say at Dynatrace, answers, not just data, not just dashboards. Dashboards give you an indication that something is wrong. Answers, using intelligent AI, as we deliver at Dynatrace, enable you to assess precisely where something's wrong and get it corrected as rapidly as possible, and more times than not, eliminate the incident from happening in the first place by being able to predict where issues may occur using AI. So this is Dynatrace's value proposition and our competitive differentiators.
Yeah, that was actually my first question on observability spend, right? As a category, it seems like it is elevating, and this is all the, a few of your major GSIs that we have spoken to have highlighted that. We have spoken to some of your customers who have highlighted that. One of your large customers actually said, "Observability solution is an insurance vehicle against risk." That's how they view it, right? So you talked about complexity of environment. What else is driving that elevation in kind of observability spend in budgets?
I would say that there are three principal drivers, from my point of view. One of those drivers is user experience. We all expect software to work perfectly. Get out our phones, get out our laptops, something doesn't work, we're frustrated, and we want it rectified immediately, and ultimately, if it breaks enough, we, we start thinking about alternative providers. So user experience is key. Second is cost. The solutions today are often, especially by large enterprises, deployed through multiple different vendors, and none of them work particularly well together. So this consolidation and elimination of cost is a second driver. And a third driver is productivity. I was, I was on the phone with, one of our large, larger customers, and they said that an incident process can have 100 people in it immediately and last for hours.
They want to eliminate this or move it to, from hours to minutes to seconds, to resolve incidents and radically reduce the number of people involved in incident response. The result of that is you have much more development resource focused on productivity and innovation rather than maintenance and troubleshooting. So those, those three drivers, I would say.
Can I double-click on the consolidation point, right? You talked about cost being a factor, but it's the complexity of the environment and the other stuff that you mentioned also results in the single pane of glass kind of view, where people don't wanna have separate solutions for infra logs or AppS ec, wants to have one. So, is it possible to understand consolidation driven by macro versus consolidation driven by secular trends? Is consolidation more of a, you know, continued kind of theme, maybe even when macro gets better?
I would say consolidation is driven by both. I would say consolidation is, in fact, driven by user experience, desire for better user experience, better incident management, elimination of incidents. If you have logs, metrics, traces, behavioral analytics, metadata, all of these elements together in one system of record, if you will, then you can resolve incidents much more rapidly than if you have multiple different systems of record from multiple different vendors. And so pulling those together adds enormous, enormous advantage. And so this drives and improve user experience. But make no mistake about it, one of, one of the customers we closed last quarter was spending on observability tools on the order of $12 million a year. Pretty substantive amount of payment to multiple different vendors.
By moving to Dynatrace, they were able to reduce that by over 20% and get a single system of record with much better user experience and incident reduction outcome.
I'm assuming you're talking about the nine-figure, eight-figure, land.
Yes, I was.
Okay.
Eight-figure, eight-figure alliance, yeah.
Right. Okay, so let's talk about that, right? You're seeing larger deals, larger strategic deals. You started talking about in the fiscal Q3, I believe. Now we are starting to see some of those deals close. Nine-figure expansion seems like humongous. I remember the first time we heard Salesforce talk about nine-figure expansions. Eight-figure lands is also really big for you. So talk about what is driving that, these huge deal sizes. Kind of help us understand the flavor of those discussions within your customer, within your clients.
Maybe I'll start, and then, Dan, you can comment. But what I would say is driving it are the drivers that I talked about earlier. It is the realization that organizations increasingly are spending a huge amount of money getting underwhelming results. Underwhelming from the standpoint of cost, and underwhelming from the standpoint of delivering performance software. And while it's happening over the course of time, and it's happening at different rates for different customers, there is no doubt that it's happening. And these organizations want to deliver better user experience, more productivity at lower cost. And at some stage, one of the biggest catalysts is that it's escalating from, let's say, the director of operations decision level to the CIO, CTO level, to centralize that decision.
And as increasingly that decision gets centralized, you have a much broader end-to-end observability view over the entire IT ecosystem, and that's really a core driver that we're seeing.
Yeah, just to piggyback on that a little bit. I think ultimately, the bar keeps getting raised in observability. People are getting visibility, and they're getting a, we'll call it, improved mean time to resolution and predictive. But they wanna get even better. And right now, because the software and their applications are so customer-facing, any outage at all is at the CEO level. So it's beyond the CIO, it's a CEO level, and there is a lot of frustration if that's not resolved in minutes.
Or quite frankly, they get on and say: "How do we prevent this from ever happening again?" And so when they look at Dynatrace, they said, "Your ability to look across our enterprise gives us a far better chance at having a better outcome." And then, oh, by the way, if you guys know, the spend culture right now is everybody's scrutinizing all spend. So it gets elevated up. So they're saying: "Okay, I see the money we're spending. We're not 100% happy with the overall outcome. How do we do both?" I think that's where it comes together well.
Specifically talking about the large deals, the nine-figure and the eight-figure land, did those start as somewhat smaller and kind of expanded through it? Did you kind of start folding in business stakeholders, which is something we have been hearing around that Dynatrace? Help us understand how specifically those deals kind of went.
Most of them start small, right? We get in, we demonstrate our capabilities, we start to show the impact that we're making at some type of smaller scale. And then most customers, along with our team, say, "Okay, we did this in a relatively small way. How can we, and we like the result. How do we do this in a much bigger way?" So they do start in a land and expand. That's still a very core motion for us and will continue to be, but we're now, t hat enables us to have a conversation and say: "How do we take this further?" That's usually how they start.
I would say, just to add, I mean, that specifically 'cause you commented on the 8-figure or nearly 8-figure land, that actually was a case where we didn't start small. So they actually were not an existing Dynatrace customer. They literally had multiple tools. And Rick can give you the kind of the broader story on it later, but you know, this is a customer that had tool sprawl, and they hadn't, they weren't getting the business outcome that they were looking for, and they were spending a lot of money. Ultimately, I think Dan's absolutely right. We went in, we did some POCs with them, and then ultimately landed the deal, but really because of the value proposition that we do bring. We do bring a business value ROI proposition, given the unification of the platform.
Yep, understood. Since Dan is here, I wanna go into the go-to-market changes, which is a big topic of discussion. Maybe talk about the rationale behind those changes and why, right. I mean, it's your first fiscal year going into this year, but trying to understand what led to those changes.
Yeah. So I didn't start. I started in July of last year, and, you know, speaking to Rick and Jim and the board, everybody felt like there probably was a potential to do some things differently. So there was already an appetite to evaluate it. So I had a chance to come in and evaluate what we were doing. And like any organization, we were having a tremendous amount of success. We were growing, and we had a methodology for our go-to-market, and it was working. But like anything, it has to continue to evolve. So we had a chance to take a look at that.
I was like, you know, what I'll call a clean sheet of paper, to go in and say: "Okay, how would I evolve this?" So I was not married to anything that was being done. And so I just took an objective view with the team and said: "Hey, what's working? What's not? What can we do better and different?" And we came really in three different major categories to that. One is that and this is fairly generic, but we kind of treated all customers the same, and we started taking a look at it. What if we treated the largest customers differently? And we invested, and we didn't get away from our other customers, we continued with them, but where we had an incremental investment, well, why don't you put those to the largest customer?
So we said, "Look at segmentation," and being a little bit more clean with that, where we had previously, maybe somebody had Walmart and maybe somebody had a mid-tier enterprise account. So let's be a little cleaner with that, so that our people in our strategics truly have strategic account. They have the right skills for that; they have the right approach and methodology for that. So I think that's category number one. Category number two was we were treating all partners relatively the same, be it a hyperscaler, be it a GSI, be it a regional partner. We kinda paid them, did enablement the same. We kinda had a one-size-fits-all from partners. And so we brought in a new partner leader in December that did the same thing I kinda did at the partner level, and reevaluated how we look at all partners.
And we started getting very specific on how we're gonna pay hyperscalers, how we're gonna do marketing to hyperscalers, how we're going to do product, so we have a com- and pay, how we're doing that with GSIs, how we're doing that with regional partners. So a much more refined approach to our partner strategy because they all operate a little differently. They all have different things that mean something to them. And then, I think lastly, was ensuring that we've done a very effective job. We've been of a land and expand. It's a great way. We do proof of concepts. Our software demonstrates itself very well, and we've grown a business mostly from that. But I also had a chance to say: Why are some reps doing better than others? And they keep doing better than others year in, year out.
I had a chance. I went and interviewed, and I could start with saying, "I don't know much. Why are you doing so well?" I found out that our top reps were running a play or an approach to sell end-to-end observability. I really kept asking questions about that. They were highly differentiated. The market is evolving and demanding this, and we said, "Okay, we know we've been successful with some reps. How do we do that more at scale?" So we started implementing, you know, continuing the land expand. It's effective, but we wanted to broaden that to end-to-end observability. We know it works. We just weren't doing it necessarily at scale.
Then the last thing is looking at these cloud migrations as we partner with GSIs to say, "Hey, they wanna get." Our cloud partners and GSIs all wanna get people to the cloud faster, and observability can be a key mechanism for that, and make sure we're really giving our salespeople the confidence to go in and help both the GSI and the customer get to the cloud faster.
Yeah, that, that's very helpful, pretty thorough. One stat that you talked about last quarter, I think, concerned some, a lot of people, was the 30% rep movement, number that, that you talked about. Maybe, maybe talk about how much of it is incremental? How much- what is that 30% typically? Right, I'm sure every year there is some movement of reps. What is that typical number? Are these, reps being given existing accounts, new accounts, that, when you're moving, things around? And then lastly, I mean, the capability of the reps, right? If a rep is given a strategic account, is that rep handling before a mid-tier account and now being given a strategic account? Are they capable of handling a strategic account? Can you talk about all of that?
Yeah. I think overall, you know, we. You had 30%. I'd say that's split probably 60/40, 60% prospects, 40% customers. And to make it help everybody understand, if you typically, as an enterprise, you have a lot of accounts, you typically go to a subset of those and focus your energy. You only have so much time and energy. So, what we first did is said: Okay, where are people not spending time? So, if we're going to move. We didn't move the accounts that people are spending all their energy and all their time on. We looked at the accounts where they weren't, and those were the opportunity to go and put a rep that had more time and energy for that. I think you're right.
I think the evolution and some of the prongs that we talked on this year is we're evolving some of the skills of our strategic account reps to do account planning, to really align to business strategy, to IT strategy, to how Dynatrace fit into that. We think we fit very well, but that's some evolution that we're having on our sales skills. So we think it's we don't think that the move was overly intrusive, but yes, we know that it's gonna cause some transition, and ultimately, we think that our approach to the largest accounts will have huge dividends for us.
And, and Pinjalim, I would say that in a normal year, it's probably 10%-20%, so this isn't 0%-30%.
Right. Yeah.
Yeah. Got it. Okay. And as you are focusing more on these large accounts, help us understand the mid-tier accounts and the smaller tiers, right? Are you taking the eye off the ball from those ones, or how are you kind of tackling that part of the customer segment?
Yeah, we're not deinvesting from any of ours. We have three strategics: enterprise and commercial. We're not deinvesting from that. So that's continuing on as we've done. It's just our incremental investment that we're putting in strategic. So it's just where we get.
W here, where Jim continues to give us ability to invest in the business, we're adding to that. So we're not getting away from that. Actually, we do quite well. So we wanna continue that motion, no, no change. We would think we would evolve and get better, but, but no material change to the approach.
Yeah, I mean, it's for sure kind of a reweighting and rebalancing that we didn't have as much density in the Global 500 that we should have. I mean, if you look at the propensity for those customers, how much they spend. It's a significant amount of the spend within the your top 500 accounts, and we just didn't have the density there. So weighting more investment there, while not taking it from somewhere else, and again, we're still going after the 15,000. We're going after it, you know, at the bottom of the pyramid, kind of with an inside sales motion. Kind of the mid-enterprise is certainly a direct motion, but with more accounts per rep.
Then the top of the pyramid, you know, as Dan's talking about, we're basically going from, call it, 8-10 accounts per rep to 4-5. And to his point about you're not moving accounts that had significant activity, you're moving accounts that didn't have as much activity.
Yeah, I would also say that that we're really excited about these go-to-market changes. You know, these are done offensively, not defensively. When Dan began, we were in the middle of a fiscal year, so it is very difficult to make territory changes, quota changes in the middle of the year. So between Dan and me, or among Jim and Dan and me, we were able to really be thoughtful, planful, headed into these changes, to do them right at the beginning of our fiscal year, to get territory maps, quota assignments right. We completed in April. They're completed, they're launched, and we're now executing accordingly.
Got it. One question for Jim, on this topic. Sales capacity, can you help us understand where do you end up in terms of growth rate of sales capacity, fiscal 2024, and how are you thinking about fiscal 2025?
Yeah, I mean, I would say that we haven't kind of commented on it publicly, but I would say that we are gonna add more sales capacity in fiscal 25, you know, throughout the year. Dan's gonna, o bviously, the first half is about stabilization based on this account movement, but you will then see us continue to add capacity. And certainly, the model is everything we're doing is designed to improve productivity per rep. So his comments about what we're doing on the partner side, all of these things in combination is not just add capacity, it's add capacity while providing much more enablement, much more focused sales plays, and a much more focused partner strategy aligned to that, which is intended to drive productivity.
The way we're generally thinking about it is that we are looking for the manifestation of these changes to show up, probably more so in the back half of the year, and then leading to an acceleration Pinjalim exiting the year.
Leading to an acceleration, the exit of the year. Understood. I want to ask you on, on another topic, which is, again, sales related a bit, but when we talk to your, some of your large GSIs, a couple of them have said that Dynatrace can unlock 4x-10 x the value that Dynatrace is capturing today within their customers. But at the same time, they say it's not gonna be easy because you need a different kind of a messaging to do that. You need a more of a business-focused messaging to do that. Maybe, Dan, help us understand, first of all, would you agree with that opportunity, that there is?
And then how far along do you think Dynatrace is, from a sales enablement point of view, to attack that opportunity, from going from, like, talking to IT folks to broader kind of business-level discussions?
Yeah, I, I mean, that's an evolution for us. I, I do see it, I don't know, 4-5 times. I don't know if I could put that on there, but I definitely see it as an opportunity. The, the, what we are able to generate and help give visibility, whether it's the user experience all the way through what's happening in these very complex application deployments that have APIs that are touching every part of their business, we're able to give insights that some of our customers are already seeing that. So we already have some customers that, like any maturity curve, they're already ahead of everyone else in seeing that. But I see other people who are going kind of like: "Wait, what could we do with this data?" So I, I, I'm bullish on that.
I think as the people look at, take a step back, and as the evaluation goes higher in the organization, I think that'll add value to what we do for them.
Yeah. I went through a lot of the time without talking about AI. Let me talk about AI a bit, Rick.
All right.
This, well, this kind of dovetails into the previous question as well. One of your customers actually said, Davis CoPilot is a game changer because that actually brings in more business folks into Dynatrace, and frees up his time. He's an IT guy. Talk about that and, you know, how do you think about kind of Davis CoPilot coming in? Does that actually broaden the horizon for Dynatrace?
Well, let me, let me step back, just one second and talk about AI from Dynatrace's perspective overall. First of all, we think about it as Hypermodal AI. Hypermodal AI consists of three separate techniques: Causal AI, Predictive AI, and Generative AI. Causal AI helps make it more rapid to get to root cause analysis. Predictive AI helps you anticipate issues to resolve them before they become incidents. And Generative AI, of course, gives you interaction to be able to ask questions more intelligently and thoughtfully, using natural language and otherwise. On this latter point of Generative AI, this is Davis CoPilot, and it will enable executives or non-technical people to essentially query Dynatrace. So it will rapidly expand the number of end users of the Dynatrace platform to be able to access this critical information.
We agree with everything that that partner suggested, and we believe that it can in fact be a game changer as we look ahead.
Yep. One question for Jim, I'm going randomly now, but logs and AppSec, that has been coming up more so after last quarter, in some of the conversations. It's. You're seeing good traction, 600 customers or so. I think the consumption rates are over 100%, is what I understand. But your comment about kind of pushing out the timeline for the $100 million ARR number, we have been hearing about that about the fiscal 2025 ending, seems like it's gonna be a little, take a little bit longer now. Maybe clarify what did you mean exactly, and, you know, how should we think about that group?
So you did provide some good stats that I think we're making very good traction with, you know, as you pointed out, 600 customers leveraging AppSec and 600 leveraging logs. And we're seeing consumption grow at a very rapid clip of over 100%, for those businesses. However, it's interesting that we started this conversation out about end-to-end observability. What we have found is that when customers are embarking on end-to-end observability as an initiative, you know, when you land these customers and then they deploy, they deploy in a sequenced way, and more often than not, their sequencing starts with some, whether it be application, full stack monitoring, whether it be infrastructure monitoring, whether it be DEM.
That tends to be the first use case that they're leveraging, and it's not that they're not going to implement AppSec and logs, but that's kind of, call it, a phase in their journey. And so I think we've seen that. We've seen it in the consumption data, and what we've said is, hey, it's probably wise, again, I think in the spirit of us being transparent, to outline that for investors. One of the things that I didn't mention, because I didn't want to get into it on the call, but there's also another element. Two years ago, when we set these goals, we sold SKUs. So the company sold SKUs, so we had visibility for ARR by SKU because that's what we sold. Well, by definition, with DPS, you're not buying a SKU, you're buying access to the platform with a dollar commitment.
So with the traction we've made with DPS, 18% of our customers are now DPS customers. 30% of our ARR is with DPS customers. So by definition, ARR visibility by product SKU is limited, and so we have evolved. We've evolved to, for our, call it, tracking purposes, we're looking at annualized consumption as the measure of progress because you don't know upfront. Well, by definition, consumption is going to lag ARR. So there is an element of the push out of the, you know, kind of where we think we're gonna be, somewhat just driven by the fact that consumption will always lag ARR. However, we do want to provide some context. We are seeing customers sequence, and they're sequencing, and they're adopting at a different rate and pace.
So ARR versus annualized revenue for consumption?
Annualized consumption. So think of it as what did they consume in a quarter, and then annualize it. That is the metric that we're gonna be using for tracking.
Got it. Going to ARR guidance, this year, your kind of guidance is a sub 20% to start off the year. And you have it seems like you're baking in some prudence in the guidance, given all the changes that you're making and the large deal variability. But I just wanted to ask you one thing directly. I mean, is it fair to say that historically speaking, what we have seen, where you have guided and where you have done, finally, actual versus guidance, this year, that variability in guidance might be higher? You're baking in much more kind of delta.
Yeah, I mean, I would say in the past, you know, if you, if you think about any guidance that, you know, you have to factor in what's going on within the macro environment and then what's going on within the demand environment, what's going on, in particular, with any trends. I think in our case, the macro environment is still a bit choppy, but I would say stable. Customers are quite cautious still in spending, even though they're prioritizing observability. We talked about the, these, large end-to-end observability deals that we've, you know, had a fantastic close to our year. Those deals very easily could have closed in the first quarter. So we are factoring into this guide, maybe an expectation that you don't run the table like we did this year, and there may be some push out of this deal activity.
And then, so that would have been new. And then I would say what's also new is we're trying to be cautious with these go-to-market adjustments. We want to be open and transparent about what we're doing. They're designed to improve productivity. They're designed to accelerate performance of the business and get better penetration with our customers. But we also know that near term, it takes a while for those, you know, changes to get matured. And so we tried to build a bit of prudence into it, knowing that there could be some near-term impact. Obviously, our job is to figure out how do we minimize that, but we felt it was appropriate to factor all these things into the guide. There's probably a couple. These last few that I mentioned are things that are additive to maybe what we've done historically.
Yep, understood. Let me see if there are questions in the audience, since we have about five minutes.
How do you think about the shift to end-to-end observability impacting your competitive positioning in the market? You spoke just before about how customers would typically start with application monitoring or infrastructure monitoring. Does that then mean whoever has the best version of that is best placed, or how should we think about that? Thank you.
You want me to start with that?
Go for it.
I mean, when you think about the decisions that they're making, they're making very, holistic platform decisions. They're not. I'd say what's happened in the past is customers were looking at just tools and, and putting in siloed tools. Now, what they're looking at is they're looking across, whether it be application performance monitoring, whether it be infrastructure monitoring, experience logs, maybe to a lesser extent, application security. And they're saying, "We need to, we need to look at a vendor that can actually combine all of this, and that has the best platform for us.". And so we're very well positioned, given our value proposition. Having said that, when customers deploy, as you can imagine, they make a decision like that, they, they have to sequence what they do.
The other thing that I'd say is a kind of a, maybe a little bit more information on it, is they also have a bunch of contracts with existing vendors in place, that they have to sequence also, when do those contracts roll off? So when they are deploying, they also have in mind that there are other contracts that they have in place, and when do those contracts come up for renewal? So in some, it could be a log vendor. Maybe the log vendor doesn't come up for renewal for nine months, so they're gonna phase maybe what they're gonna do, so they're not paying twice.
I would add that there are many drivers of end-to-end observability. I was meeting with the CIO of a large Australian bank, and the feedback was, "We are going to differentiate based on software that works better than any other software in our industry. Our strategy to do that is Dynatrace." I was meeting with a senior principal at an oil and gas company, walked me into the network operations center and said, "Rick, you need to help us eliminate this," their network operations center, by having it be more automated. The airline example I described, too many tools, poor user experience, too much cost, end-to-end observability. Each of these drivers can generate this need for end-to-end observability to be radically different and more efficient than what they've done in the past.
Anyone else? Okay, two minutes. I'm gonna ask you the re-acceleration question. So, 15%-16% ARR growth, we'll see where you end up at the end of the year, but you're, you're talking about kind of designing the go-to-market for a re-acceleration at some point, right? How much confidence do you have? What takes you to 20%+ growth from, you know, to fiscal 2026 and beyond? Maybe talk about that.
So I would say, obviously, I've been with the company now 18 months. My confidence is at an all-time high. I actually do. One, I think the leadership team is more aligned than it's ever been. Two, I think the parameters of y ou know, one of the things we didn't talk about is how aligned end-to-end we are. So the changes that Dan's making on the sales side are completely integrated with the front end, which is the marketing organization providing leads, the back end, which is the customer success team that drives adoption and utilization. So I'm significantly more confident than I've, you know, than I have ever been. Having said that, you know, obviously, I did put out a prudent guide, to your point. We'll see where we land. These are all designed, and we tried to outline them.
These are all designed with acceleration in mind. So I think we have to have a period here of maturity of some of the changes that we're making. So to me, it's about execution. It really is. This is we are certainly not market opportunity constrained.
Yeah. We still have one minute, so I'll ask you one question, Rick. This is one we have heard from some of your top GSIs. The change in go-to-market to position observability earlier in cloud modernization deals, which had not happened before, seems like. How significant is that for Dynatrace being the preferred observability platform?
This, this is one of the primary reasons, Pinjalim, that I was driving the GSI strategy, two years ago. It's just hard to get right with GSIs. Step one was to get into the reference architecture for GSIs on cloud deployment and modernization. We've achieved that with Accenture, Deloitte, DXC, Kyndryl, et cetera, and that's a major step. That means somebody calls Accenture and asks about observability, and that lands in Dynatrace. The problem with observability in a prior model is you deploy the cloud, and then 2-3 years later, you come back and decide it's not working as well as I would like, at which point you make an observability decision. How much more elegant and logical is it to actually have that decision be simultaneous with the initial cloud deployment?
That's really what we're driving with GSIs, and I would say it's still early, but that nine-digit win, for example, we talked about TCV win last quarter, that was done with Accenture. So this is, I think, a good example of the momentum that we can drive in the market.
Great! With that note, thank you so much, gentlemen.
Thank you.
Thank you, Pinjalim. Thank you all.