Good afternoon. Thank you all so much for joining us. My name is Jon Dembchuk, and I work on the medical device team here at Morgan Stanley, and I'm pleased to have with us Integra LifeSciences. Specifically from the company, we have Peter Ardoini, the company's President and CEO, and Sravan Emany, the VP of IR and treasurer. Before we get started, I wanted to quickly mention disclosures. Please note that all important disclosures, including personal holdings disclosures and Morgan Stanley disclosures, appear on the Morgan Stanley public website, and with that, let's kind of kick it off. Peter, would you like to start off with some introductory comments, or do you want me to just kind of jump right into Q&A?
I mean, I can open up a few things, John, so for some of you that may not know us that well, we're a company out of the Princeton, New Jersey area, just under about $1.5 billion in revenue, and two leadership segments. We're the worldwide leader in neurosurgery, with a recent acquisition of Codman Neurosurgery, which I'm sure we'll talk a little bit more about, and a large regenerative medicine portfolio that's built around skin scaffolds for all types of disease states, as well as issues such as burn through diabetic foot ulcer, and we'll be about a 25% top-line reported growth player this year and about 25% EPS growth, and John will jump into some different things, but I think a lot going on in the company.
We feel quite good here as we make the turn into the second half about our prospects for finishing up the year on track to what our initial estimates were when we started out.
Sounds great. Really wanted to dive in to start on some of the recent news that's gone around in wound care and there's really a couple of things to hit on. Probably the main one, the really new one, is on Monday, you announced a partnership with Healogics for its iSupply program, making you a "primary vendor." Can you perhaps talk about what you see as the implications from this sort of deal?
Yeah. So big picture for us, if you think about our business, where about roughly, if you think about $1 billion is in our CSS or neuro business and about $500 million is in our OTT, where almost 70% of that is some form of regenerative tissue. And one of the newest growth areas is in this outpatient wound care setting. It's been a little bit of the wild, wild west if you follow that. There's been a lot of different players in the market, everything from skin products, skin substitutes, all through sophisticated products that are closer to the drug device borderline. And I think from when we got into this business, we took a very methodical approach with clinical studies and a lot of work around that. And we knew that it would ultimately start paying off.
I think this is a good example of a large player, Healogics, who is the managing group for many institutions that run their wound care clinics. Close to about 50% of the wound care centers around the United States utilize them. They've had a structure in place based on their business model that they didn't necessarily recommend or structure recommendations, have a supply structure, if you will. In different classes of products, they went out and did all the assessments, looked at the clinical data, talked to their users, looked at breadth of portfolio, scope. We were awarded the exclusive agreement. Now, that doesn't mean that other products can't come into the fold. A clinician can't decide to use that. But with the Healogics team, this will be their strong recommendation.
Their team will be supporting, educating, and teaching, and so we think that this is a great sign for many of other customers as well, after the analysis they've done, that Integra is a very good fit, so we see this as a week-by-week, day-by-day incremental growth vehicle. No institution automatically converts, but we think this really opens up for us kind of what we have, who we have as potential opportunities in front of us.
So I mean, as investors think about this deal, should they think of this as more or less a GPO-type agreement you guys have now been able to sign with a broad array of, I guess, wound care clinics that are associated with Healogics, and that kind of from there, you have kind of an inside track to maybe getting traction rather than anything that's committed sales to date?
Yeah. I would say at a minimum, it's that, John. So it's clearly a GPO-type structure that incentivizes people that are part of this structure network to utilize these products. On the other end of it, the more optimistic end, it's a recommendation by the leading group that manages wound care clinics after they've looked at all the products, including two of the other largest players out there that didn't get the agreement. And I think the point with that is that how the influence will be of actual users, individual IDNs to actually move to our product, we'll see. It gives us the opportunity to go to many of these customers that could buy off of this contract and do sub-exclusive agreements and make them fully aware of all the analysis that went into it. But again, across the board, it's a very positive scenario.
For customers outside of the Healogics discussion, it opens up dialogue that we might not have had in the past, and with some of the changes going on in the outpatient wound care market, I think the fact that validated by a third party, that strong ethical company, very effective broad range of products with clinical data that's validated and accepted, we'll take that moniker and word on the street to do well.
When you look at, I guess, wound care product share across the board, I mean, clearly you guys don't have 50% share, and they have 50% of the clinic. So clearly there's a lot of white space here for you to walk into. But when you look at your current revenue base, how much of that are Healogics partner centers versus those that aren't associated there? How much of this is?
Yeah. Traditionally, it's been a very small portion. So I mean, you could argue that there's significant upside opportunity if we can convert. It was not a large portion of our business, what was controlled Healogics locations or managed locations by Healogics.
And lastly, just the price. Obviously, wound care is very accretive to gross margins, very accretive to operating margins for the business as a whole. And did you need to discount the price to get on this deal? How is that relative to, I guess, what investors should be thinking about on the PO?
Yeah. I would say, first of all, I'd say what we did as far as pricing structure are very competitive with other types of larger contracts. So nothing out of the ordinary. And the fact that with the normal types of GPO fees and the margins that these products bring in, any growth we get out of a sale of this is at least 10 points accretive to the company average, at least 10 to even 15 points. So it's a good deal all around as far as we're concerned.
The other piece of news I wanted to touch on, which I guess is not necessarily more positive or less positive, but it's certainly interesting, is the UnitedHealthcare decision on basically skin substitutes broadly. You certainly had some exposure to some of the products that they've listed there. Some of your products were not exposed to that. Can you kind of talk to your viewpoint of what this really means of potentially the impact of the overall skin substitute market, but also the impact of what data needs to be there for providers to, I guess, really get adoption there?
Yeah. So you're referring to UnitedHealthcare making a decision that says 66 different skin providers were actually eliminated from the use of inpatient and outpatient within the United population on the private side. And so we actually have all of our Integra portfolio products, which is over 150 SKUs, is on contract, but our amniotic and our PriMatrix product was not included. I would say we're not really surprised by this direction. I mean, part of this gets back to almost the discussion I had before, which is big growth because the products work, a need for data, and the lack of homogeneity of the different players. Some people have no studies. Some people have a lot of studies, but they're not powered correctly. And a few have the right powered prospective studies that demonstrate efficacy.
I think I did went back through and said, "We're only going to bring those folks in that have that." And so there were some very large players. I'd say probably the largest skin substitute player associated with UnitedHealthcare was not included in that. So although we have two products that are out, they were still rather small revenue generators for us. The fact that it goes from 66 to 4, and in that grouping, when you include outpatient and inpatient, we're the largest player, we view that as an opportunity for us on a go-forward basis. And I would tell you, since we've been thinking about the need for clinical data, both of the products that I just mentioned that are not part of that agreement, we've already had initiated prospective clinical studies that we believe will be completed next year.
If successful, we'll have the power and the depth to be accepted by a public or private payer.
I mean, also worth, I guess, noting, the majority of this market is not United-driven. It's much more, I guess, CMS-driven.
Correct. Over 80% would be out of Medicare.
So when you have conversations with CMS about reimbursement and the future there, do they sound like they're going more the avenue of United? Do they sound like they're more receptive to skin substitutes? Does the OmniGraft strategy, which is really a data-driven strategy, seem to be playing out as you kind of look multi-years out?
Yeah, so to the point on OmniGraft, I mean, we came out with a product a few years ago that in this space could heal a lesion in one to two applications, where many of the other products would take six to eight applications, and so you would think on the surface, something that has as good, if not better outcome with less product would win, but in a reimbursement structure where it's a fee-for-service, if a doctor can have, let's say, the same outcome but get paid two, three, four times more, that drives the day, and so I think with different discussions we've had with CMS and others, there's quite an awareness about this type of motivation or incentive that's in the system.
And so the opportunities for some version of a, if you will, outpatient DRG or an episodic kind of package value, I don't think is far-fetched. I think it makes good healthcare decisions for all Americans. It's more cost-effective. And quite frankly, it can drive better outcomes. So that's something we've put some energy around as well as others within the industry. And I think in the near future, that could play out. And with a portfolio such as Integra has, we've got products that, as I mentioned, would fit very well into that. But our strategy, John, all along has been we have a very nice amniotic portfolio. Our AmnioExcel we had out. We just launched our AmnioExcel Plus, which is a three-layer Amnion product. No other product really in the market has that.
It's going to have plus three years shelf life, different handling characteristics, the PriMatrix product, which has all types of tensile strength capabilities and form fit as we're doing different cutting and structuring sizes, and then our full line of Integra matrices. So our game is, and if you look at other industries, if you can be the one-stop shop, have the clinical information, have the channel reach, and have the value proposition, typically you can be the winner and the top player. And I think we're in it for the long run. And I think this Healogics contract and some of these other things are just the signs that say I think we're on the right track.
So put it succinctly, you like your position in the world.
Yeah. Very much so, and as you know, we doubled fundamentally these same channels beginning in the beginning of the year. So on inpatient, we went from about 50 FTEs to 100. On the outpatient side, we have 100. We have a dedicated now metal channel that has ankle and upper extremities plus the nerve products, which is an important regenerative growth opportunity for us as well. So I think the timing and the investments are coming together nicely for the company.
Perfect segue into where I was about to go, which is really heading into 2018, there were, I guess, two big priorities, and you highlighted a lot of these at the Analyst Day at the end of last year. One was really integrate Codman, and the other was build out this OTT sales force, so really want to, I guess, tackle those next, starting with Codman, and I mean, last year at the conference, the deal was already announced and was about to close. Now we're almost about a year into the deal. As you look back at your initial expectations, certainly looks like the integration has gone largely as planned, if not even a little better, so how would you classify the deal so far? What's really left to tie in together?
It's what you started out, Stuart. I mean, I had some comments.
Sure. So I think we would agree with your characterization, John, that the integration has gone as well, if not better than expectations. I think we were pleasantly surprised at the start of the year how well the sales forces, the Integra sales force, and the Codman sales force came together. We were very happy with how the TSA exit for the first wave for the United States or for roughly 60% of the revenues that we acquired from J&J went. So just to put that in perspective, J&J was handling taking orders, basically processing those orders, distribution of products, customer support and service on our behalf, and then invoicing and collections. So they were basically handling all those services for us. We took those services over for 60% of the revenues of the Codman acquisition this first week of July.
In those types of transitions, that time is generally fraught with potential errors and mistakes. We went through that with great success. Now we've been operating for a couple of months now on our own. It's been going way better than expectations in that regard. So we've been very happy with that. We've been happy with the team that has come over as part of that. So we've got two senior leaders that were part of the Codman team, Mike Mahoney, who, sorry, not Mike Mahoney, Mike McBreen, who used to work for Mike Mahoney. Mike McBreen, who runs international for us. And then the leader who ran R&D, Mike Tracy, is now the R&D leader for Codman as well. So we're very happy with how all that's gone. And then from a performance perspective, in line with our expectations given all that type of disruption that we've talked about.
Yeah. And just the adder, I would put in, John, is that it's just, again, a lot of people when we first did the deal said, "Gee, why now?" All that. Again, we're the number two player. They're number three. Two buys three. We've become the number one player in the world. It's an asset that was in Johnson & Johnson that had very good, I'd say, care and feeding of highly ethical folks, global structure, but just didn't get the investment dollars. So you see a 1%-2% grower that had good ideas, good people. We advanced our global footprint by seven years by picking these folks up. I had seven people in Japan. I've got 70 today. They're all ethical folks, highly trained, consistent.
And the fact of what that means as far as your ability to ramp up as opposed to doing four or five small deals, it's much bigger. So we take a 1%-2% grower. We're already growing at 3% in the first half. We move it to a 3%-5%. And with investing in new products, which we have a really healthy pipeline now, where we'll be able to put out anywhere between four to six new products in neurosurgery over the next couple of years, we could drive our growth closer to 6%. So all that's coming together quite well. And I give a lot of credit to our integration team and a lot of the prep work because pulling an acquisition out of a large company such as J&J, there's a certain technique and approach to do that effectively.
And I think our team has done a really nice job of understanding how to work within the constraints and be able to manage it so that you can meet your expectations and really the requirements you need to run your company, which in many cases would be very different when it was part of Johnson & Johnson. So great team, good cultural fit. And really, as we make the turn now, everybody fully integrated, and we're kind of off to the races here.
No, it's really helpful, and the main investor pushback, as you kind of mentioned, was certainly on the growth perspective. You kind of mentioned it was growing one to two, now kind of growing in that low mid-single digit area. Certainly potential to get you up to that mid-6%, 5%, 6% range. When you look at the product overlap and the product pipeline, what really gets you excited about, I guess, either really the revenue synergies that can come from this deal or as well as just the pipeline products? I mean, obviously, they filled a couple of gaps. They had a few things further along. What really drives that, call it 6% growth? And how long can that, how durable is that 6%?
So if you step back, I mean, the first part is, and everyone knows this, an innovative market grows faster. Why? Because the leaders in that market are investing and coming up with new cool things that add value for outcomes or reduce costs. If the marketplace doesn't have people investing in it, guess what? It grows slower. So neurosurgery didn't have the investment, particularly in these assets. As we add investment, that's worth a point or two of growth just in the market by being the innovator. I think the second part is, which is what we really like about the market, neurosurgery is one of those areas that is heavily influenced by head trauma, which is in the combination of falls and accidents and such, and also in all types of lesions in the brain, benign or malignant.
The older the population gets, and obviously with the baby boomer curve or countries such as Japan that have some of the oldest folks in the world, those markets tend to be faster growth for us. Investing at the right level in those respective markets, we see just a few points just associated with that. Why we feel confident in the NPI side of the new products are we ran the same play with our own portfolio. A few years ago, our own portfolio was a 3% grower, and we took it up north of 5%. How did we do that? Clinical data on DuraSeal. Took a product like Mayfield that every neurosurgeon in the world has been trained on but hadn't been updated in 35 years and brought some new features to it.
Every neurosurgeon in the world wanted to update their system, and that product grew 20% for a period of a couple of years. So those are the kind of plays. They're not home runs or triples. They're solid doubles. They're about building the right type of excitement. And they're also then thinking about how we play in the broader ecosystem, if you will, about other procedures that are near neighbor procedures. So I feel really good about it. And to be the leader in the space is a big deal for a company our size because then we can compete against very larger companies just because of the span of the procedures that we reach and the capabilities we have. So I think we're in a good spot.
So the deal's been closed for almost a year. Stuart Essig, you mentioned the big, I guess, turn on of the TSAs at the beginning of this quarter, 60% on. Are there any other risk factors that we should really be thinking about? What are the next milestones that people can be thinking about, that is, the integration's done and completed with?
So when you think about any integration, high level, the question is, how's the cultural fit? How's the first commercial components? And are you actually starting to see some of the synergies? And so as Stuart Essig touched on, we're kind of hitting all of those, and they're either on track or doing better. The 60% integration is all the big countries, particularly the United States. So for all practical purposes, the United States is fully integrated. So out there is another plant that's a co-utilized plant, Johnson & Johnson plant, that we need to move products out of there into our own facility. We have a new facility that's just down the street so that we can keep the employees and do all that. And based on registration timing, that'll be over the next 18-24 months.
And we have the ability to speed that up, but that's kind of the cadence that we're thinking about. And once we come off of those, there will be, we believe, some cost benefits of manufacturing it ourself. Near term then, after that, is in the first half of 2019, we have the tail of other countries, and we call them day two. So they represent a smaller percentage of the revenue. And it's basically most of those are indirect. So this is about closing a country, keeping the distributor, having the packaging change, making Integra invoicing and such. And so we've done that hundreds of times with acquisitions, right? This is what we do when you buy a company and you have distributors around the world. So it's time and distance, and I think we've resourced it appropriately. So that's the first half of 2019.
And then the most near-term one for second half is really one thing. Our plant in Switzerland, which makes a majority of our hydrocephalus products, is on SAP with Johnson & Johnson. We're going to port that, convert it to Oracle. We've done versions of that at least dozen times in the last 24 months as we converted our old systems. That's the most near-term kind of IT conversion. And then through the end of the year, there's not a lot of significant other conversions that will take place. So I would characterize it as the first half was higher risk on integration, and we're probably in the medium to moving to low categories here as we're in the second half.
I mean, it even sounds like if there was a risk, it sounds like it's more to the cost side of the equation than it is necessary to the revenue. Is that a fair way to quantify?
Yeah. No, for sure. And I think the big geographical what moves the revenue numbers, we already own. The next portion of them, I would argue there's probably more things gained by getting them integrated than as opposed to kind of being methodical about it just because we will be able to control the incentives and the motivation. So yeah. And that's the way we planned it, John, is to be able to actually take control of the highest growth areas in the markets right away. And that's already integrated.
Wanted to shift over to the sales build. You referenced it earlier in OTT. We were largely completed there, I think, in wound and reconstruction by the end of Q1 . I think by the end of Q2 , you guys talked about being pretty much finished with there across all of OTT. So these transitions do have the potential to be disruptive. You certainly saw a little lower growth rates than we would traditionally expect from you in these areas in the first half. Can you just talk to where these impacts are coming from and why this was the right thing to do for the business?
Yeah. So if you step back from this discussion and say, "In OTT, why did you go through the changes?" The first thing is, as we've been able to grow the company from just seven, eight years ago of about $670 million to now on track to be $1.5 billion, a big chunk of that growth, doubling of it, was in the OTT area. And many years ago, over 12, 15 years, we started out with an integrated channel that sold orthopedics and tissue. And that was a great style for us. There weren't that many other extremities competitors. It really helped us manage the cost of sales.
As we added products onto that, grew our extremities business, grew our tissue business, went to different areas, that rep was calling on four or five different clinical areas, had so many products to learn that the ramp-up could have been a year for them to be productive. We got to the point where we said, "We got to be able to do a split." Candidly, I would have probably loved to have done it a year sooner, but the timing just didn't work out. We really put the motions in place to be able to have everything calculated and figured out in 2017 and to be able to set up our expectations and operating budget that we most likely would be a 3% grower within the first and second quarter. Why? Because every territory we had was changed.
So you had tissue and metal in one area. We did the split. Now you just have metal and you picked up more accounts. You were a tissue guy, you picked up more. There were handoffs of reps and all that. And I think with the work that we did, I would say the team did a very good job of kind of estimating the disruption. So people say, "You didn't feel much disruption." Well, we had the disruption. We estimated it'd be 3% growth when we typically grow 10%. And now that that's completed, why does that come back? Well, because we have great confidence that the pipeline that we've got and now how well settled these reps are. And the other component of that is third quarter tends to be a quarter that's going to be different for us.
Many of you remember we're dealing with hurricane thoughts right now. Last year, there were three, one in Houston, one in Miami, and one that hit Puerto Rico, and all three of those affected us, so from a comp standpoint for us, John, third quarter tends to be a very favorable comp, and if you just think about OTT, regenerative channels in second quarter grew almost 10%. If you just keep the number flat from Q2 to Q3 in actual dollars, it's almost 10% growth because of the weaker comp, so we think this is the stepping stone here to back to high single, low double-digit growth here for the OTT channel, and to your point, when we look at the crystal ball, the inpatient regenerative, because they've been in place since the first quarter, we're already seeing the funnel and the growth starting to really build.
And the outpatient channel, because of Healogics agreements and some of these other changes in the marketplace, funnel starting to build. Orthopedics, since it was just kind of solidified really by the beginning of August, we think it will take a little bit longer, but we're already seeing, I would say, particularly in ankle, where we just launched a revision product, a ton of excitement and opportunity within that space. So without a doubt, it's a little painful to do the channel splits. Done right, you can manage through the disruption. I think we're through it. But it sets us up now for upside growth over the next 2019 and 2020 with really hardly adding any sales reps because most of my reps right now are probably at 50%-60% capacity.
And so the hope is we can grow with that current structure, and then that profitability will drop to the bottom line.
So a number of dynamics kind of heading into the third quarter. You mentioned Salesforce is now fully in place, so that should be better. Also, the TSA discussion that we had before, I think there was a delay of some of the sales that were going to be in Q2 that probably get rolled forward into Q3 at this point. And then on top of that, the comp that you mentioned with the hurricane. So when we kind of add that all together, it looks like at a baseline, you're getting a pretty significant lift in the growth rate just from some really just sequential changes into the business that aren't really anything core. Call it two, three points of benefit. Then if you just look at what the business has been growing, I guess in the first half, you'd expect it to accelerate off of that.
As I think of the number, does 6%, which is guidance, seem, I guess, conservative to you?
I would say, again, back to all the channel changes and stuff, it's really about how well we continue to ramp up month by month. I think as we've expressed just recently, at least 6% growth within the third quarter. So that's a little better than, say, 6%. I think is probably a view that we would look at. Our guidance for the full year, which we've talked about, roughly 5% growth seems very much on track, which would imply a fourth quarter very similar to that. You may say, "Gee, is fourth quarter traditionally higher? How do you view that?" I think the real question comes down to how well we ramp up on the productivity of these channels. If we can ramp up the way we see it, we could probably do a little bit better.
But I think at this point in time, I think at least 6% in Q3 and that growth continuing out through Q4, we feel quite good about.
Okay. So I mean, the way it really sounds, and I think we've talked broadly, your goals are more of being a 5%-7% grower. So Q3, probably still a bit of the ramp when you get benefits from the comp, but Q4, very normalized quarter heading into 2019, which is a fairly normalized year, maybe some easier comps in the first half. But as we look at both of those, I mean, you mentioned 6% for the fourth quarter, you were at this 5%-7% range. Is that the right trajectory of this company starting now, or is there other pipeline products that really need to ramp up for you to get to that trajectory?
Yeah. So we've talked about our investor day, 5%-7%, right, is our long-term growth profile organically. And this year, we're closer to 5% because of the channel disruption. I think over the next three to four years, we clearly have catalysts that can drive us to that higher end of the range. I think as we go into 2019, we feel confident that our growth rate will be faster than what we have in 2018. And from an EPS standpoint, we've talked about at least 12% EPS growth. We feel good about that as well. So this 100 basis points of improvement each year we see on track. So yeah, as we come out of Q3 into 2019, keep in mind as we go into Q4, we lapse the Codman, so it becomes organic in the number.
So for the first quarter or two, until we launch new products, you could argue that it becomes somewhat of a drag. But we have a significant amount of new products that are teed up that really start affecting late Q1, Q2, and then in the second half of 2019. So I think that profile of beating this year's growth rate and then having us well-positioned with new products, no channel disruption, and then productivity increasing within those channels is on track. And I think specifically to wound care, with our enterprise team, we're really starting to make traction with larger contracts because we are a number one player in regenerative medicine. We are a number one player in neurosurgery. So our ability to sit down with a big IDN and work a multi-product contract has gone up exponentially just in the last year because of that.
People calling us saying, "Hey, we want to sit down with you." And I think we'll utilize some of that capabilities to lock in some growth in the future.
Okay. So 2019, a little bit of a mixed headwind from Codman. But then you look at a number of different drivers. I mean, we've talked about Healogics a decent amount already, but Dural Repair has been somewhat of a headwind. Japan approval is probably coming. Tissue ablation, you have CUSA Clarity launch out there already, and that's going to continue to ramp. Private label is another one that you've done very well at signing on additional customers. And we've already talked about the Salesforce build as well. I mean, can you help us kind of think about what those can really drive in a growth perspective and if there's any significant headwinds we should be thinking about into next year as well?
Yeah. I mean, so the first part, when I would just kind of back up bigger picture, I think when I look at the CSS business, which is heavily driven by neurosurgery, it is a business that whatever happens in the economy, all of these procedures are non-elective. So you have a big base of business that will be a consistent growth driver. And then you have this fact that we just want to have 50% outside the United States in reps, 30% in the US, and we're going to probably double the amount of new products. So you have a kind of a defensive, safe, non-elective business that we've invested in channel and new products. So again, why do we feel comfortable that three to five, maybe up to six is possible over the next two to three years? That's why.
If you go to the OTT side of the house, it's similar but has higher growth dynamics. I mean, OTT now, outside of orthopedics, which is under 15% of our business, all the rest of the regenerative for the most part is not elective either. So burn patients, accidents, DFU. So quite a solid growth business that's out there. And because of the portfolio we've built, we think there's clearly catalysts to be able to grow that into the teens, whether it be the nerve portfolio, our broader skin portfolio, and then the channel. And again, depending on how you look at our business, we've probably been channel constrained for the last two to three years at some level. And so we move out of that channel constraint mode here as we exit this year.
Technically, we're out of it now, but because of the ramp-up and the productivity, we're still not seeing that. So I think we're well set up to achieve the 5-7 and reach the high end of that band over this period. We've also talked a lot, John, about moving towards a 28%-30% EBITDA margins. I think the great part about that is we've got plenty of plays to be able to achieve that as well. Some of it's mix, probably a couple hundred basis points mix in product margin. We've got some great plays on G&A as we gain scale, leveraging all these new IT systems. And there's a big chunk that's tied to sales productivity and really our footprint that we'll be able to optimize with some of these new plants.
So, I do think top and bottom line from what we laid out in our strat plan, we're in very good shape to perform it or outperform it in the near future.
Sounds great. With that, we are out of time. Thank you all for listening. Peter Ardoini, thank you for joining us today.
Thanks.
Thank you.