All right. Welcome everyone back to day two of the sixth annual KeyBanc Healthcare Forum. My name is Brett Fishbein, Senior MedTech Analyst, and I'm pleased to be joined this afternoon by ICU Medical. I'm joined today by Vivek Jain, the CEO, Brian Bonnell, CFO. I'll start us off with questions. As usual, this will be an all Q&A event. Questions can be submitted to me using the screen below, and I can relay them to management, time permitting. Let's just kick things off a little bit. You know, you recently hosted Q4 earnings and, you know, you talked about an initial EBITDA guidance range of $400 million-$430 million for the year.
Was hoping, you know, maybe just at a high level, we could kick things off by, you know, talking through some of the key assumptions underlying that range, to begin the year and maybe thoughts on some of the bigger swing factors.
Sure. First of all, Brett, thank you, and thanks to KeyBanc for having us participate today. We appreciate it. We appreciate the coverage of the company, and the thorough work that you do. Sure. We had our call at the end of February, and that's exactly right, the range we outlined there. There were a number of assumptions at a macro level, that we did make, and obviously there's a lot of things happening in the macro. I think the first and most direct one was that hospital census would remain stable. We didn't make a big assumption about increasing growth rates, but it would be stable to where it was last year.
For the most part, that's what we've seen in the first quarter of this year, minus what we called on the call was a sharp flu spike towards the end of January to the end of December. January was a little more volatile, but everything feels consistent with that commentary. That was a really key assumption. The second and third assumptions were really around tariffs and currencies. Tariffs, the assumption was that it wasn't going to be any worse than it was at the time we were having our February call. Currency relative to the February call is slightly less favorable from a Euro perspective and a few other yen currencies. Mexican peso is maybe just a little bit better.
I think those were the biggest macro assumptions that went into. Obviously fuel, which I'm sure we'll get to at some point in this conversation, fuel was gonna be where it was.
Yeah. Why don't we just get that out of the way? I've been asking most of the companies, just given, you know, some of the developments over the past couple of weeks, just your thoughts on oil, fuel, you know, commodity prices, and potential read-through for the company if this was a prolonged circumstance where, you know, prices remained like higher than they were a couple months ago.
Yeah. You know, in terms of the downstream impacts on resins of which we got asked a lot four years ago, three years ago, those take time to work their way into the system, so there's nothing sort of on the immediate front on that on our end. Obviously, historically, we had a lot of exposure to fuel when we were fully in the IV solutions business. We now have, at least on the IV solutions business, only 40% of that exposure, and that flows to a different line in our income statement, as we have the joint venture with Otsuka Pharmaceutical now. Obviously the joint venture does feel pain if oil prices increase, they're doing their best to offset that at whatever residual exposure we have a fraction of down at the bottom of our income statement.
For us, yes, it is, it's a headwind. We don't have it fully quantified yet, but we of course are trying to figure out how do we offset that and manage it. It's certainly not a good thing right now. It's not nearly as dramatic as it was when we were fully integrated to IV solutions a few years ago.
All right. Fair. Totally fair and, like, still very early. Like, we'll see, we'll see what happens. Maybe just, like, shifting a little bit more to fundamentals for the year. You know, you talked on the earnings call about, you know, kind of like your, you know, normal expectation of mid-single digit growth in consumables and in systems for the full year.
Mm-hmm.
You know, I think we talked about a little bit of the timing. You know, you mentioned January, so maybe a little bit more back-half weighted in terms of the cadence. Maybe just, like, remind everyone, you know, how you're thinking about that ramp through the year. Maybe circle back on 1Q. Then, you know, in systems specifically, how you expect the year to play out in terms of installations and contracts.
Sure. I mean, I think in both businesses, we had guidance that was consistent with our guidance for the last couple of years, which was mid-single-digit growth in the big two businesses. On the consumables segment, we did try to call out there every year, or at least the last two or three years, there's been some seasonality from Q4 to Q1 where the business goes down sequentially a bit. We said the same thing will happen here, probably a bit more because of what happened in December, and we didn't want anybody to be surprised about that. Again, volumes in February and March sit perfectly in line with what we thought they would be. I don't think there's a lot more to it than what's happened historically.
We still feel fine about what we said for the year, and consumables has a long track record of delivering. On the pumps, obviously our visibility as the contracts we hold have increased, our visibility to the next quarter, two, or three is sharper, and we continue to believe we have an exciting installed calendar later in the year. We should start to see that certainly we said in the back half if the macro environment, you know, throws more challenges at us, we need to figure out how do we adapt and do some of those things sooner. I think we gave ourselves the right space and the right timing with the right backlog to kind of manage ourselves on the business.
All right. Perfect. I think, you know, you already briefly alluded to what you're seeing with hospital activity, but maybe just circling back on that, if you could talk a little bit more about what was assumed for the year and kind of like what you've seen play out since January over the past six weeks. If you're feeling like hospital volume activity is, you know, supportive of that kind of guidance for the consumable segment.
Again, I don't think we made any dramatic assumptions about census or utilization increases in the system as it related to our guidance. I think what we're seeing for our customers is a level of activity, certainly in February and to date in March, that's consistent where their volumes were in Q4. It was a little bit different than that the first couple of weeks of January. That's why we called it out on the call. But it feels pretty much normal right now, and I don't think we had any assumptions different than that.
All right. Great. Just wanted to also ask about some of the trends in LVPs. I think you talked about double-digit growth in that specific category, but overall systems growth was something like more in the mid-single digit range last year. I would love to hear just a little bit more about like what was happening in ambulatory, which I think you called out as like a little bit of a headwind, and if you see a scenario where that area of the systems business improves in 2026, to the point where it's not detracting so much from what's going on with LVPs.
Sure. I mean, look, it's the ultimate score that matters. In the pump segment, from memory, I think in 2024, we had 7% growth in that segment, and in 2025, we had 5% growth in that segment. While that was going on, we did have an OEM customer that's been fading away in the background for the last three years and will finally fade away this year. That is in the ambulatory line. That's one of the acquired product lines in the last acquisition. That will continue to go down this year and ultimately go to zero this year. Again, we had consistent guidance saying that business should be mid-single digits.
For us, the reason we started to give more color about what's going on in the other pump lines is as the LVP situation starts to fully develop and the other pumps get approvals, trying to give a sense of what the future could be once that headwind goes away.
Yeah, no, I mean, I think that's helpful color. I think it's important to kinda call out the strength that you're seeing like in the LVP story, and like kinda good to hear that that should annualize out in terms of the ambulatory headwinds, and like there might be more of a story there in future years with the new
Yes. Sorry to interrupt, Brett. I don't think we were surprised by any of that. We knew that situation was gonna play out that way. The acquisition, we received cash and value for it for five years. I think we played it the best we could.
All right, perfect. Like another thing that came up during the call I thought was interesting, some of the SKU rationalization initiatives that you started to talk about, specifically in the Vital Care portfolio around lower margin product. Maybe just expand a little bit on what you're doing there, and then how we should think about, you know, directionally the type of impact it has on Vital Care growth.
Yeah. Obviously, Vital Care, relatively, the things we went through for two years, three years, Vital Care was lower priority in terms of attacking it versus getting the warning letter done, the pump registrations, et cetera, the operational cleanups. Now that we're through a lot of that stuff, we have turned our attention there. There are a number of lower value or negative value items in that portfolio, and you can't just walk away from things 'cause you have a regulatory obligation, a contractual obligation, et cetera. I think the time's come where we have the ability to take some more action there. We're trying to do that and run things for improved profitability. That might mean walking away from some revenues. We try to say we're doing that as quickly and actively as we can.
It's probably gonna make the biggest impact in Q1, and so we'd expect Vital Care to not have a great growth rate year-over-year in Q1, but to the extent we're doing the right things here, it should stabilize from there on. That was the point. I don't know, Brian, if you'd add anything to that.
No. I think that's exactly right.
Again, not something that impacts earnings per se, but sort of flushes some of the lesser stuff that stock out.
Yeah. No, that makes sense to me. Maybe like shift gears a little bit here. I wanna talk a little bit about the pump upgrade cycle that, you know, you're kind of in the earlier stages on. Just wondering kind of how you think about like the ramp of Plum Solo and Plum Duo now that those products have been available for a little bit of time now, and if you're starting to see like a maybe like pickup in momentum as it relates to contracting and just kind of like how you think about that, you know, this year?
Yeah. Again, I think a lot of what this year's pump results will be are things we already have under contract. Not 100%, but to a large degree. We still obviously have to fill the buckets for later in the year, but the next bit of time, it's stuff we already have. I think what we're seeing in the pump market is the reality of all the different dynamics that have been at play, and a lot of the U.S. fleet is still old, including ours, and there's an opportunity to refresh that or win it competitively. I think all market participants have been focused on those opportunities. We're seeing a reasonable activity. People don't voluntarily buy a new infusion system, right? My standard joke, it's like teaching your mom to use a new phone, right?
It's a big undertaking. You only do it when you absolutely, positively have to, either by force because of a remediation or by end of life or obsolescence. A lot of customers find themselves in that situation, and so it means there's a healthy amount of activity. Our business, even at $700 and change million, whatever it may be, isn't that big. Any incremental wins make a huge difference.
All right. I'm gonna ask one more question in a little bit about just like the pump landscape. Just maybe to finish the guidance conversation. Yeah, as of at least Q4, the you know, outlook assumed a progression around gross margins to 41%. You know, you guys have talked a lot about 43% as a target adjusting for 200 bps of tariffs. I'm kinda just wondering like how you guys expect to drive that incremental margin in 2026 given the step up in tariffs and, you know, really having a full year impact of tariffs. Just like where you're starting to see some tailwinds, you know, in the core business driving that level of expansion.
Yeah. Brett, I mean, well, you reference the annual growth rates or the annual margin rates, which in 2025 was around 39%. In 2026, we said it'll be around 41%. It does get a little bit confusing as far as what the puts and takes are from annualizing the benefits from the JV deconsolidation along with the negative impacts from a full year of tariffs. Both of those sort of occurred at different points in time in 2025. For us, probably the easiest way to think about it is Q4 of 2025 was a relatively clean quarter in terms of the gross margin rate, and that was at 40.5%.
As we move into 2026, and how do we get to a 41% average for the full year, the biggest area of improvement is really gonna come from completing a number of those manufacturing facility consolidations along with integrating the logistics network. We're completing that work largely within the first half of this year, and then in the second half you'll begin to see some of the benefits showing up as we sort of bleed down some of the inventory that was produced, kind of before the integration took place.
I would say that in addition to that, you know, we will get some benefits just from having some higher volumes in our plants this year from growth within consumables and systems, and then maybe a little bit of benefit from pricing, and that's mostly coming from improved LVP hardware with the new platform. All of this means, we should see improvement in our gross margin rates as we progress throughout the year, and as we exit 2026, we should be above that 41% full year guidance number.
All right, great. I just to put a bow on that question, I feel like I have to ask, you know, another event that took place in the last like month or so is the Supreme Court ruling on tariffs, and a lot of still uncertainty around actions the administration can take to re-implement some of those tariffs. Just like any maybe like early thoughts or considerations that like you guys keep in mind as you receive this new information, like how you think folks should think about it.
I mean, the day's not over yet, right? It's been kinda that way of living. I'm not sure we have a lot to add to it right now other than what's in right now is temporary, and there will be more clarity or at least changes, you know, 150 days out or whatever, and we'll see what that brings. I'm not sure we really wanna-
Yeah
Add a lot more to it.
Even in the kind of temporary system that's in place right now, any small benefit we're getting there has probably been offset by currency that seemed to move around the same time. We'll have to see where both of those things land.
No, it's totally fair. It's fast-moving. Yeah, I think everyone just would like to see some type of resolution, and I think we'll kinda see what happens there.
Tell us about it.
Yeah. So let's move on again and maybe shift back a little bit more to the fundamentals. I kind of teased out the question on pumps and like what you're thinking about this year, but also just wanted to ask maybe like more broadly, just competitive landscape question, you know, kind of just like what you're seeing. You do have the line that people don't necessarily like wanna upgrade their pumps, but just thinking about how aged some of the installed base is of legacy pumps from yourself and competitors, just kind of like what you're seeing around the upgrade cycle and overall enthusiasm in the market.
I think if you step back and say, at least for the United States, what has the market gone through? The market's gone through a lot of fits and starts over the last decade. The last couple of years have required a lot of remediation. We certainly believe the market share leader will hang on to the vast majority of their install base, right? There's a ton of inertia in this market. It accrues to our benefit on our own install base. But the marginal few customers that wanna change are really meaningful to us. Again, our business isn't that big, and you can't fight Father Time on some of these devices. They get old enough that they have to change.
I think we're just finding ourselves at that moment where a lot of these devices do need refresh in the next year or two or three. It's a critical time to be in the market with compelling new technology.
Yeah, I guess like speaking of the technology, you probably had some chances to comment on this, but maybe the longer the products are in the market, the more you hear just the type of feedback you're getting, you know, from the field in terms of upgrades to the platform. What are you kinda hearing in terms of reception?
I think very directly we have, I mean, two points I'd make on this. We have real customer feedback from those that have installed our new devices over the last 12 months, and the satisfaction rate is high. There's always some bumps and bruises, and we've been very, very methodical and slow on the installs. We've had to tweak a few items on the software side, et cetera, as always happens with new systems. But the feedback's pretty solid. We're proud of what we've heard and merits the investments that we made. Then any customer that's interested who's serious signs papers and spends time with us to look at what's the total technology roadmap for the next number of years.
We think people see the vision of our vision is a little bit maybe different than the other folks. We have a vision of we don't want all-in-one systems necessarily. We want all-in-one software, so it feels the same to a customer. The drivers, the actual motors, the devices themselves are best in class for what they need to do. That vision is what we've executed on here. That's what the new Medfusion and CADD filings are at the FDA today, and the LifeShield software that connects them all, what we already got approved on Duo and Solo. Each tool is the right tool for the job at hand with being at least on par with or better on the software and way of running them from an IT department or pharmacy department, et cetera, and nurse training.
Maybe just a quick follow-up. Like you mentioned some of the feedback on software. Any like, color on, like, what you're trying to improve upon or iterate upon with, you know, the new software being approved and live on the new pumps?
I mean, at the most basic level, we didn't have an enterprise-based system that could really handle, you know, huge multi-state IDNs, right? We do now, and we have any customer that was using a legacy Smiths syringe pump or ambulatory pump had to inherently run two separate drug libraries, two separate networks, right? 'Cause they were either using competitor too or us as pump platform. That issue goes away for that portion of the market. It's, you know, we spend all day around here, how do we turn off software systems? How do we not support applications we don't really need, right? We assume our customers live their lives the same way. This makes life easier for them and is gonna be available very soon.
Oh, perfect. Like, the overall story on pumps is playing out nicely and, you know, you're checking a lot of boxes. Just thinking ahead a little bit, you know, you talked about the updated Medfusion and CADD ambulatory pump as pipeline products, you know, that are going through the process. Maybe just update us on where those submissions currently stand, and I know you're not gonna speculate on exact timing, but like, eventually if approved, how they kind of fit into the overall value proposition of a full suite of upgraded pumps.
Yeah, sure. I mean, that all of this stuff we put ourselves and our investors through was for making that happen. We submitted those products last July. We're in the normal back-and-forth process. The bar has been raised by regulators, which is good 'cause it makes it a more difficult market to penetrate. There is more testing required even than some of the Duo, Solo products we had recently approved. We are working through that and the dialogue is constructive. I would say also to give a little bit of credit to the regulatory body, the timelines, the responsiveness, even for everything that they've gone through, haven't really changed. We're getting responses on the same timeline.
We're getting feedback as thorough as it used to be, et cetera, which is good, and there's a real discussion around that. I don't wanna speculate if it's as quick as Duo and Solo got through, which were first pass approvals, or it'll take a few more rounds of discussion, but we believe these things will happen. Again, for customers are sincere about taking a 10 year technology or looking at what those are anyway with the belief that they will get approved the same way they did on Duo or Solo. We obviously can't market them as approved devices, but we certainly can show people our technology roadmap, and we're actively doing that.
Just to maybe conclude on the system side. You know, something we've talked about a lot more, you know, more recently is LifeShield and just your thinking of, like, how to leverage your software, which is a differentiator, and potentially, like, monetizing the software directly. Just curious if you can, you know, update on your latest thinking on this topic and if you've started to, like, really implement any specific initiatives to start formalizing how that, like, could play out with customers.
I mean, I think it was your question actually on the February earnings call where we gave a pretty detailed answer on how you create value in the pump business, right? The kind of four ways you create value are obviously the razor-razorblade nature of the business, the dedicated pump set. I think that's very straightforward. The second way is if you can actually make money on the capital. We believe our new system merits the value and the price of the device are in line, and it gives us an opportunity to actually make money on the capital. The third way is dragging the accessories, our core consumables business. The fourth is software.
Our software pricing was historically low, but the value that package had was not as great as what the new one has. The jury is still out. We will try to monetize software add-ons and service alongside of the devices in a better fashion. I think what we don't know is, obviously we believe the device itself merits a greater ASP. That plus enhanced software costs, et cetera. We have to find the right space for the market to clear in there, right? It's early days, but certainly getting the software annuity and the royalty and the revenue stream for that is important to us.
All right. I wanna ask a little bit of a nice question here. I mean, I'm thinking about the consumables business, and, you know, you've had certain headwinds called out in acquired areas, but really, like, consistent growth and performance from the legacy ICU consumables portfolio. Maybe just wanted to give you a chance to comment on, like, some of the drivers of performance there and I know it's been like, call it, a steady and at times positive backdrop for hospital volumes, but there's more going on, you know, that you guys are doing. Maybe just like any comment on what's driven the performance there, and how you think about that going forward.
Yeah, I mean, consumables has been a great story for us. Through everything in the last four or five years, consumables, certainly the legacy portion of the portfolio, and even some of the acquired parts, we gave a lot of transparency in the last call, have performed really well. I think there's been four or five drivers for that, without trying to give too much detail. You know, the first is just the general hand-to-hand combat of marketing your products on brand and clinical efficacy and price and everything that we've done historically. There's been new studies, et cetera, we've tried to market around there. Two, to the extent we're winning in pumps in the U.S. market, it's dragged the consumables.
In the U.S. market when there were changes given some of the IV solution shortages, there's opportunity to continue to enhance share. Four, we create these niche markets, things like oncology or dialysis that are growing faster. Even though it's a billion-dollar segment, growth still comes from these fast-growing niches. Maybe five, at least last year and the year before, a little bit of price, right? We're taking a bit of a time out from price this year on the GPO contracts, but that comes back into the fall of next year. We still need to recoup the inflation that we took in 2022 and 2023 and 2024, and we still haven't gotten all there, and so price continues to be something that's important to us.
All right, perfect. Maybe following up on that, seems like maybe the last like earnings call or two, you've started at least alluding to like a little bit more innovation around the core. I think you had a line that like this could become more visible over the next, you know, several quarters or years. Just wondering if you can share any detail kind of like what you're working on in terms of categories, or like maybe tease out that concept a little bit, a little bit more.
Sure. I mean, I think we've tried to even go as far as in the current investor deck that's posted on our website. You'll see an image slide in there on consumables innovation. To make it really simple, it's taken the legacy ICU parts and pieces that offer a lot of safety and workflow standardization and attaching them everywhere, both in our own portfolio and the acquired Smiths portfolio that makes the workflows better standardized, safer, closed, whatever it may be, through a medications journey. Examples are putting our chemo products which are closed system transfer devices onto our pump sets themselves, onto a CADD administration set, putting our regular connectors on PIVC catheters, on Huber needles, port access, some subcutaneous delivery ideas.
There's a handful of stuff there, and when we've had to seek regulatory approval, some changes maybe in our SwabCap portfolio. As those things get approved, we'll talk about them more. Much energy here and so much dollars, resources went to the pump innovation. As that starts to moderate a little bit, we're not trying to take that money to the bottom line. We think as the focus player, you gotta keep pumping money to R&D. That needs to get shifted to the consumable segment.
All right, perfect. Then maybe shifting gears one more time, gonna ask a little bit about Smiths, and I feel like we are now, it seems like in the late innings of a lot of like the heaviest lifting in terms of the integration. Maybe with things starting to stabilize, from what we can see and the positive news around the warning letter last quarter. What do you think are still like the biggest items left on the agenda to fully integrate and drive the level of synergies in the second phase of this plan that are still on the table here?
I mean, I think on the integration side, the way you characterized it, Brett, I would say is right. We are in the later innings. I sort of mentioned sort of the areas where we have put a lot of effort and spent a lot of money, that being the manufacturing plant consolidation and the logistics network consolidation. That work is, you know, mostly going to be done this year, and we'll start seeing kind of the real benefits as we sort of sell down the transition inventory and which is sort of at a higher cost. Outside of that, we've also been spending a lot of time and money on IT system integration. The U.S. portion of that went live in late 2024.
EMEA went live 45 days ago, and we have a little bit of work remaining there in some of the smaller regions, but the vast majority of that has been completed at this point. Things like real estate have kind of just been happening over time and probably will continue to do so over the next year or so. It's been 4.5 years of a lot of effort and a lot of spending, and we're about to see a good portion of this work come to an end, and you'll kind of see that reflected in the cash spend in these areas in the back half of this year. All of this is gonna end up contributing to getting to those 43% gross margins.
again, that's kind of assuming a 2 percentage point impact of tariffs included in there. I think we still kind of see this happening as we exit 2027.
I mean, the cash flow statement doesn't lie, Brett, right? That's where you'll see whether integration is done or not. It's about the money that's been on restructuring and integration and quality remediation. If those things, if real integration is finished, those buckets come down materially. That's what we're focused on.
Yeah, that's kind of like where I wanted to move next 'cause I think under the surface there's like an emerging free cash flow capital allocation story that hasn't like really kicked in yet. You have the margin expansion which is playing out, but then a lot of like the one where we'll call it like four-five-year costs of the integration. Maybe just a little bit about like a normalized free cash flow profile and in terms of steady state. I know like you've started to talk more about returning cash to shareholders, like kind of how that all plays into your plan over the next few years.
Yeah, I mean maybe take it in reverse. I'll do the first part and Brian Bonnell can do the second. Look, our goal, we lost two years here, right? Our goal originally was to generate a much different level of free cash flow than we have been. We've gotten a lot better the last two years. It's those buckets we just talked about that have been the limiters to it. If those start to come off, and we said in the call script, we're gonna get to 2x leverage, and we, you know, at the worst case, we get there the old-fashioned way, which is we'll pay down debt like we've been doing, and we should be there by the end of this year. We believe in a thinly traded security like ours, the original premise was to return capital to shareholders.
We wanna do that. There's no secret about our capital allocation policy. The biggest drivers to free cash flow levels are the items we just talked about, the quality remediation and the restructuring integration buckets. I don't know. I mean, Brian, we can talk about if there's a specific target, but we just want those two buckets to go down a big, big improvement over where we've been. Tariffs have obviously been a huge grabber of cash too.
Yeah, agree. I mean, as I said before, we've spent over $100 million a year on those two specific areas, and that's certainly the biggest opportunity in changing our free cash flow profile. If you were to look at the two years prior to the Smiths acquisition, our free cash flow as a percent of our non-GAAP net income, it was basically 100% on average. I think, beginning in the back half of this year, we're not gonna entirely close that gap, but you are gonna see it start to go in the right direction.
No, perfect. Then another question I feel like I wanna ask, but not necessarily expecting like huge news. It's just on the portfolio management topic. I know it's something that's under consideration for a couple of like the non-core product areas. Maybe just like your latest thoughts on that and if there's any developments there.
I mean, I think short answer is, if it was easy to do, it would've been done already. We know how to, in the midst of all this integration, we did a very complicated multinational JV and other things, like we know how to get stuff done. It obviously isn't that easy to get done or it would've happened. We are trying in earnest. We have more bandwidth, we have more time today, we have more ability to analyze things and safer P&L, safer leverage structure to make some choices. What we don't wanna do is put our shareholders in a position or ourselves in a position where we have to explain dilution or those topics. We're trying to do it economically efficient. Sometimes you have to be patient, and we are.
We think there is a right way to do these things, but we don't wanna destroy value in the interim. We're sort of doing it thoughtfully.
Yeah, no, it's a good message. Also just wanted to maybe wrap things up and thank you guys very much for joining today. Always great to catch up, and everyone in the audience for listening, thank you for tuning in. Just wanted to give you a chance if you had any other thoughts or topics that we may have missed before we close it out today.
No. Good. Thanks. Thanks for including us. Thanks to investors for spending their limited time on ICU Medical. You know, I think our story isn't very different the last 18 months. There's been a lot of new things with tariffs and, the current events, et cetera. For the 18 months or maybe longer, we've been saying we believe the risk-reward profile is tilted towards the shareholder, and we've illustrated that with our own purchases of the equity, et cetera. We think our EPS growth, things we learned about a long time ago that's supposed to matter, your EPS growth rate and your P/E ratio and words like that feel a little bit out of line. We believe in the market, and if the cash shows up and the earnings show up, it'll take care of itself.
That's what we're very focused on. We think there's a good opportunity here, so we appreciate everybody's interest.
All right. Great. With that, we'll sign off. Hope everyone has a great rest of the conference.
Thank you, Brian.