Yeah. All right. Thank you everyone for joining us. My pleasure to introduce the NeoGenomics team. We are glad to have you here at the Morgan Stanley Healthcare Conference this morning. I am joined by Tony Zook, Chief Executive Officer, Warren Stone, COO and President, and Abhishek Jain, the Chief Financial Officer. So thank you all for being here.
Thanks for having us.
Thank you.
Great. Maybe for Tony, for an investor that is not necessarily incredibly familiar with the NeoGenomics story, what is the simplest way to understand what you all do, how you fit into the precision oncology market, and now that you have been in the seat for a while, what do you think is the biggest misconception that you hear or that you encounter with investors when it comes to your company?
Sure. I guess first, NeoGenomics, pure play oncology, I think is an important factor. We remain focused in oncology because we think it allows us to better understand and serve our customers. We focus in the community. We are proud of that fact. We help bring innovation into the community setting. Why? That is where the patients are. Almost 80% of patients seek treatment in the local community, so we focus relentlessly on that community provider. Our genesis, while that was in diagnosis, our portfolio has continued to evolve in through therapy selection and MRD. I would say the area that is probably not as well understood, and it is our effort to do so, we are obviously the market leader in heme. How we leverage that heme position enables us to grow and penetrate into other market segments.
I think a lot of investors, when they step back and you look at NeoGenomics in totality, while it is only 10% of our portfolio is NGS, it is 1/3 of our clinical revenue. So we actually have a portfolio that is over $250 million in NGS, and it is growing at 26%. So we believe that there is still ample opportunity for us to continue to drive. In fact, our future is very much dependent on how we continue to drive our NGS and an MRD business. So I think sometimes people ask us the question, how will you compete as if we are starting from scratch, when in reality, we have a $250 million business that is growing quite nicely. So I think it is incumbent upon us to continue to educate and drive that message home.
That is right. Since you have joined the company, where have you been most focused? What has been the greatest area of change that you have looked to lead within the organization and how should investors think about that across the different high level priorities, whether it is the indications that you are operating in, therapeutic categories, capital allocation?
Yeah, you actually hit it in the question with the focus. Where do I focus? When I joined NeoGenomics, I could tell you, there was not a place you could not point that you would not see an opportunity, right? This is a company that grew primarily through acquisition, so a lot of the fundamentals were not in place quite yet, right? It is not an organization that had invested heavily in R&D, so there was an opportunity. You could look to commercial, and there was an opportunity. You could look over to IT, and there was an opportunity. I think for us, the biggest challenge was focus, focus. Where do we want to put our resources? Where do we want to make sure that we are at our top three or four things that are going to drive value for us, and then really focus relentlessly on those.
And I think that simplicity has actually unlocked a lot of value. Today, we always talk about the midnight question. We try to boil down things at NeoGenomics to what is most important for the N, the E, and the O of Neo to be successful, and it is for our R&D team to continue to drive our next generation portfolio. For our commercial team, it is how do they continue to build out their commercial organization and infrastructure to better serve their customers. In our labs, it is the lab of the future initiatives. This simplicity of focus is unlocking a lot of value for us.
A lot of investors, when they look at the space, I think they are more familiar with the precision oncology that is practiced in academic medical centers or in research.
Sure.
You all obviously have a pretty big competitive advantage in the community oncology setting. How do you want investors to understand your focus in community oncology? What do you think is underappreciated about community oncology? Why is that a structural advantage for you all?
Sure. I will kick it off and then Warren-
Yeah.
Maybe can drive more color. Again, I think companies are built in purpose of their pursuit, right? I think those organizations that are built to serve academia, they focus on innovation and they have deserved their right with some of the great products that they bring to market. But in the community, that practicing physician has completely different needs. They are ground in guidelines. They are ground in practicalities. They are dealing with patient flow. They want to take out friction within the system. Just like that drive on innovation can be a competitive advantage, so is a deep understanding of what your customer needs are at the community level. Simple things like how you prepare your lab reports could actually be the most important thing in their day. Right?
You have to be built for purpose, and we think that we are very much focused on what their needs are. For them, better serving their customers with pragmatic solutions that unlock time so that they can more effectively treat their patients is something that we focus relentlessly on everything from through our labs, to our commercial, to even how we position our portfolio of solutions, not a product. I think there is a big difference in how companies are built to serve those. Warren, maybe some color?
Yeah. I think, and you have hit a lot of the key points there. I think most importantly, first and foremost, ASCO does a survey every year about where do patients actually want to be treated. The survey in 2026 basically indicated almost 80% of patients want to be treated within 50 mi of where they live. That is a pretty small radius. Why is that? They want to be treated where their family, their infrastructure is because they are going through arguably one of the biggest events in their life, and they need support structures in order to support them through that journey, so they want to stay close to home. That is really the relevance with regards to the community. Also, if you think about a community practice, either that practice or in some cases even that oncologist is a generalist.
The type of patient that is walking into that practice could have any form of cancer. They could have a heme cancer, they could have a solid tumor cancer, and obviously different types. In order to address the needs of those treating physicians who are seeing a patient every 15 to 20 minutes, breadth of portfolio where they can standardize on their send-out partner, for diagnosis, for therapy selection, for MRD becomes critically important because the last thing they want to be doing in their day is thinking about who do I send this diagnostic test or this therapy selection test or this MRD test to? Have they got this test? Have they got this indication? I think this is where NeoGenomics really thrives.
That breadth of portfolio, the almost 500 tests that Tony referenced across diagnosis, therapy selection, MRD, solid tumor, and heme, we are able to address almost all of their requirements, allowing them to standardize on NeoGenomics from a send-out perspective. That really is one of the key differentiators. The second is we are relentlessly focused on taking friction out of the experience, making it as easy as possible to do business with NeoGenomics so they can focus on what they want to focus on, and that is treating their patients and ensuring the best possible outcomes in their patients. We spoke about this in our Q2 earnings, but we have a Net Promoter Score of 78, which, if you know anything about NPS scores, is an incredibly high indication of the experience that we provide to our customers in the community.
Mm-hmm. Maybe take us a level deeper. As you think about the relationship with a customer at the hospital level or an established hematologist-
Yeah.
Relationship, how does that translate into more testing across the diagnostic continuum-
Yeah.
To comprehensive genomic profiling, ultimately, potentially into MRD? What does that look like? How do you drive that? How long does it take?
Yeah. I think first and foremost, what I want to say first and foremost is almost every single cancer journey starts with pathology. Pathologist's role is to diagnose cancer. That's where NeoGenomics started, that's where NeoGenomics grew up, and we've forged incredibly strong partnerships with pathology. How does that help us in terms of understanding the sort of penetration from the cancer care continuum? The next step is, let's just use an example of a patient is diagnosed with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. That gets diagnosed. The next step is, yeah, we would want to run some therapy selection on that.
We then work with those hospitals and those oncology practices to put a care pathway in that says, as soon as that patient is diagnosed with the lung cancer, we automatically run a therapy selection test, which would then allow them to identify what sort of therapies you'd be able to put that patient on through this care pathway. Important in this particular example would be, okay, let's make sure we're also including TMB. Our PanTracer family, whether it be tissue or liquid, would include TMB. Why is that relevant? Because that will indicate whether they would likely benefit from an IO therapy. Great, they're going to potentially benefit from an IO therapy.
We now indicate through the care pathway, let's run MRD, let's run our RaDaR ST, because we now have IO as an indication that they can actually track the implications or the benefits of IO therapy for that particular patient. So you can see how the portfolio sort of layers on each other. That's one example from early stage small lung cancer, but there's many others through the portfolio where you can see how these things just layer on top of each other. Starting with the pathologist, as we implement more care pathways, more directional interfaces, the sort of decision making with regards to what tests to use become less relevant because the care pathway actually informs that.
Michael, another point I think that is important to understand, anytime we talk to a physician, seldom do we bring a product solution to that physician. We're trying to bring a portfolio solution to that. Because we can almost with certainty say there is a need that they have for some of our products. It may not be liquid, but they are using tissue, or they need this, or they need that. We can then run that continuum, and it even figures into how we look at our portfolio development. Warren, PanTracer Pro might be a perfect example of that.
Yeah. I think building on that, it's a great call, Tony. I think earlier this year, I think it was February, we launched our PanTracer Pro, which is just a simplified ordering process. All it does is it takes the decision making out of the hands of that treating oncologist to determine based on this patient, based on their cancer type, based on their stage, what test should I order to actually inform therapy? What test should I order to inform MRD? We, from a NeoGenomics perspective, take that decision by looking at our OncoTree, by looking at guidelines, and actually determine what tests to run. So they don't have to even think about it in their practice any longer. What test should I be running? All they need to tell us is who their patient is, what cancer do they have, what is the stage?
We take everything else from there, and we will run reflexes if need be. We'll run add-ons if need be. But they will get a report back, which will be a comprehensive report that will indicate what therapies that they should potentially put their patients on, what clinical trials are available for their patients, and just comprehensive solution with literally requisitioning one test and simply indicating the patients, their disease type, and their stage.
And maybe just to add on, can you say a little bit more about, in the community oncology setting, why that is so important to be able to do all of that? Help paint the picture of what the community oncologist looks like relative to how patients are treated in an academic medical center, why that's so valuable.
Yeah.
Yeah, look, in academia, it's always the question of what's possible, right? Additional information, I'll find a use for that information, right? So they're probing what might be. In daily practice, what, 25, 30 patients a day?
Yeah.
I mean, they barely have time to breathe, and just crossing the hall, they better have simplicity in the lab report that they're reading. Anything that removes that friction or makes life easier or takes certain decisions that are just, these are decisions the physician would make ultimately had they the information, but they'd have to wait for it, and then it would require another test request. These types of simple things take all the friction out of the system for them and let them focus where they want to focus, which is in patient treatment. Again, it's a big difference when you're dealing, as Warren said, with generalist physicians in the community versus people that are trying to push the envelope of information in the academia center. It's night and day difference.
Maybe one more thing I'll build on there. Again, coming back to ASCO, obviously, it's a very important body. They run a survey every year as well in terms of pain points and unmet need for treating physicians. Actually, within the top five, I don't know exactly where it sits, within the top five in 2026, just the speed at which the industry is moving, the number of new therapies, the number of new tests, and the ability of physicians to keep abreast of what's happening is one of their top challenges. With putting solutions like PanTracer Pro in place, we take that burden away from them, and we actually take that burden on, and that allows them to focus on what they want to do, and that's treating their patient and ensuring the best possible outcomes for their patients.
Right. In each of the last couple of quarters, your NGS-based testing revenue grew circa 26%, and I think today it's roughly 1/3 of your clinical revenue. How should investors think about what's driving that underlying growth if you had to deconstruct it? Is it volume? Is it pricing? Is it better collections, reimbursement, different testing modalities? What's the right way to think about that?
Let Abhishek earn some money this morning. Come on.
Yeah. On the NGS revenue growth, first, 26% growth is what we put together in the first half of the year. We have called out the volume growth has been in the mid-teens, and the remaining came from the RCM initiatives and the RCM growth. If we were to start to parse out the volume growth, for example, on the volume, we are seeing a shift from our single-gene panels and the targeted panels to the larger panels. It basically goes back to that whole portfolio company, where we have basically a sizable portfolio on the NGS side, and that basically shifts in the single gene to a larger panel test that is also kind of impacting the volume growth. That is the reason we started to provide this new metric that our larger panels are growing at 20% +.
That probably is the first piece that I would want to highlight in the volumes, that our volumes for the larger panel tests are growing ahead of 20%. The second piece is on the RCM side, as you rightly pointed out, that RCM growth of roughly 10% or so, 2/3 of that RCM growth is coming from that mix shift. Now, if you were to think about it, that our volume growth is a little bit depressed because you are seeing that transition, but that is being reflected in your pricing increases because that mix shift is driving your AUP growth.
Two-third of that 10% is coming from that mix shift, and the remaining 1/3 of the RCM growth is coming from various initiatives that we have under our RCM umbrella, starting from the contractual wins, the policy wins, ability to drive the price increases, your ability to drive more collections in our processes. We continue to look for those opportunities as to how do we continue to drive the RCM benefits. Those are different pieces, and we are very pleased to see the durability of our NGS business, which is growing in a pretty decent pace.
On the RCM point, is there anything more there to unpack for investors on how they should think about the durability of the growth from some of those initiatives?
No, absolutely. We have shared, Mike, in the past that 2026, we will see a slightly higher proportion of our RCM benefit in our overall growth. For example, in the first half of 2026, our clinical revenue growth was about 14%, and the volume growth was in the low single digit, whereas most of the growth came from the AUP. Generally, what the investors should be viewing, that half of our growth is going to be the volume and the other half is going to be RCM on a go-forward basis. If you were to then parse out within the RCM what is going to give us the durability or how we will continue to drive the RCM benefit, again, 2/3 of that is going to be coming from the mix shift.
Here you will take the company-level approach, then you will start to see that our NGS volumes and the NGS revenues are growing at a much more faster pace as compared to the rest of the portfolio. That automatically gives us the RCM benefit, and we are seeing that. The other 1/3 part of the business on the RCM side, again, going back to the different initiatives, we have been able to win the IO now from the MolDX. We have been able to drive the commercial payers on the contractual side, as well as we have called out that over 60% of our clinical revenue comes from the direct client bill.
We are able to get some price increases there on a yearly basis, which basically helps us drive the RCM. Last but not the least, I would want to call out in our collection efforts, there is definitely a lot more room. As the company is shifting towards more NGS testing, more MRD testing, we need to improve or build on our billing infrastructure. Actually, in the third quarter of 2026, we implemented a new billing system, XiFin, and that is a big undertaking in the sense that this particular system will help us be more effective in our collections processes, as well as making us more efficient there.
Abhishek, I think, Michael, to your question of durability, we are not going to get into the long-term forecast business again, right? If we sit here today and what we can say with confidence and our own belief in the durability of this over time. We sit here today, 10% of our volume, it is represented about 1/3 of our business is NGS, and it has this mixed shift element to it. You go out into the future, we can see that that moves from 1/3 of our business to over 50% of our business.
When you start to look at that, being NGS and MRD, even if you just take industry norms relative to margin, you're going to see over 1/2 of our business and growing is in the mid 60%+ margin range. You combine that with the existing base business, and you can see not just revenue growth, but you can see margin growth. We believe that that is very foundational to where we want to take the company.
Anything else from your perspective or from where you all sit, that is helping drive your level of confidence that NGS can continue to grow above the market rate?
Well, I think there's a couple of factors. First and foremost is looking at the number of new therapies coming to market, particularly within the heme side of things. I think pharma companies have been heavily focused on solid tumor cancers from a therapy perspective. There's still a very robust pipeline coming through, which is encouraging. That'll drive demand for therapy selection on a solid tumor. However, the number of new therapies that are coming to market on the heme side of things is also very encouraging, and it's one of the reasons why we're seeing above-market growth on the heme NGS side of things. I think that's a very key indicator for us. I think the other aspect is not to lose sight of is we still estimate that from a therapy selection market penetration perspective in the community, it's somewhere between 35% and 40%.
The majority of physicians are still not actively using large panel therapy selection in their treatment monitoring simply because it's not in guidelines yet. But it's becoming more relevant in guidelines, and as it does, it's going to drive more demand from an NGS perspective. I think there's a lot of indications that demand for large panel NGS from a volume perspective is going to continue to be robust into the future, coupled with obviously many opportunities on the RCM and the mix side of things for us. We're very confident in terms of the outlook.
Got it. Maybe just shifting gears a little bit. You mentioned the PanTracer product earlier. There's a tissue, there's a liquid, there's PanTracer Pro. What's the right way to think about PanTracer as a product family? Are they distinct tests? Is it more of one continuous offering? How should investors think about that?
I think I would love for investors to think about this as a solution. It really is. It's our solution for therapy selection for solid tumor cancer. That's really what it is. Every situation actually dictates a different need at the end of the day. Within the community, because of historical guidelines, which still point to single gene or small panel NGS, there is still very much a tissue-first mindset within the community, because it's been driven from the guidelines perspective. We still very much see physicians asking for tissue first, and if we aren't able to get a result with tissue because there isn't enough tissue, or the quality of the tissue might be exhausted, or the quality of the tissue is not good, to then make use of liquid.
In the case of lung, we see concurrent testing because that's in the guideline as well. Then, ultimately, we'll reflex to liquid if we don't get a result on the solid tumor side. So we see it very much as a solution. Every situation, depending on the cancer type and the stage, actually demands a different part of that particular portfolio, which is then also coupled with various add-on IHC markers, which also helps to determine what type of therapies to put somebody on, whether it's a PD-L1 or a c-MET or a Claudin 18.2 or whatever the case is. We have that all within our portfolio. But we approach this from a portfolio perspective and a solutions mindset to the customer. As Tony said earlier, it's not distinct products. It's really around a workflow solution.
What are you seeing from the standpoint of the test mix and how that's evolving, whether it's tissue, liquid, what you reflex to if you're not able to necessarily get enough tissue sample. How has that evolved and where do you see that going?
I would say, in absolute terms, we still see a higher growth rate on the solid tumor side, and again, it's a tissue first mindset. If you look at it as a percentage perspective, yeah, liquid probably is growing faster, but it's off a smaller base at the end of the day because we only launched the product roughly a year ago or so. We still see, though, there is the exception always where a physician wants to go directly to liquid, and there are some benefits for doing that, but that's really the exception. We anticipate, for the foreseeable future, that it'll still be a solid first with liquid as the alternative when I haven't got enough tissue or I actually want to run them in parallel with one another, which is becoming increasingly popular when you want to understand the micro tumor environments.
That's where you can use liquid very effectively, and when you want to understand the tumor properties, you use the actual solid tumor test. That's becoming more and more relevant, and we might see guidelines adapt over time to actually offer concurrent solutions in other indications like they do in lung today.
The PanTracer LBx, I think now has Medicare coverage. From your perspective, what do you think needs to happen for that to become a more material contributor to growth? How should everyone think about that in the context of some of the more emerging or competitive tests in the liquid biopsy space?
Simply put, time. Just time. As Warren said, when we go into this, we go in as the PanTracer family. Which by the way, is demonstrating remarkable growth. We are very happy with what we see happening with PanTracer as a family of product. When we launch a product, we typically look at, first and foremost, its effect on the portfolio. PanTracer LBx has had a very nice halo effect on the portfolio because it complements the offering, right? It gives the physician another reason why this is a complete offering from NeoGenomics. In its own right, PanTracer Pro, PanTracer LBx, helped in the uptake on the growth curve of PanTracer tissue. PanTracer as a family. If we look longer term, go into the latter part of 2027, going into 2028, Liquid in its own right will be a substantial contributor. Of that, I am sure.
PanTracer family will be a significant growth driver for us in 2027 and 2028.
Yeah.
Right. Maybe shifting gears to RaDaR and to MRD. Folks may be familiar with a coverage decision that you got in late August. But for those that are not, what was that? Why is it strategically important? What does it cover? How do you see that in the context of the RaDaR platform more broadly?
Sure. We communicated, I do not know, a month ago that we got coverage from an IO perspective, and that is really relevant for us for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, we estimate that that represents about $4 billion from a TAM perspective, maybe slightly less than that, but around the $4 billion out of the roughly $20 billion TAM that we see from an MRD perspective. So large from that perspective. The other aspect is IO as an indication actually covers multiple forms of cancer. What it actually allows us to now do is as we go to market, we can position ourselves as more of a pan-cancer solution to our physicians, which is important. It comes back to this sort of message to our physicians that I was talking about earlier, is that we are a complete solution for you.
Yeah.
We're not only taking certain indications, et cetera. That definitely rounds out the messaging from a physician perspective in the community setting. Those are two material. Size of the market that we're now able to address and the fact that we can go to a pan-cancer messaging are the two material aspects. Again, reimbursement very much in line with what's out in the marketplace from the market leader and others out there. It really does allow us to do that initial exome up front and then subsequent six time points beyond that as well, which sort of takes a typical patient through this two-year monitoring cycle. Really the purpose here is to actually understand how IO as a therapy is actually affecting their cancer. Is it being effective? Isn't it being effective?
Do you need to adjust treatment or not, is sort of how it's going to be utilized. More and more of the therapies coming to market right now are IO based as well.
Maybe in IO, but more broadly, MRD has obviously become a very important growing large space, but also more competitive. What would you like investors to understand about why Neo wins in this market? How are you thinking about your kind of commercial strategy or go-to-market strategy more broadly within the context of what's happening in this space?
I think maybe I'll kick it off and then Warren can get into more detail on very specific to MRD. I think first and foremost as I said before, we don't look at it as a product, we look at it as a portfolio. I think as we continue to build out our MRD portfolio, that holds true there as well, right? Physicians are looking for the robustness. A company that can handle from diagnosis through therapy selection to monitoring, and we believe that we have now a complement of a portfolio that achieves those objectives for them with high quality tests. Within MRD alone, we have now a building foundational point, and as Warren said, I think IO gives us kind of that cornerstone of a foundation to enable us to be broad-based with our promotional efforts.
When you build from that with additional indications, all of a sudden you have a competitive offering in MRD that is second to none. Then with that, we're going to add with next gen MRD and we're going down the path of other opportunities in MRD as well. This portfolio approach extends not just across the entirety of NeoGenomics, but within MRD very specifically.
I'll build on that and say, first and foremost, our RaDaR ST product is very competitive. I want to start there. We have detection limits down to as low as 1 ppm, first and foremost. So that's a key driver and meaningfully better than many products in the market. The second aspect is if you look at peer review publications, we estimate that we're number two in the market after the market leader in terms of number of peer review publications out there. So data is an important driver. So that's the second point. Thirdly is the amount of tissue that you need to run our assay relative to others. Very competitive. The RaDaR ST assay is a very competitive assay. It's the first thing I want to leave you with.
Secondly, we've been investing commercially, and we communicated as part of our Q2 earnings that we've now basically optimized the structure of our commercial organization and our go-to-market strategy, where we now have two distinct sales teams-
Yeah.
One focused on pathology, one focused on oncology. Not just the sales team, but the leadership structures and the marketing support functions and the enablement functions that support that as well. So we've been investing over the years, probably for the last three, four years, to really build out our oncology sales team. I think July of this year really became a tipping point now where we have the scale, we have the critical mass, to really focus on oncology. You couple that with a portfolio, the PanTracer family, our Heme NGS solutions, and obviously now our RaDaR ST for MRD, it really rounds us out as a solutions provider to the community setting.
Right. Maybe for Abhishek, you posted solid operating cash flow for Q2. Can you talk a little bit about where you see that metric going for the full year?
Yeah, sure. As we have stated previously, Mike, our goal is to be cash flow positive by the end of this year on a full year basis. I typically always suggest that we should be looking at the cash flow generation on a full year basis because the cash flow could be impacted by some of the timing considerations. So, for example, in Q3, we had the DOJ settlement for which the cash was paid out in the third quarter, so it will impact the cash flow for the third quarter. The cash could also be impacted by some of your compensation cycles. So, for example, we pay on a biweekly basis to our employees. That means there are 26 paychecks. So in one quarter you will pay six, the other quarter you will pay seven.
Sometimes your cash flow is also impacted by the timing of some of the policies in the company. The third piece, of course, is that we are really glad to implement the new billing system in the third quarter of 2026. This is a big undertaking, but XiFin is a leader in the billing space, and that will give us a lot of capabilities to be able to collect more cash. But on a full year basis, as I was saying, if you were to take a full year view, our goal basically stays to be the free cash flow positive for the company.
Got it. Maybe one last question. With the majority of the 2028 convertible notes now refinanced, how should investors think about capital allocation priorities from here?
Sure. I can start and then feel free to chime in there.
Sure.
On the capital allocation, I would say the first and foremost that we have a sizable portfolio. We have a really robust product portfolio with RaDaR wins that we are seeing under our belt. It's not that we have to do a large M&A to be able to fill certain gaps or holes, so we don't have to do that. More specifically on the capital allocation, I think there is a lot of opportunity for us to invest in our sales organization. As Warren kind of pointed out that, okay, in the RaDaR space and the therapy selection and MRD, both of those areas, how we continue to build our sales capabilities to be able to accelerate growth. That will definitely be one of the opportunities for capital allocation.
The second area would be our product pipeline or the innovation on the R&D side as to how we advance our clinical studies and trials so that we are able to get paid on the test that we are actually performing. That will be the second area where we would want to continue to invest the dollars. We would want to invest the dollars in our IT infrastructure and our product platforms. We have publicly stated that we would want to be moving away from the NovaSeq 6000 to the NovaSeq X. We need to be able to invest our dollars there to be able to not only. There are a couple of factors that are helping us drive the growth. There are a couple of factors that will help us drive the profitability by being more efficient.
These are the various areas where we feel that, okay, we need to do the capital allocation. Last but not the least, is the G&A line where we would want to be as efficient as possible so that we continue to reallocate our resources from the G&A line to some of the other parts and continue to drive a balanced approach in terms of driving the revenue and the profitability.
All right. Great. Well, that's all the time we have. Tony, Warren, Abhishek, thank you very much for joining us.
Thank you, Michael.
Michael, thank you.