Good afternoon. Dan Brennan here. Welcome. Day two of the TD Cowen global healthcare conference. I follow tools and diagnostics, and I'm pleased to be joined here on the stage with the management team of NeoGenomics. To my immediate left, I have Tony Zook, who's a board member and incoming CEO. To his left, we have Jeff Sherman, who's the Chief Financial Officer. To his left, we have Warren Stone, Chief Commercial Officer. And then to the far left, we have Chris Smith, who's the current CEO. Terrific gentlemen. Welcome, and thank you for being here.
Thanks for having us.
Yeah. It's the full firepower we have. This is terrific.
I was going to say, just keep moving these until I'm right off.
You chose this, Jimmy.
Yeah. I thought we could look at it.
Yeah, we got a long list of questions to get through here in the next 30 minutes. A couple of overriding issues, I think, kind of sit atop a lot of the questions here, which hopefully we can address. Both are intertwined. The first is, obviously, business trends and the outlook. Critical. You know, the company missed fourth quarter for the first time in over three years. We're talking a modest amount, but the stock has been punished since then. I want to dig through kind of what's happening in the core business, right? Secondarily, CEO transition. Obviously, Chris Smith has been at the helm for over two years. He's departing very soon. Tony Zook, to my left, is going to be coming on board. I think it's critical to understand that transition and Tony's approach. We'll dig into both of those.
Maybe I'll start with a high-level question to Chris, excuse me. Kind of why is now the right time for you to depart? What are some of the critical changes that you made? How do you feel Neo is set up for success under Tony?
Yeah, thanks, Dan. Yeah, look, I think if you go back to 2022, when I decided to take the role with the company, there was really the mantra from the board was really two things. This company was not growing. That's a pretty easy one. Grow the business and really grow at double digits. We were losing that year, we lost $48 million, almost $50 million at adjusted EBITDA. That was really it from the board. I said, look, my understanding is I think it'll probably take three to four years to do this, to turn it around. It was really there were goalposts that we had agreed to target. I think a couple of things happened, Dan. I would say, first of all, we were able to rebuild the whole leadership team by that January.
From August to January, everybody that's now reporting to me was not. We were able to bring in the leadership team, I think, much quicker. I think the second thing was we were able to put rigor and discipline and identify the key strategies quicker. We just finished our ninth consecutive quarter of double-digit growth, and we made $40 million in 2024. Really what I agreed to the board I would do, we've done. Did it happen sooner than four years? It did. Based on that and just some personal things in my own life, I just decided it was a good time to step away. I think you have a really good management team. The fundamentals of the business are fantastic. Cancer is growing 8%, and we're growing faster than most modalities.
It just felt that it was a good time. Now, I don't love the fourth quarter. It's interesting. You said we missed the fourth quarter. We actually hit right in the middle of guidance, as you know. It's kind of interesting how the world, we've historically beat consensus. I think, to be fair, a lot of people probably thought that. We hit guidance, and we did miss the consensus by about $1 million, which for the year was less than really 1% of revenue. A lot of that had to do with the timing of the turnaround of pharma. Candidly, that has taken a little bit longer than we thought. That pharma revenue for a year is less than 10%. If we had even been flat last year, we would have grown probably 13 instead of 14.
I mean, 13 instead of 12. I feel like we've been punished because of a minor miss, but probably more to do with the transition and why it didn't happen so fast. I think getting into that with Tony here, I think it's great that he's here, and he can talk about that.
Terrific. Thank you. A great segue.
Jeff, I know you wanted to talk a little bit about the quarter, too, but anything?
Sure. I mean, happy to add. I think we talked about really in pharma in particular that we just did not see the budget flush that we normally see. You do not really have that happen until the last four or five weeks of the quarter. It has been very predictable, and it just did not happen in the fourth quarter of this year. Again, our earnings were at the top end of our revised guidance range. I mean, remember, we started the year at $21-$24 million in adjusted EBITDA was our original guide. We finished the year at $40 million, which was the top end of our second revised earnings adjustment during the year. Almost doubling our adjusted EBITDA for the year from where we started the year.
I think as we talked about in the fourth quarter call, we did see our pharma bookings increase materially as we started the year. Now, those bookings will take two to three years to really hit our revenue line. We will see some of it hit in 2025. That did give us confidence about the overall repositioning of our pharma go-to-market strategy and that we are seeing big pharma in particular starting to spend more on pharma. Again, if you think about our 2024 year, we grew our clinical revenue 15% in the fourth quarter, 15% for the year. If we had just been flat on the non-clinical revenue, as Chris said, that would have been like 13% growth.
We expect continued momentum in the clinical side of our business in 2025 and expect to see growth starting to return in the non-clinical side of our business, which really helps us get to our revenue growth number for the year.
Terrific. No, that was great. I mean, that was some great input there. Thanks, Jeff. Maybe moving on with Tony. Just first, terrific to meet you. You have extensive leadership experience in pharma by your background. You've been on the board for the past couple of years. To play devil's advocate, the CEO prior to Chris was a pharma leader. Really good background for AstraZeneca and probably other before that. Neo's core diagnostics business struggled materially under his watch. How will your background and experience serve you well as a new incoming CEO? Which parts of the business do you think your skill set is best matched?
Sure. I would probably say a couple of things on the topic. First off, the scenario that I find myself as I'm entering Neo is remarkably different than the scenario Mark had to deal with. He was coming into a company that was having some serious transition issues. COVID hit. I think it's fair to say they had lost their way and needed to redirect. Coming into that cold without a lot of experience, I think, in the diagnostic area was a hurdle. Contrast that with my scenario. I'm coming on board with a management team and a leadership body that Chris put in place that not just stabilized the business. They've been growing at double digit. They put financial discipline into the company where we're focusing on margin improvement and profitability. They just got so many of the fundamentals correct.
To be able to be on the board for two years and see that, to be part of the budget process, to be part of the AOP, I don't feel like I'm coming into a new entity. I feel like I've been part of it. Now I'm first moving from second cousin to a family member. I feel this scenario is just very different. Second is your skill question. My first two-thirds of my career was spent growing up in commercial organizations. I sold. I carried the bag. I sold in the hospital. I led selling organizations that sold within the hospital environment. I know what it's like to sell undifferentiated products in the hospital as well as differentiated products.
When Chris and the team talk about win the customer experience, I know that battle firsthand, and I know the effort that they've put into winning that. I've also sold products extensively into the oncology sector. I know what it takes from across the organization to not just get that lead indication, but then build it out over time. I think that suits my skill set from the commercial background. The last third of my career, I was interfacing. I was the head of R&D for a number of our companies. It's no secret that I believe our future is going to be based on getting those innovative products into the marketplace. That interface between commercial and development is vital. I think that explains a little bit how my scenario is different and then my skill sets coming in.
Terrific. Maybe the next series of questions I had up top were kind of on for cue. Jeff, I think you kind of went through them. Maybe when we think about the guide then, the 2025 guidance calls for 11-13% growth. It's a modest acceleration from the reported growth this year, right? 11.6%. As you mentioned, clinical was 15%. You have a reputation for, as Chris mentioned, consistently coming forth and not only delivering, but coming ahead of where people think. I guess, how would you characterize the guidance? Are there any of the management team members want to speak on it? Clinical growth is implied around 13-14% with advanced diagnostics growing low single digits. I want to take that, Jeff.
Yeah. Again, going back to we've had strong growth in clinical 2023 and 2024. We expect that strong growth to continue. We are adding to the sales force. We're adding another 30% to our sales force. Coming out of Q3 and really into the beginning of 2025, we will have added another 30% to our sales force. In addition to that, we have new products coming out in liquid biopsy as well as solid tumor HRD as well. A combination of continuing our strategy of protect, expand, acquire in the clinical business, adding new sales team members as well, and then new products. We see good momentum in the clinical business. We have a lot of confidence in that business. I think just stabilizing the pharma business, we've said that was a work in progress. We have a new go-to-market strategy.
It's been under Warren's leadership for about three quarters now. It is a longer sales process, and Warren can go into more detail on kind of some of the changes he's made. That gives us confidence that that business can return to some modest growth in 2025 and start accelerating growth after that. I think as we think about the business, Q4 was a very strong quarter. It was one of our strongest volume quarters, up 9%. Strong growth across all modalities. We had some weakness in the non-clinical, and particularly in pharma. We're seeing that starting to stabilize. That really gives us confidence of achieving our revenue growth in 2025.
Great. I have some questions. Tony, big picture planning. I'm going to stay tactical right now just on clinical for a little bit, and then we'll come back. Maybe just speak to the oncology opportunity here with PanTracer. I know you've kind of beefed up the oncology sales force. You have PanTracer coming out, maybe some other new products. Just speak to where you stand with your oncology presence and kind of what kind of impact PanTracer can have.
Yeah. Thanks, Dan. I think importantly, and you've noted that we've made the investment, the community oncologist segment with the recent addition of the 35-plus sales resources that Jeff said. That was by design for two purposes. We recognize that we need to increase our reach and our frequency into that community oncology segment. Secondly, we need those feet on the street to be able to drive adoption of the new products we bring into market. PanTracer liquid falls right within that sweet spot. The community oncologist is the target setting. Although we are not first to market, we believe in a number of factors that this is, A, a very competitive test. It has all of the sort of attributes that a community oncologist would be looking for, including TMB and MSI, which is becoming increasingly important around immune response therapy.
Secondly, we feel that we're going to offer a probably best-in-class turnaround time, something that becomes synonymous with in the marketplace in terms of the value that we bring and it ties into the customer service. The third aspect is the portfolio effect. Today, we get told by numerous community oncologists that they're disappointed in the fact that we don't have a liquid solution because the adoption of liquid as a testing solution has rapidly accelerated. This is a formidable gap, which is limiting them in terms of partnering holistically with NeoGenomics. We feel we're very well placed with the added resources and the attributes that this test will bring to be able to drive accelerated growth within NGS and within the community oncology segment as well.
Maybe you want to touch on concurrent testing.
Yeah. Maybe that's a good point. Thanks, Jeff. If you're really getting to get the narrative here. I mean, what we're seeing here is that concurrent testing is becoming increasingly important. It's in the guidelines now for early non-small cell lung cancer. That's basically where you would run both a liquid test and a solid tumor test concurrently together and will be reimbursed accordingly. We probably anticipate that other indications will move into the guidelines as well in the future. Ultimately, we feel that the very strong position that we have with our NeoComprehensive, the solid tumor test that we launched in March of 2023 in combination with PanTracer liquid, is going to be a formidable combination in the marketplace.
How big is NeoComprehensive now? Have you guys said that?
We haven't broken it out. We've said, I mean, NGS continues to grow. It's growing. We're expecting it to grow 25%. It's 30% of our clinical revenues today. Obviously, as we started 2024, we saw significant growth in NGS because we had that solid tumor test that we released in 2023 really starting to ramp. I think we're expecting to see good growth and to ramp in liquid biopsy in the back half of this year and really rotating into 2026 as well.
Do you feel for the PanTracer opportunity, is it more hospitals are doing it themselves? They're sending out to Guardant or Tempus or Foundation, or they're just running another type of test like a panel, or they're running something else and now they need this liquid test? I'm just wondering.
It's a combination of all three. There is certainly many community oncologists that are not using liquid yet. It's recently been included in the guidelines for early lung cancer. There is still a big portion of the market that doesn't use it. That's the first. There are very few institutions that run this internally, even in the academic setting. It's typically a send-out test. In that case, they would be using one of the competitors that you have articulated.
Maybe one more there. Do you feel like for the opportunity this year and next, is most of the opportunity share gain displacing one of the incumbent vendors, or they're just not doing it today?
I would say yes.
Yes to both. I think it's a combination of both. Like I said, we've had numerous ordering physicians already express their desire for us to include this in our portfolio because they're having to partner with other providers and because we don't have it. I will say we're seeing increasingly, and I saw this just yesterday while I was out at some customers, that the administrative burden on these practices is becoming just overwhelming. Consolidating the number of send-out vendors that they're making use of is a way to reduce that burden. With our broad portfolio of 500-plus tests, which is now being very well rounded out in both diagnosis and in therapy selection, it places us in a very strong position to sort of be that preferred send-out partner.
When we wrap that around with interfaces, and we spoke in our Q4 earnings about the 330 interfaces we brought live in 2024, it really starts to significantly reduce that admin burden, improve the overall end-to-end experience, and ultimately drive adoption.
Yeah. I think just to carry that on, Dan, if you think about this business, it truly is a service business. Technology is, without question, important. If you get a liquid biopsy, you're going to get a result from multiple vendors. If you're going to win on service, it is around kind of that customer experience. I think the share gains of our existing customers will keep it. The other one is, remember, a lot of our business is in the community and a lot of people in Paducah, Kentucky aren't necessarily running liquid yet. It's still early days as this expands. I think it'll actually be both. I think you'll see the market grow as we bring it into the community where a lot of these companies don't play. You also definitely move share.
Got it. You guys haven't broken out what the impact is in the 25% growth from PanTracer, right?
Yeah.
Okay. Okay. Maybe just one on the core business. XNGS, I mean, that business did well. I think volumes have grown over 4% a year the last couple of years. Pricing has been pretty powerful. It's over 300 basis points in our model. Just maybe speak to the underlying core XNGS business and what's been driving that.
Yeah. I think.
Go ahead.
No, no, please. You're the guy driving it.
I think a couple of factors. I think first and foremost, sort of in the early days 2023, we made some investments into what we call TBN strategy business managers. That was our first set of field resources that we invested in to ensure that we had a significant enough presence addressing that core business that you referred to. That is largely in the hospital space targeting pathologists. That was the first thing we did. The second is we came up with a very simplistic but effective commercial strategy. You have heard me speak about this before, the protect, expand, acquire. One of the biggest things that we focused in on is protecting existing business, narrowing that hole in the bucket. That comes back to the experience that Chris was talking about.
If you're providing a good experience, which is creating value, people are less likely to switch. As we started to lose less and execute the strategy of expand, so increase share of wallets and acquire new customers, that became incremental business versus in the past, we were winning new business, but we were losing as quickly as we were winning it. Ultimately, it created a net gain. It has simplistically been around the fact that we have, in some instances, rounded out our portfolio, but more importantly, we invested in the commercial resources that we needed. We have executed the protect, expand, acquire strategy effectively, which has resulted in this consistent volume growth above market.
Yeah. We also pivoted even the way we compensate our commercial organization to driving growth. Before we all came together, that was not the case. Our view is that there is a lot of market share out there that we do not have. Our thing from day one was we will grow every modality faster than the market to our team. Fortunately, we have been able to do that. The reason being is that we are very aggressively, we go out and move market share, but then we make sure we do not lose what we have.
Maybe a question on advanced diagnostic. Then we'll jump over to Tony and big picture. Then we'll hit MRD after that. Just on advanced diagnostic, maybe look underneath the hood about why pharma customers are coming to you today. You've kind of a runoff with the existing MRD that you can run. Just what is it that they're tapping into? You guys have this big heme portfolio. What type of studies are they running with you? How has it been restructured? What type of the bookings that you're seeing, why are they coming to you to do what?
Wow. There is a lot of questions in there. Let me start in terms of what we offer. We have a lot of the modalities that we offer in the clinical setting we offer to pharma. FISH, Flow, Molecular. We also offer additional modalities. Particularly, MultiOmyx is probably the one which is unique to pharma that we do not actually offer in the clinical space. We offer a solution both across heme and solid tumor to pharma customers for patient selection, patient screening, and patient enrollment. Phase I through phase III clinical trials is where we operate both across solid tumor and heme. Pretty diverse, broad set of services.
What we've done as we've pivoted and relaunched this in January of this year is we've taken those modalities that we offer, but we've actually aligned them to the different therapy types that pharma is now looking to bring to market. Think of CAR-T, think of antibody drug conjugates, think of immune response, etc. We said, you're bringing this type of product to market, here's our solution that we can support you with versus coming to them with our modalities, etc. That's the first thing that we've done. The second is we've actually, to help them standardize on their workflows, etc., we've come up with standardized workflows for them to consider from a trial perspective. That's simplified the sales process and the buying process on the side of the customer significantly.
The third thing that we've done is we've changed the deployment strategy of our pharma sales team to a classical Hunter Pharma model. We noticed that our business was coming from a fairly narrow set of pharma customers, a couple of hundred, where the actual opportunity is a couple of thousand. If we wanted to grow, we needed to ensure we addressed new customers. We've deployed the resources against existing customers from a pharma perspective and resources against new business opportunities, which are the Hunters. We believe the combination of that deployment model plus sort of repositioning our offering to the pharma customers around the types of therapies that they're looking to bring to market is going to significantly increase the value proposition.
Okay. Interesting. Maybe we can jump to Tony and we can come back to some of the business questions too. Maybe Chris and Tony, it might be more appropriate for Chris, but some people have thought issuing the LRP before Tony took over might have been premature. Why do you think that was the right time to do it in January?
Yeah. Look, and by the way, we did it in discussion with the board. I think that's kind of important. We had started that process with the board. Every year, we have a July strategy session, and we'd worked through with the board. That LRP was under development for a while with the board. I think, look, to be fair, because of the announcement, I think some investors were concerned about, is there the bones of the business? How is it? I think it was just to give we were going to release it always during Q1 earnings. We decided to do it at JPMorgan because we thought it helped to give confidence to investors on the long-term growth. Tony had kind of been kind of part of that process.
Look, I think whether we did it in January, whether we did it in February at earnings, we were always planning to do it. Because I think if you go back to when we started, we said seven to nine was the growth for the long-term guide. And then we said 10 plus. I think one of the things you got to do as a company, you just can't keep doing this. I think as we learned the business significantly better and had confidence, we wanted to come out and kind of say, look, this is what we think it's going to be. I think it's also hard to constantly keep doing that beat and raise and moving. We just said, look, this is where the LRP is. That was kind of the reasoning behind it.
The only thing I would add to that is Chris has made it a process where it's been very open at the board level. We challenge strategy. We challenge LROP. We challenge annual budgets. I had every opportunity to challenge both the budget and the LROP and anything that was underpinning it. I feel very, very comfortable. I guess one of the questions behind the question is, do I fully support the LROP? The answer is yes. I don't see coming in now, we're changing this, we're changing that. It's a good plan. I believe in that plan.
Maybe just on that then. Twelve, thirteen percent is, like you said, Chris, up from seven to nine only a few years ago with NGS being probably the biggest delta or the delta.
I believe it's like a five-year plan similar to other long-term guides. I'm not sure if there's been a time period attached to it. I guess it'd be the first question. B, I have heard this from investors that does imply a bit of a step up from where you guys were in 2024 and from 2025, the guide. You're assuming the long-term you're going to be better than both. Warren, you may just say it's the advanced diagnostics turnaround. Just give us a sense of the underpinnings of that, which bakes in pretty robust NGS growth over that time. Since you're underlining it, maybe just give some thoughts on that.
I'm happy to. They can go into much more detail. The confidence I take into it has also been based on the last few years' performance. I mean, you see the very strong operating performance for the clinical team. You see the growth in the NGS portfolio. You see the addition of new products coming into that portfolio. You see the add-on of additional selling resources that I think are going to position us equally strong within the community oncology framework as we are in the community hospital setting. You start to look at those things combined with the market growth. There should be no reason we can't outperform market growth. I think some of the underpinnings of it, I'm fully aligned with.
Yeah. I think it's a really fair point. I mean, look, I think bringing on new products, as you bring new products to market, it gives you confidence. The other thing is we'll be at about 30% more people selling by the second half of this year than we did a year ago. You have a lot more people out selling in the market. I definitely think the strategy is right now for pharma where I don't think we had it right. It's definitely taken longer for us to turn that around than we thought. I think we feel really good on it. Remember, in that guide too, there's no MRD or RaDaR. We still continue to believe that that would provide upside.
Yeah. We're still focusing on the operational drivers and execution that helped us get there.
Turnaround time, operating efficiencies, putting in the LIMS system is going to help. It's actually going to give more real-time visibility to our clients on where their samples are. Investing in automation as well are all going to be factors that help us. And investing in more interfaces as well, as Warren said, are all factors we think are going to help us drive stickiness as we continue to add products to our already broad menu and the strong distribution channel we have, continuing to add resources there. It's all kind of reinforcing kind of the momentum as we think about the long-term growth trajectory. And then certainly seeing the non-clinical pharma kind of returning back to growth is going to be a long-term driver as well.
Maybe one on the long-term margin expansion. I'm going to ask Tony a few, and then we'll kind of wrap up with maybe MRD. Just the margin expansion. When companies go from not making money to making money over the next few years, the numbers can look not silly, but all of a sudden the margins start going up and you look at them on paper. 250-350 basis points of EBITDA margin expansion a year is material. The guide this year implies 160 basis points at the midpoint. What is key to see the acceleration? If you can give us any color underneath about the building blocks, pricing, operating leverage, things like that.
Yeah. I'll start. Yeah. I would say if you look at our business, we really have inherent operating leverage in our business just with getting volume growth. The only truly linear cost we have is supplies. We have a lot of capacity. We just built on a new lab in RTP North Carolina. We have a lot of capacity to pump volume into and get incremental margin off that just straight with volume. You start adding mix. Our NGS, it's higher value, higher margin test. That's going to continue to drive margins. We're getting pricing increases. We're seeing RCM initiatives help us get dollar for dollar. We're getting paid for a test today that we weren't yesterday. That's 100% accretive to revenue, gross margin, and adjusted EBITDA. We have all the operating efficiency things we're working on, like LIMS, etc.
In 2025, we are ramping up sales, sales and marketing with the expansion. We are ramping up R&D as well for RaDaR 1.1, for liquid biopsy, for next-gen MRD as well. It is really, again, that balanced approach of continuing to vest for earnings, but also investing for long-term growth that gives us confidence in 2025 as well as in the out years in the plan.
Okay. Maybe one on MRD. MRD we could spend a lot of time with, right? Just when you think about you have 1.1 and you have 2.0, and with 1.1, you've got a couple of different things coming up in 2025. Maybe just in terms of, I guess, when do you think the market will really have a view whether 1.1 is the one that can move forward or not? I know you've got an IPR challenge. You have a court case. There are different things, but maybe just give us a sense on that. If it is 1.1 or 2.0, how much of a difference will it make? If we're sitting here two years from now and it's one or the other, will the performance be very different between the two? Will the opportunities have to be different?
Yeah. Look, 1.1 is kind of here and now. We're completing CLIA validation. We'll submit to MaldiX. All that will happen through the first three quarters of this year, which leads us to the court case, which is in October. I think if that court case goes in our favor, which we feel really good, and we feel incredibly strong about that, mainly because of some prior art, we will be outselling. I think that product will take us a long, that is a long runway with that product. It'll still be more sensitive than the product that's out on the market today that's the market leader. I think we already have multiple indications that we've got MaldiX approval for. We're going to have a significantly expanded sales force. I think a lot of things go well. Look, outside of that, it's really about the next gen.
What's the next generation? I think there's multiple things to come over the next several years as far as MRD. One would be organically developing it. I think we have an amazing group of people that we inherited through the Inivata acquisition. We are spending a lot of time in BD. There are a lot of innovative companies that have great technologies that have no distribution channel. It is not just about tumor-informed MRD. There are multiple places to go. We feel really good about our ability to get back on the market.
Great. Maybe Tony, in the wrap-up here, April 1st, when you take over, kind of what stays the same? What starts to change?
I’d say what stays the same is the fundamental strategy. Stays the same. I’ve been part of it, and I think it’s working. This constant drive towards achieving customer excellence and winning that customer experience stays the same. Investing in our sales force where it’s the right thing to do stays the same. The financial discipline stays the same. I mean, all the underpinnings of everything we’ve done, looking for lab efficiencies, every opportunity with the LIMS program and others, that stays the same. I think what begins to evolve versus change, because the team can only do so much in the first couple of years, right? I think what evolves is added focus now on the product launches moving forward and really building up our R&D capability.
I see a future where NeoGenomics is equally well known for its deep product portfolio, as well as the innovation that it brings to the marketplace. I think we can make big inroads in that innovative space with some of the leaders that we've brought on board and with our foundation at MRD.
Last question. Stock's down about 50% since news of the Kris transition. I'll ask both of you guys kind of what's the message to current and aspiring shareholders about the stock reaction.
Look, my thing is you can't be in cancer if you don't own Neo, right? I mean, we have the broadest portfolio. We kind of own the community where 80% of all testing occurs. I think that the LRP gives good confidence in where the business is going.
The business foundation is very solid. Very little has changed other than an announcement. When you look to the underlying business, I think it's extremely strong. I think the building blocks that have been put in place are outstanding. The people that we've onboarded are fantastic, and the future is very bright.
Maybe final one, given the management team that you've built up, how good does Jeff and Warren and the team feel? Obviously, I'm sure you feel good under Tony, but the certainty and the stickiness of that team, any changes to envision as you have a CEO change, you think, or no?
Look, I think we've built, Chris has done a great job building a great team. The team works very well together. We've built a lot of team members underneath us as well. I think we have good momentum in the business, and we expect that to continue.
Yeah. I mean, everything I'd add to that. I mean, we work to put depth within the organization as well. It's not just the direct reports of Chris. We've all worked to ensure that the levels below us have sort of upskilled and uptalented. So I think there's great depth through the organization, which is sort of ready to take us through this next part of the journey.
Terrific. Thank you all for being here. Thanks everyone in the audience.
Thank you. Thanks for having us.