All right, I think we'll get started. Thank you, everyone, for joining this session with S&P Global. I'm very pleased to have Martina Cheung, President and CEO of S&P Global. Martina took over the role of CEO late last year, following several years in various senior leadership positions at S&P, including heading the Ratings business and then the Market Intelligence business. So very warm welcome to your first SDC, Martina, and thank you for participating.
Yeah, great. Thank you. I'm delighted to be here. And hello, everyone.
Good stuff. All right, so we'll jump in. Maybe start with the CEO transition, Martina. It's been a very busy start to your role here. You've announced the spinoff of the Mobility Division. You are dealing with very significant policy and macro volatility. Just reflecting your time as CEO so far, has your view on the company evolved? Maybe what changes are you making at the firm relative to the last management team?
Yeah, thanks. It's an incredible time to be at the company. It's a company that always excites me in terms of our opportunities to grow both within the divisions as well as across the overall enterprise. Every day there's more to get excited about, quite frankly. A lot of that comes through the amount of customers that I'm meeting, the senior leadership team is meeting, and the feedback that we are getting. We have incredible, trusted, and very strong relationships with our clients across the world. I would say the activity that is happening and the changes that we've been making, areas of focus, these are all things that are building on the very strong foundation from Doug and his leadership. The focus on the customers, for example, is something that I think has first come from Doug.
He had put together a commercial council across the organization several years back, and we essentially took that and formalized it by creating a full-time dedicated Chief Commercial Office or Chief Client Office. That is really off to a great start. We've had some very good deals won as a result of the work between the Chief Client Office and the divisions, and that team has good momentum, and we're excited about how that's going to progress going forward. We also took the step of bringing our enterprise data organizations, all of our data teams across S&P Global into one group. This is really to give us the opportunity to integrate our data and to apply generative AI to our data at scale.
It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity given the magnitude of capabilities from the technology, and we felt that it was an easy way for us to move much more quickly just simply by bringing the teams together. That team is off to a phenomenal start as well with the standardization of various activities across the organization, the linking activity that's happening between different data sets, some really good momentum for that team as well. Overall, I think the amount of opportunity that we have continues to be very, very strong. Some of that, I think, comes from just the fact that we closed out the IHS Markit merger, and we now can move to even greater areas of synergy between divisions, whereas over the last several years, we've been a little bit more focused on opportunities within each division in the post-merger construct. Great opportunities overall.
It's a very exciting time.
Good stuff. A couple of questions around the outlook for the business. Maybe start with longer term, over the next three to five years. What's your vision for S&P Global?
The way that I think about us is we're incredibly compelling and comprehensive as well as deep from a markets perspective. We cover credit, fixed income, privates. We cover derivatives, commodities. Incredibly broad in terms of our asset class coverage or multi-asset class coverage. As you know, we also cover tremendous depth and breadth across sectors. Against these areas, we have the best capabilities around benchmarks, analytics, platforms, and data. To me, this is a very compelling set of businesses, a very compelling opportunity for us to deliver value for our clients and to accelerate our growth. These are areas that I think will be core to how we think about the go-forward strategy over the next three to five years. Within each division, there's obviously opportunities for growth, whether it's in index, market intelligence, et cetera.
As you know, we've also been looking at our strategic growth thematic. Those are private markets, generative AI, and some of the other areas that we've been talking about. We continue to work around those, and I would say we'll come out with a lot more detail on that at our Investor Day in November. We see really good opportunities to continue to grow in the business, and we look at it as an evolution as opposed to a revolution in how we think about our strategy.
Maybe more near term, given all the macro volatility, are there any areas of the business you're seeing incremental revenue pressures or a sales cycle elongation?
As you know, most of our revenues across S&P Global are recurring revenues, and those are insulated from the very near-term puts and takes around volatility from one day to the next or one week to the next. We are watching very closely to make sure that there are no major changes in customer behavior. So far, we have not seen any major changes in customer behavior. We hear reasonably, I would say, reasonable stability around anything from pipelines, still good, robust pipelines across the divisions. We have also been seeing and experiencing, generally speaking, solid retention. Nothing that has, I would say, from a subscription perspective, nothing that indicates massive changes in customer behavior as of now. Clearly, the market-driven businesses are much more sensitive on a day-to-day basis to what is happening in the environment.
You have seen us evolve our thinking around ratings from an issuance perspective for the full year. We also evolved our thinking around the Index business. Those are going to be sensitive to not just the volatility, but also to the extent to which there is a settling, for example, in the market. The ranges that we provided in our most recent earnings call for the market businesses' ratings and index reflect the ups and downs that we think will happen throughout the course of the year on those businesses.
Okay. Let's move to the Mobility business and the decision to spin that business off. Maybe why now and the strategic rationale for spinning it off?
Yeah, mobility is something that we've been thinking about for some time. I mean, I can say I personally love the business. It is a leadership team that has grown that business at a really compelling level. I think there were 8.4% growth last year and 39% margin. That business has consistently innovated at really high levels. It is a very exciting business. I think the way to maybe think about the rationale for our announcement around an intent to spin is to think about the mobility end customer. The Mobility business we view as a deep vertical SaaS-based business serves the entire automotive value chain all the way from suppliers to OEM to dealerships and to the end consumer. About 70% of the business is directly related to the used car market. The largest customer there from that used car market revenue base is a dealership.
In absolute numbers of customer terms, the largest number of customers in Mobility are actually dealers. We did not see an environment where we would be going to a dealer and saying, "Here are all the other S&P products that you can buy." It really becomes a question of how can we, if we think about the opportunities to unlock value across the enterprise, where was Mobility going to play in that? While there have been synergies and we have performed well against those synergies, we think that business is best served as a standalone company. Phenomenal products, phenomenal leadership team, phenomenal customer base and growth and margin profile, and great opportunities for it to grow in multiple paths and multiple trajectories going forward.
How do you think about the impact to the rest of the S&P Global businesses with the mobility spin? Does it impact any synergies, shared data platforms, or even the margin profiles of any businesses that worked with mobility in the past?
We have said that we think disynergies would be very limited, very minimal. I think that's an important point to start with around this. There are parts of the Mobility business that operate very much, I would say, independently today. It's not as integrated from the perspective of, let's say, something like a ratings division or something like that. I would also say that the ability for the business to actually continue to provide some of the data which other groups in S&P have been using, that'll be something that we can handle very easily through arm's length agreements obviously as we go through the spin process. Practically speaking, it's going to take about 12- 18 months. We have plenty of time to work through the details around this. Obviously, the team's moving extremely fast to get through the first phase.
We will have an opportunity to talk a lot more with all of you about this as we prepare for additional information, sharing disclosures, et cetera, as you go throughout the course of the year.
Clearly, your point of view is it's a great business, but it can probably do better outside of S&P. What kind of constraints has that business had being under S&P Global governance? What operational advantages maybe would it have as a standalone business?
I think the business itself has an incredible amount of innovation that happens in there. They are very strong at converting investments into fast-growing products. They have even more opportunities. We are watching, for example, a number of areas where we made investments. We are just starting to see the benefits of those investments coming up as well. It is a group of leaders who can turn investment dollars very quickly around opportunity and runway for additional growth. I do think that when you look at that business and think again about the composition of the end customers, their ability to grow both organically and different pathways, whether it is organic, inorganic, et cetera, we think will be much better served as a standalone business.
The pace at which they can grow and invest according to their distinct strategy will certainly be, I think, very compelling from a financial profile perspective and ultimately deliver great value for shareholders.
Okay. Switching over to the Ratings business. Clearly, a lot of volatility in the backdrop, and you recently evolved your thinking around the four-year outlook. How would you characterize the state of the global debt markets today? Is activity any better or worse than you expected given sort of what feels like a rebound in sentiment, at least?
I would say we are experiencing an interesting phenomenon this year with the volatility that we've seen in the market. Remember, this is not the first time we've seen volatility. It was highly volatile in 2022, for example. We are coming into this with at least a very good foundation for understanding how investors, fixed income and credit investors are behaving and how issuers are behaving. That is really what's informed the guidance that we gave at the end of Q1, which is really flat year-over-year build issuance as well as some of the factors that went into that. We started this year thinking that we obviously have 3%-5% maturity walls renewing this year. The 2025 maturities will absolutely refi. We started the year with certain assumptions around how much of 2026 could get pulled forward.
We think that there will be a little bit less pull forward from 2026 at this point. We had very modest assumptions around M&A. We see M&A as being broadly flat. We do know that there is pent-up demand from an M&A perspective. If it is not a back half of this year phenomenon, we would expect for that to be maybe a 2026 phenomenon, for example. Tracking all of that carefully. Generally speaking, the guidance that we have for the full year now around ratings does assume ups and downs. We are always going to see at this point, we know that issuers have gotten very good at choosing the window during which they go to market. We are going to continue to see that. There will be weeks where issuers will sit it out because of the volatility.
There'll be weeks when issuers rush because they think they have a window during which they can execute successfully. Those are the things that we're watching for. I would say none of the feedback that we've been hearing from issuers throughout the course of Q1, for example, would give us any view that it would be any different from that, notwithstanding sort of like the ups and downs that we'll tend to see throughout the course of the year because of the volatility.
Okay. Speed of growth drivers within ratings, private credit seems to be now feels, I think people agree now it's a tailwind rather than a headwind for the Ratings business. Maybe talk through the overall size of private credit within the Ratings business, maybe what products you are seeing that resonate most with clients and how you think about the growth trajectory of private credit within ratings.
Yeah. So our private credit revenues, we do not break them out by division, but overall, the private credit piece of S&P Global Enterprise has grown very strongly. We are very pleased with that. We had about 21% growth in our enterprise private markets, I would say revenues rather, in Q1 of this year. Generally, I would say from a ratings perspective, the opportunity for ratings in private markets and in private credit is not just to rate the actual individual portfolio company or an individual loan. It is really to service the whole ecosystem that has come up to support the growth of the asset class more broadly. LPs who are allocating to the asset class want to make sure that they have an S&P rating, for example.
We have had ample number of GPs over the last several years tell us that LPs are asking for an S&P rating. Even beyond that, the GPs themselves need to be able to manage their own balance sheets. We have seen securitization opportunities come from this. We have seen banks who are lending to GPs, for example, come to us for ratings as well. We have also been working on, I would say, new ways of assessing credit against different types of financing options. NAV is one example that has come up several times in the last couple of years. It goes beyond the idea of a company can go to the market, public or private. It is really the private ecosystem and how that is evolving. We are at every point in that ecosystem. We have always said that we would raise debt whether it came publicly or privately.
It's really important that we don't change our methodology, whether it's public or private. It is the same. Last year and the prior year, we saw, for example, some deals refinanced from private back to public when the public markets were functioning well and were much cheaper than privates. A rating from us can travel into the public markets in that context as well. That is how we view it going forward. We will always rate the debt wherever it comes. We are positioned and staffed with the expertise and the capacity to do that. I think we can give you a lot more of an insight into how we think about privates in November, including across the entire organization where we have market-leading platforms, innovative new indices, and other ways in which we serve this broader ecosystem as well.
On private credit, how do you think about monetization and pricing of private credit versus public? The fee structures, are they similar? Particularly given, I think the public market's a little bit different. It's more of an issue of pay model. Maybe some thoughts around that.
Yeah. The same way that the methodology is the same, the pricing does not change either, whether it is public or private.
Okay. Straightforward. All right. Maybe switch to market intelligence. And this is a question I've asked, resource allocation I've asked, Doug in the past. And I'm curious maybe your philosophy around allocating resources to market intelligence. It has been the slowest growing business at S&P, or the slowest non-Ratings business, yet feels like it receives the most investments historically, whether it's big M&A like IHS Markit deal or things like Capital IQ , revamp. What's your philosophy around investing in that business?
I think the Market Intelligence business has a really fantastic overall profile. If you think about that business, it includes what a lot of people will say market intelligence, they think Capital IQ Pro, sort of it's synonymous. In fact, the business itself is highly diversified across our enterprise solutions, which includes many of our highly differentiated private markets products such as Wall Street Office and iLevel, but also a tremendous amount of our unique data in the credit risk and overall risk solutions business as well. The complexion, if you like, of the Market Intelligence business is very interesting and I think very comprehensive. A few points I would make around capital allocation to the business.
We're extremely disciplined about how we think about capital allocation, both in terms of the opportunity in and of itself within a division, but also thinking about it more holistically in the context of where the next best dollar, the next best opportunity is to spend the next dollar, if you like. Market intelligence can serve multiple forms for us. Of course, there's the return on the investment itself in that business. Oftentimes, Market Intelligence business is actually creating capabilities that will be used outside of market intelligence across the rest of the portfolio. When we created composable services architecture for Capital IQ Pro, some of those services are actually being used in the ratings workflow, for example. They're also being used in Platts Connect platform.
Of course, the data work that was done in Market Intelligence since the Enterprise Data Office, but also before the Enterprise Data Office was set up, the data capabilities around automated data extraction and things like that were being used in other areas such as Ratings and Sustainable1. The organization in and of itself, by virtue of having a lot of the largest concentration of customers, largest concentration of tech, largest concentration of data, has functioned as a little bit of a sort of a hub for a lot of capabilities that have translated across the rest of the organization. I would say that we have a number of places where we've made investments that we're extremely pleased about. Visible Alpha is one that constantly comes up in conversations with customers.
I'm really proud of the MI team that they were able to launch the integration of Visible Alpha early this year. We're getting great feedback from our customers on that as well. I think on balance, when we think of market intelligence, we think of it as opportunities both for market intelligence customers specifically as well as how we can leverage those opportunities across the rest of the portfolio.
Yeah. As a user of Visible Alpha, I can attest to its utility. On revenue growth in MI, it feels like we're hitting an inflection point here. You've talked about ACV growing faster than revenues in that business, which is typically, I think, a leading indicator for revenue growth acceleration. Any way to sort of help quantify what that gap is and maybe give us some sort of timeline in terms of when it should lead to accelerating revenue growth?
Yeah. We talked about ACV exceeding revenue growth both in Q4 as well as Q1 of this year. We did not quantify it, but I will say Q4 is noteworthy because it is the largest renewing quarter. That is a really good indicator. We saw that continue into Q1 in terms of the outpacing of ACV growth over revenue growth. Generally, I would make a couple of comments on the shape of the year in market intelligence. The first thing I would say is the team has been very focused on commercial execution and has done a lot of work to align the go-to-market activity and the sales motions with our customers. One good example of that is greater transparency and accountability on an account-by-account basis.
That is not just with the Chief Commercial Office or the Chief Client Office, but also across all the accounts that Market Intelligence serves. The second thing I would say is the teams have been observing, I would say, good stability around retention, which is great to see since, as you know, we called out cancellation rates throughout the course of several quarters last year. That in combination with stable pipelines at levels that the team feels good about sets that team up for a stronger back half of the year than first half of the year, including the lapping of those cancellations from last year. I would say generally the team is extremely focused on delivering the commercial outcomes. Conversations have been very positive with our clients, a lot of client engagement.
There's a bit of benefit here as well through early benefit, I would say, through partnership with the Chief Client Office. The team is closing very large deals in partnership with the Chief Client Office, including one large investment bank closing a Counterparty Manager software deal. We also had a large commercial bank who closed an issue book deal from one of their teams as well. I'd say overall good momentum with that team.
Okay. Let's talk about AI. I want to frame a bear case and a bull case. Can I get your thoughts on both? I guess the bear case, particularly in the agentic AI world, is these systems can act autonomously to go gather information, interpret them, synthesize financial and market data. Is there a risk or long-term risk that these tools could disintermediate S&P Global's market intelligence platform?
Maybe I'd say two things more broadly. The first is we are integrating GenAI, and we're doing that, I would say, also across the enterprise. It would be remiss for me to say we're only thinking about it in the context of market intelligence. It's important for us to think about it everywhere across the organization. Let me just start with the piece of it that is it's important for us, I think, with Kensho and the power of Kensho working with our division teams like the market intelligence team to accelerate as much as we can to where the puck is going. That's incredibly important, obviously, from a GenAI perspective. The teams have a very long pipeline of capabilities and enhancements as well as interesting standalone product pipeline ideas to deliver out.
From MI specifically, I think there's a lot to get excited about in terms of what we're doing there. At the highest level, though, I think what's important to contemplate is that market intelligence is, I would say, a pretty diversified division. It has businesses that are in there that have different profiles in terms of what they actually do for our customers. The workflow and software products that we have, for example, power a lot of the reporting, the recording of various different transactions, whether it's in private markets. We have a lot of tools around KY3P, and then we have vast numbers of data sets. There's no one simple way to say, actually, GenAI is going to impact all that stuff in the same way. It's going to be quite dramatically different, and it's going to happen at different times.
The things that I am excited about when I look at the Market Intelligence division, the first is that while it may be possible to generate a data set on financials, and by the way, Yahoo has been doing that for, I don't know, for how long, it's maybe not as possible to integrate that data set using metadata and identifiers and connectors to other more critical data sets that may not be as easy to get. It may also not be easy to get the 10 data sets you need to make a decision on something that's tilted one way or another, right? These are the types of ways in which Market Intelligence provides value.
I also think that while we ourselves have seen this, by the way, at S&P, while it's maybe easy for an individual to build out a capability or a use case, and we've seen hundreds of examples of this as we've deployed Spark Assist to our own employees, a lot of benefits on a one-to-one basis in employees generating small efficiencies here, there, working in their tools, much, much harder to do that at scale across an entire process, right? The pace at which this moves is going to vary. Our, I would say, proactive stance on this through the integration of our Kensho capability starts to show up in many different areas.
For example, the automated data ingestion tool that we deployed in Q1 to iLevel was really highly anticipated by our clients because it gave them a first-time opportunity to have seamless processing throughout the entire value chain from the extraction of data and reports straight into iLevel, faster time to market, faster time to results. We had clients actually lining up. We had a pipeline before we even launched that. We are going to continue to take the opportunity to improve ourselves as we do this. The pace at which we move will be helped by the fact that we brought together the Enterprise Data Office so we can integrate our data more. It will be helped by the fact that we are scaling more with Kensho, who is developing really great capabilities that can be deployed, and also that we are open to doing partnerships to move even faster.
Okay. Maybe the bull case for AI would be operational efficiency across the organization. Maybe just talk through how you think about the opportunity for AI to drive meaningful efficiencies over the next sort of three to five years.
Yeah. If I go back to, I mean, it's reasonably simple to sort of break this down. We deployed Spark to everybody in the organization. Everybody had to get trained. We now have over 30,000 people who've used it. The way that I sort of think about it is wonderful for every individual, but sort of too diffuse to measure in terms of productivity. Of course, we had to do it. It's almost like you come in with a phone or a laptop when you start your job, and you expect the standard spec or the standard image from that company to include some sort of LLM-type interface. That's what Spark is for our employees. It's not to say they're, I mean, they're getting benefits. We have employees building agents to help them with their jobs, et cetera.
It is just every person's individual opportunity. We are now in the next phase of saying, okay, we have learned a lot from that. We have also learned which LLMs are better at certain tasks than others. It is not just necessarily, we have always said we would not just be dependent on one LLM. There oftentimes have been cases where we have chained LLMs together to use LLMs in a particular process where it is better than, let us say, a different LLM at doing one task. The next opportunity for us is to look across our organization at what we are calling deep pools. Those deep pools will be areas where we have large groups of talent who are performing things that are reasonably similar. Very easy to think about what they would look like.
We have technology, we have data, we have research, we have analytical, and then I think also commercial is an interesting one to consider as well. When you think about those deep pools, that's basically the vast majority of our employees. The task that we're undertaking right now for the deep pools is to essentially model the end-to-end processes within those deep pools and actually where we could integrate generative AI, where it can be agentic, et cetera. A good example would be our Market Intelligence division is working on the Scrum Team of the Future, the AI Scrum Team, figuring out what roles within the Scrum Team would actually be performed by agents. That's going to take some iteration. It's going to take some fine-tuning. The other divisions are looking at this as well.
The technology leadership team will essentially come together and decide whether or not, one, they feel has solved the AI Scrum Team concept. It will get rolled out and adopted across the enterprise. Obviously, the Enterprise Data Office has been off to an earlier start on this. They've been together now for seven months integrating generative AI at scale across that. I think what's key for us as we do this is to ensure that we are being really thoughtful about the process end-to-end and engineering that process so that it's fit for purpose going forward and not just sort of throwing GenAI on something that might need to evolve because certain things in the process simply don't need to happen in the future maybe because generative AI will perform that step. There's some basic process re-engineering as part of this that's required as well.
To take a step back, what does that mean? It obviously means that there will be some opportunities for us to achieve efficiencies. Some of those efficiencies will be ways in which we will be able to basically improve our margins. Others may be opportunities for us to invest organically in additional areas for growth. We are going to be able to provide more light on that as we go through the course of the next several years. Certainly, we will provide more light on that as we think about Investor Day and how we paint a picture for you for the next medium-term plan. Even this year, we have benefits and productivity from GenAI integration baked into our plans already.
Okay. Maybe sticking with margins and MI, that business had actually decent revenue growth over the last, if you look at the last seven years, revenues have tripled, part acquisition, part strong organic growth. Margins have been stuck in that sort of low 30% area. Maybe talk about structural operating leverage within MI if there's an opportunity going forward to meaningfully move that higher.
I think margin has done a great job in the last several years of expanding margins. Our 2025 midpoint margin guidance actually implies about a 300 basis point improvement in margins since the merger. It is a team really that has demonstrated the ability to not just deliver margin improvement, but also to do that while delivering growth as well in the overall portfolio. I would say if you think about some of the things that we have talked about here around generative AI, for example, I think there are some opportunities there for market intelligence the same way that there would be for other divisions to benefit from the integration of that and to have that contribute to margin improvement over time.
I would also say that obviously we'll be coming out with a greater amount of transparency and story around the overall medium-term growth trajectory for Market Intelligence when we get into our investor day in November. I would definitely highlight the focus of the team on execution and delivery this year, including against the margin improvement and expansion that we've committed to for this year. I am looking forward to talking more about further opportunities on that in November.
Yeah, we're definitely looking forward to November. Maybe more broadly in the organization, particularly as your new role as CEO here, how do you foster a culture of innovation and agility in what is going to be a very large organization like S&P Global? As you move into a lot of cutting-edge areas of technology, how are you able to sort of attract and retain sort of top talent?
On culture, the first thing I would say is I think Doug did a phenomenal job conceiving of Spark Assist with the Kensho team. The reason why I say that is because it is one of the most obvious examples of how we are innovating as an organization at an enterprise level. It is kind of a cottage industry, which is in some ways the best kind of innovation that you can have. What I mean by that is for the 30,000-plus people who use Spark, if you recall, we have said in prior earnings calls, for example, that those using Spark can have an opportunity to sort of graduate their prompts or their models to, as they call them, Sparks, to a Spark library. That library then becomes available to every employee in S&P Global.
If you have developed an agent to extract certain content from a file format that is similar to what others can be doing in different parts of the organization, suddenly the capability is available to everybody. It is essentially completely democratized to everybody. We have, I think as of the end of Q1, well north of 1,600 Sparks that have been published to the library. It is a phenomenal way to think about the level of innovation that is happening across all employees, across the organization. The other ways in which I have been thinking about the culture and how we are evolving the culture, we have been very clear that we want to recognize an increasing recognition of areas where we see the innovation happening. We have quarterly recognition, and we have a big annual recognition profile called a CEO Center of Excellence session.
That is an opportunity for us to really elevate and recognize teams across the organization. It is interesting. It might seem somewhat trivial in the context of a shareholder perspective, but it is in fact one of the highest things that we see commented on in our employee satisfaction surveys that they want to see more recognition for innovation, more recognition for what is done by various different teams. We have essentially responded and put in place a bunch of recognition mechanisms which are appreciated by the employees. This is all incredibly important. I do think that we will continue to evolve that as we go forward. There are pockets in the organization where we have capabilities, which gets to the second part of your question, where I think we will need to really boost those over time.
Of course, Kensho is a prime example of that, not the only example, but it is a prime example of where we have a very specific skill set around data science and around machine learning. Of course, that team has been developing some phenomenal capabilities that we've been scaling into our commercial-facing products and other places in the organization. Making sure that we have the right capacity there is going to be incredibly important to us. I think as important is making sure that we found the right way to cycle people in to absorb and actually become Kenshans, as they call themselves, and then go back out to the divisions. These are all things that we're considering as we think about increasing the knowledge base, the expertise, and the capacity around critical skills like that.
Yeah. No, innovation and I think acquiring Kensho before AI was a sexy topic. Kudos to the team. On capital allocation, maybe just speak to, there's a lot going on. OSTTRA being sold, mobility separation pending. How are you thinking about, and early thoughts here, I know we'll get more in November, but early thoughts here around optimal capital structure for a new look S&P Global, any priorities you can share with us in terms of how you're thinking about allocation?
I'm not going to say View in November. What I would say is we have been, as you know, very consistent around our 85% guideline for capital return. We remain, I would say, committed to that in terms of the importance of it to ourselves and to our shareholders in terms of how we run the business. OSTTRA in and of itself will yield about $1.4 billion. We have also said in the past that we would expect to use that for share repurchases. From a mobility perspective, we have also said that we would expect that to be a 100% tax-free spin. I think that is important as shareholders understand the implications of that or potential implications of that for yourselves. I think more broadly, we are always going to be really disciplined owners of shareholder capital.
With Eric on board, he's bringing incredible amounts of transparency to how our capital is allocated, how our investments are performing, organic investments are performing across the divisions. Those would not just be the ones that we've kind of blessed at a kind of a higher level, but also going very, very deep into each division to understand true business as usual cost versus true investment and really understanding those choices. I think the picture for us is very much one of evolution as opposed to revolution in terms of how we think about the strategy and how we think about capital allocation.
Fantastic. I think with that, we'll end it. Thank you very much, Martina, for the time. Thanks everyone.
Thank you.