Adaptive Biotechnologies Corp Q4 FY2025 Earnings Call

Thank you, Daniel, and good afternoon, everyone. I would like to welcome you to Adaptive Biotechnologies Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Earnings Conference Call. Earlier today, we issued a press release reporting Adaptive financial results for the fourth quarter and full year of '25. The press release is available at www.adaptivebiotech.com. We are conducting a live webcast of this call and will be referencing a slide presentation that has been posted to the Investors section on our corporate website. During the call, management will make projections and other forward-looking statements within the meaning of federal securities laws regarding future events and the future financial performance of the company. These statements reflect management's current perspective of the business as of today. Actual results may differ materially from today's forward-looking statements depending on a number of factors, which are set forth in our public filings with the SEC and listed in this presentation. In addition, non-GAAP financial measures will be discussed during the call, and a reconciliation from non-GAAP to GAAP metrics can be found in our earnings release. Joining the call today are Chad Robins, our CEO and Co-Founder, and Kyle Piskel, our Chief Financial Officer. Additional members from management will be available for Q&A. With that, I'll turn the call over to Chad.

Thanks, Karina. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us on our fourth quarter and full year earnings call. 2025 was a remarkable year for Adaptive, marked by strong execution and meaningful progress across the business. As shown on Slide 3, in the MRD business, full year revenue grew 46% year-over-year, and we achieved profitability ahead of expectations. We also delivered several key catalysts in the year that position the business for sustained growth and continued margin expansion. These include accelerated EMR integrations, including the integration of clonoSEQ into Flatiron's Onco EMR, expanding access across the community setting. The launch of NovaSeq X+ to help scale operations and improve margins. Our first Medicare coverage for recurrence monitoring in MCL, expanding the lifetime value of each MCL Medicare patient, updates in NCCN guidelines across all reimbursed indications, which continues to deepen clinical validation and strong data generation, which was marked by an all-time high with over 90 abstracts presented at ASH, reinforcing MRD's growing role as an interventional tool in patient care. In the Immune Medicine business, we scaled our TCR antigen data and modeling capabilities, leading to our first 2 data partnerships, and we completed a preclinical data package for our lead TCR depleting antibody program in ankylosing spondylitis. Taken together, the strong MRD execution, the continued progress in Immune Medicine and the disciplined spending across the organization drove 55% total company revenue growth and a 68% reduction in cash burn, leading to a strong cash balance of $227 million at year-end. Let's turn to Slide 5 for a closer look at the MRD performance and future expectations, starting with clinical testing. ClonoSEQ clinical testing revenue grew 64% for full year 2025 and 59% in the fourth quarter compared to the prior year. As shown in the chart, volumes increased sequentially throughout the year, reaching a new record of 30,038 tests in the fourth quarter, up 43% year-over-year and 11% sequentially. Growth was broad-based across all reimbursed indications with DLBCL, MCL, and multiple myeloma driving the majority of year-over-year growth. Multiple myeloma represented 44% of U.S. clonoSEQ volume followed by ALL at 30%, CLL and DLBCL, both at 9%, and MCL at 5%. Volume growth throughout the year was driven by a combination of interrelated factors, including blood-based testing, community presence, EMR integrations, clinical guideline inclusion, and ongoing data generation. In the fourth quarter, blood-based testing accounted for 47% of clonoSEQ tests, up from 41% a year ago. In multiple myeloma, blood-based testing reached 27%, which is a 6-point increase year-over-year, which is particularly meaningful given the bone marrow-based nature of the disease. Community testing also continued to expand with volumes up 18% sequentially and representing approximately 33% of total tests in the quarter. We further scaled our digital footprint, completing Epic integrations in 8 accounts during the quarter, bringing the total to 173 integrated accounts, which now drive approximately 40% of ordering volume. Finally, NCCN guideline updates and continued data readouts across marketed indications supported our commercial execution. Ordering HCPs increased 9% sequentially and 45% year-over-year in Q4, with particularly strong adoption in the community setting. Taken together, these drivers continue to increase both physician adoption and testing frequency per patient across indications. Turning to Slide 6. In addition to volume, clinical revenue growth was also driven by continued ASP expansion. We ended the year with an average ASP in the U.S. of $1,307 per test, up 17% year-over-year, and we exited the fourth quarter at about $1,350 per test. ASP growth during the year was driven by strong execution from our reimbursement team across several initiatives. These include the successful renegotiation of 8 major payer contracts with national and regional payers, including Humana, Aetna, Horizon, and multiple Blue Cross plans as well as the signing of new agreements with Anthem, Centene, Florida, and LA Care. We also expanded commercial coverage policies with new coverage wins in DLBCL and in CLL. In parallel, we delivered meaningful revenue cycle management improvements, including Medicaid collections, appeals, prior authorization processes, and time to cash. These operational enhancements supported by AI-enabled workflows are driving higher paid claim rates, more consistent realization, and improved commercial payer cash collections year-over-year by 74%. Looking ahead, we expect these initiatives, together with 2 additional large national payer contracts, we anticipate closing this year to support our targeted average ASP of approximately $1,400 per test in 2026.

Thanks, Chad. Now let’s discuss our financial results. I’ll start with our reported numbers, which include noncash revenue from the amortization of amounts we received under our Genentech collaboration. After terminating this collaboration in August, we accelerated the recognition of all remaining amortization in the third quarter. Therefore, there will be no ongoing contributions from the Genentech collaboration in our results after Q3. For the fourth quarter, total company revenue reached $71.7 million, and for the full year, it was $277 million, reflecting 51% and 55% year-over-year growth respectively. In the fourth quarter, adjusted EBITDA was $4.1 million, a significant improvement from a loss of $16.4 million a year ago. For the entire year, adjusted EBITDA stood at $12.2 million compared to a loss of $80.4 million in 2024. Interest expenses from our royalty financing agreement with Orbimed were $3 million in Q4 and $11.8 million for the year, while interest income was $2.1 million and $9.4 million for those same periods. Our net loss was $13.6 million for the quarter and $59.5 million for the full year. Moving forward, the revenue and adjusted EBITDA figures I will mention exclude all noncash revenue from Genentech amortization. Based on this, fourth quarter revenue was $71.7 million, an increase of 63% year-over-year, with MRD accounting for 86% and Immune Medicine for 14%. MRD revenue was $61.9 million, a 54% increase year-over-year, with clinical and pharma contributions of 67% and 33%, respectively. ClonoSEQ test volume rose by 43% to 30,038 tests, up from 20,945 in the same quarter last year. Immune Medicine revenue increased to $9.8 million from $3.8 million a year ago, mainly due to our data licensing deal with Pfizer. Overall, total revenue for the full year was $235.7 million, up 42% year-over-year. MRD revenue was $212 million, up 46%, which included $19.5 million in milestone revenue. Excluding that, MRD revenue grew 45% compared to 2024. Immune Medicine revenue hit $23.4 million, a 17% growth from the previous year. Regarding gross margins, the sequencing gross margin, excluding MRD milestones, Genentech amortization, and Pfizer licensing revenue, was 71% in Q4, increasing by 12 points year-over-year and by 5 points sequentially. For the full year, the sequencing gross margin was 66%, improving from 53% in 2024. Cost reductions per sample were achieved through production efficiencies, labor optimization, and the transition to NovaSeq X+. Total operating expenses, including cost of revenue, were $84.5 million in Q4, up 4% year-over-year due to increased MRD sales and marketing investments, particularly from EMR and market access initiatives, though partially offset by lower R&D spending in Immune Medicine. Yearly operating expenses totaled $334.1 million, down 2% compared to the previous year. In the segment analysis, MRD adjusted EBITDA was positive at $15.2 million in 2025 compared to a loss of $41.2 million in 2024, attributed to higher revenue. The adjusted EBITDA loss for Immune Medicine improved to $31 million from $37.9 million, reflecting lower operating expenses and increased revenue. As a result of strong revenue growth, improved efficiency, and prudent spending, we concluded the year with $227 million in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities, not including $13.1 million held by digital biotechnologies. Turning to our guidance for full year 2026, we expect MRD business revenue to be between $255 million and $265 million, incorporating $8 million to $9 million in MRD milestone revenue based on our current insights. At the midpoint, this represents a 22% year-over-year growth or 30% growth excluding milestones. We anticipate that MRD revenue will be roughly 45% weighted to the first half and 55% to the second half of the year as clinical volumes and growth in average selling prices compound, with sequential clinical volume growth expected throughout the year. We forecast total operating expenses, including cost of revenue, to range from $350 million to $360 million, reflecting a 6% year-over-year growth at the midpoint. This will accommodate merit increases and targeted investments in MRD sales and marketing to facilitate market expansion while leveraging our current commercial and operational resources. Additionally, we expect to achieve positive adjusted EBITDA and positive free cash flow for the entire company by the end of 2026. It’s important to note that as in previous years, Q1 will involve the highest quarterly cash utilization primarily due to annual corporate bonus payments. I am pleased with the strong results we delivered in 2025 and look forward to sharing financial updates throughout the year as we work towards our objectives.

Thanks, Kyle. To bring it all together, 2025 was an outstanding year for Adaptive on all fronts. In MRD, we achieved profitability and grew the top line by 46%, driven by strong clonoSEQ volume growth. In IM, we scaled our TCR antigen data and began executing on targeted monetization opportunities that build long-term strategic value. And importantly, we maintained our strong cash position giving us the flexibility to execute across both businesses. Looking ahead to 2026, we're focused on continuing to fuel MRD revenue growth, expand margins and deliver company-wide profitability. We have a great playbook in place, and we're executing against it. We're encouraged by the momentum we are seeing and are confident in our ability to execute and deliver on these priorities. I'll now turn the call back over to the operator and open it up for Q&A.

Our first question comes from David Westenberg with Piper Sandler.

Congrats on a very strong volume quarter in Q4. So actually, I want to start with that, that sequential step up in clonoSEQ volume. Can you discuss how to think about that trend? Is there any seasonality there? And can you discuss some of the weather-related issues you might see in Q1? And one of the things I want to get at is you have a higher base now, so growing that sequentially up on a percentage basis might be a little bit more difficult, obviously, given how big your volumes are starting to get.

Thank you for the question, David. We were very happy with the Q4 results, which I think addressed concerns about any deceleration in previous quarters. We see the Q4 numbers as a testament to our long-term growth potential. We experience seasonality at different times throughout the year; Q1 has typically been strong for us, but this year it is a bit lighter due to holidays and weather. As you know, we've faced some weather-related challenges recently that affected the timing of sample arrivals rather than volume, although there were some volume impacts as well. FedEx experienced delays for several days, and many hospitals and practices temporarily closed. The good news is that samples are now coming in large volumes again, and we've had a solid start to Q1. We are optimistic about our guidance for the year and expect to see strong sequential growth in Q1 compared to the previous quarter.

And I'll just ask one more and I want to kind of ask this a little bit more directly since I think you have a really good tech and a good position in blood. So how should we think about the penetration rates in DLBCL? You have a first major advantage in a lot of the blood cancers, particularly the multiple myeloma. How do you parlay that massive lead in multiple myeloma, for example, to DLBCL where your penetration of late is a little bit lower? And there is some concerns about incoming competition.

Certainly. We've gained valuable insights from our experience in myeloma, where we hold a strong position with about 45% of our business coming from that area. We've consistently achieved robust quarter-over-quarter growth there, aided by advancements in our assays for both blood and bone marrow. In DLBCL, we face a similar scenario where the market is still developing, and we need to persuade stakeholders of the value of MRD. This has been our main objective, and we've seen positive results in the fourth quarter, with a 14% quarter-over-quarter growth and a substantial 115% increase compared to the same quarter last year. However, as you mentioned, we are currently only capturing about 3% of the potential patient market. We believe that the growing interest in this area can help expand the market significantly. Our focus will remain on key drivers, including generating data through our enhanced ctDNA assay launched last year, progressing clinical guidelines, broadening payer coverage to improve our average selling prices, and deepening our collaboration with pharmaceutical companies, which are increasingly interested in MRD-guided trial designs for DLBCL. We will continue to emphasize the sensitivity and specificity of our assay, which are critical in both clinical practice and intervention studies. Additionally, we will leverage our strengths, such as reimbursement and strong relationships with hematologists in both community and academic settings, along with the data advantages we have built as new entrants explore their strategies.

Our next question comes from Subbu Nambi with Guggenheim.

A competitor came out with the flow cytometer positioning as competitive to NGS for myeloma and probably a significant price advantage. Would love to hear your thoughts on this product from both sensitivity and pricing perspective.

Sure. It's interesting to see that Quest has launched a product in the space. From our perspective, it's not particularly a new dynamic for us. There are competitors already offering next-generation flow products with similar sensitivity claims in our space. But what we know is that flow-based methods for MRDs are inherently less sensitive than clonoSEQ and they always will be for any given amount of sample material. Obviously, Quest hasn't published any data yet, but their claim that their sensitivity is comparable to clonoSEQ is hard for us to reconcile. Their stated sensitivity is 5x10 to the negative 6, which is equivalent to 1 in 200,000 with 10 milliliters of blood. And as you know, clonoSEQ can routinely achieve clinical sensitivity of 1 in 1 million, 5x higher with just 2 milliliters of blood; our validated sensitivity for our FDA label is even higher, around 1 in 1.5 million, and that's the same in both blood and marrow. So the assay that's being launched is at best 5 to 7 times less sensitive in blood than clonoSEQ and I think there's 2 things to keep in mind with that. One is the myeloma landscape is evolving in a direction that requires more sensitivity, not less. Treatments are driving really deep responses. Most patients now are negative in marrow at a depth of 100,000 and 200,000. And two, for myeloma, MRD sensitivity is especially important when you're testing in blood. The biology of myeloma is such that disease burden in blood is, on average, 100 times less than in marrow. And physicians know this. So they want to use an assay in blood that's maximally sensitive. So remember, in the community, in Q4, over 60% of clonoSEQ/myeloma MRD testing was done in blood. And in that setting, we're also broadly reimbursed. More than 90% of patients have 0 out-of-pocket cost, and we're broadly EMR integrated in the community with Flatiron and other large integrations. So ultimately, we're talking about another next-gen flow assay that has some similar benefits as clonoSEQ, blood-based testing, turnaround time, broad availability, but with less sensitivity in a sample type where sensitivity is really key. So of course, there are a single-digit percentage of patients for whom a diagnostic marrow isn't available to run a clonoSEQ IP test. So that's a subset of patients; perhaps next-gen flow could be a backup option.

Super helpful. I have a question for Karl. I think as you think about ASP pacing this year. How should we pace it just given the private figures are in advanced negotiation stage?

Yes. I mean I think at this time, it's best to think of it as a linear growth. There are some specific timing things that we've got it locked down as it relates to some of the key payer contracts, we're focused on converting. But I think at this point, where we are in terms of the timing of the year, it's best to just think of it as linear growth.

Our next question comes from Dan Brennan with TD Cowen.

Maybe just first on the EBITDA guide for 2026. So I think you said EBITDA positive, maybe exiting '26. Can you just flesh it out a little bit? Is that Q3, Q4? Was that for the full year? And any help between where MRD versus immune medicine goes and kind of implicit in that, like are you making any changes to the sales force and puts into that? Is there any more sales force expansion in '26?

On the EBITDA guide, I'd say right now, it's an exit in Q4 for the entire company. MRD obviously positive adjusted EBITDA at this point, but we expect to see that continue to grow. And some of the initiatives across the business we're putting in place give us confidence to be able to achieve it across the whole company. And I'll let Susan take the field force.

Yes. Currently, we have about 65 reps in the field. They're split 50-50 between academic and community focus. And we believe this is the right number of reps for now as our territories are manageable in terms of potential. The reps are calling on the right number of accounts and HCPs. And most of the territories are reasonable size. So while I'm not saying we don't add a territory here or there opportunistically and also I will acknowledge that we will continue to evaluate new deployment strategies to address market dynamics as they evolve, which could justify additional hiring, we're not anticipating in the plan for this year any significant expansion in the sales team.

Terrific. And you rattled off a bunch of the progress you made on a lot of the volume drivers between blood community penetration and EMR. I'm just wondering, makes sense to not get ahead of yourselves, but I think blood really ramped, and I think you're only baking in a little bit of an increase in '26. Is that just because we're kind of capping out on what's realistic? Or is there a reason and some way, I think community, I think, really ramped in the fourth quarter, and it looks like you're baking in a little bit of an increase there. Just maybe speak to those 2 assumptions. And is there some reason why they wouldn't potentially increase further in '26?

Right. I believe there is no limit to our growth potential, and we don't think there are any reasons why we couldn't increase further. We're looking at historical progress and balancing various factors while being careful with our expectations for this year. On the blood-based testing side, we achieved 47% overall and 27% specifically for myeloma in Q4. Myeloma represents a significant growth opportunity. If we keep seeing disproportionate growth in DLBCL and mantle cell lymphoma, blood testing's contribution to our overall business will continue to rise. We think we can exceed 50% by 2026. Similarly, for community testing, our goal is for over 35% of the business to come from this area. It was 31% in 2025, and we finished Q4 at 33%. We aim to surpass 35% by the end of this year, and this area will be a major focus with significant investment. Our competitors are likely to concentrate here as well, especially with key data sets in multiple myeloma that may lead to avoiding transplants, which is crucial for community clinicians. We will maintain our efforts in these areas and work on new testing pathways in large community practices to standardize the assay's use across indications. These initiatives, along with our Flatiron integration and the serial testing opportunities it provides, could lead to further growth in 2026.

Our next question comes from Mark Massaro with BTIG.

Congrats on a strong 2025. I wanted to start on gross margins. It looks like they came in at 66% sequencing for the full year, and you hope to expand that to over 70% in 2026. I guess there are a number of parts to this. And where I'm going with this is your ASPs are still rising. In fact, last month, you indicated a plan to get to $1,700 to $1,800 in ASPs by 2029. So I guess my question is, the over 70% level in 2026, my sense is that you're not fully loaded there of long term. So is there any way you could give me a sense that maybe 3, 4 years from now, you could be perhaps meaningfully above 70%? Or do you think that that's a pretty good place to consider in the out years?

Yes, Mark, this is Chad. I'll begin and then pass it to Kyle to elaborate on anything I mention. Firstly, at JPMorgan, we've already increased that number from 70% to 75%. You are correct that we aren't fully loaded since the transition to NovaSeq X+ just occurred in the latter half of this year. We discussed a potential percentage increase of 5% to 8% in the first year and over a 10% increase specifically related to the NovaSeq X+ transition. This will lead to a significant additional boost as you process more samples in the same sequencing run. That's a major point. Secondly, as you've noted regarding ASP, as you continue to grow your top line alongside better cost per sample, the margin will keep improving. I believe there may even be additional upside, but for now, we're methodically increasing from 70% to 75%. We are very confident in maintaining a strong and durable high-margin profile, both at the gross and operating margin levels.

That's super helpful. And then maybe just to drill into ASPs. I think you guys indicated that you exited 2025 at $1,350 a test, and you came in at $1,307 for the full year, which is up 17%. So can you maybe share why is $1,400 the right rate in 2026? That's a 7% growth. Are there any particular items you could point to that might sort of not create for a similar growth rate in '26 than '25?

Sure. Thank you for your question, Mark. In 2025, we experienced significant growth from several initiatives, with one of the largest contributors being the gap sell rate that started at the beginning of the year for our Medicare fee-for-service business. This played a substantial role in our growth for 2025. On the commercial side, we've begun to see progress as we've initiated contract rate renegotiations and established new payer rates. Looking ahead to 2026, we want to be cautious with our guidance on ASP. We are concentrating on two major areas. Firstly, we are negotiating with two large payers that constitute about 17% to 18% of our volume, making it crucial to set those rates appropriately, as the timing can influence the variability and ultimately the ASPs we achieve for the year. Secondly, as Susan mentioned, we expect growth in DLBCL and MCL, but if the growth exceeds our expectations, we will need to navigate the coverage dynamics with commercial payers, hoping for favorable coverage decisions for those indications. However, we aim to be careful in managing and monitoring this situation over time.

Our next question comes from Sebastian Sandler with JPMorgan.

Great. Can you walk us through where you see upside to the ClonoSEQ volume guide in the year, I think it implies pretty healthy community volume growth, looks like around 50% year-on-year depending on what you assume more than 35% of total volume means. But where would you point to there being the most potential upside, whether that's NeoGenomics contribution, guidelines, incremental recurrence, monitoring coverage? Just walk us through that. I think that would be helpful to get a grasp of it.

Certainly. From a volume perspective in our clinical business, there are some promising areas of potential growth. Currently, we are in the early stages with limited experience regarding EMR integration. Our work with Flatiron and serial testing has just begun to show results. So far, we are pleased to report that around 60% of serial tests are appearing as scheduled, indicating potential for improvement and sustained strong contributions from this area, which could positively impact our forecasts. Furthermore, we have increased our focus on already integrated sites to enhance their performance. This includes standardizing order sets for consistent testing and streamlining workflows to improve order pull-through. These initiatives are new, but early pilot results have been very encouraging. I also mentioned the potential for increased contributions from blood and community efforts, which will remain priorities. On the ASP front, we are currently renegotiating key payer contracts, which may also lead to revenue upside. We believe our guidance is reasonable and we are cautious at the start of the year, but there are various ways to drive and accelerate this business. This interconnectedness is one of the aspects we appreciate about our business model, instilling confidence that we can achieve or surpass our goals.

Yes. And I kind of add a fine point to that because I mentioned kind of this playbook. When all these things are working together, there were 5 things last year that drove the business: blood-based testing, community data results, data readouts, guidelines, and EMR integrations, and those are the 5 things we're reinvesting in this year, and those are the things that we are going to drive growth, not only drive growth but also give us an opportunity to be extremely confident in our guide and hopefully outperform.

That's helpful. Regarding the ASP guidance for '26, it seems like the $1,400 figure is somewhat reliant on the two contracts you mentioned. Can you provide any insight into the execution risk associated with those contracts or if they are secured at this point? Additionally, if those contracts turn out to be less favorable than anticipated, can you estimate where the ASP might settle? You mentioned maintaining a steady ASP throughout the year, but could you clarify if this trend is expected to be more prominent in the first half or the second half of the year?

Yes. I mean there's certainly some level of execution risk. Otherwise, I think we wouldn't be in the stage we're at. But we're confident in getting there in the long term, and we want to make sure we're establishing the right rate. That's really the priority with these payers. As it relates to the dynamics in terms of pacing, yes, I mean, it's probably more of a second half dynamic just given where we're at in January. But I think at the end of the day, if those things don't come in, it does represent some minor risk, but there's other levers within the business that we can pull on, but continue to grow ASP.

Yes, we are quite confident in the ASP guidance, and we have multiple strategies to achieve it. One contract alone will not necessarily affect our ability to reach our goals.

And then our final question comes from Bill Bonello with Craig-Hallum Capital Group.

And I applaud you for the prudence. I'm going to go a different way here. But really, given the pre-release, what really stood out to us were actually the comments on the IM business, which I know you don't talk about all that much, and you don't want people to get out over their skis. But clearly, the way you're positioning this is much less as a therapy development business and much more as a data and informatics business, and it was good to hear about a couple of big contracts. I know it's probably early days on this strategy, but would love to hear any thinking you have around sort of ways that you monetize this leading database that you've created and sort of ultimately how we might think about how a business like this could scale out over time.

Sure, Sharon, do you want to take that?

Yes. Thanks for the question. So as you alluded to, we're excited by the two distinct Pfizer deals, including both of which were data licensing deals, and we certainly look forward to continuing and believe that we can sort of rinse and repeat similar or even sort of differentiated additional data licensing deals. And really, this stems from the fact that we've generated this really massive differentiated data set that certainly there's value across applying in different immunology applications and solving different immunology problems. So it's early days, but more to come as the year progresses, and we're super excited and enthusiastic in terms of where we are and where we're going.

Yes. And further, I think the Pfizer deal represented 2 types of different types of data deals. One is we're just kind of licensing data for AI modeling by pharma companies and the second, where we're using our unique set of capabilities to do target discovery work. And so there's kind of multiple different types of opportunities that can provide monetization from this really unique data set.

That's helpful. And maybe just as a follow-up, as you think of sort of how the data stands today, are there investments you need to make to sort of make it more accessible potentially to pharma clients and others and just to be able to sort of meet the kinds of demands you anticipate that they're having?

Yes, Bill. The investments we're making are significant. Remember, there's revenue coming in from that business as well, which we consider a burn-off offset to the investments that we're making. So all the investments we need to, we believe, generate kind of this robust data set are captured in that kind of $15 million to $20 million net burn of the investments that we're making this year.

Okay. I was just thinking more probably in terms of timing of when a business like this could inflect if it could.

We'll revisit the situation if there are future investments to be considered, based on a strong business case with a high risk-adjusted return on capital related to our current activities. For now, we expect a net burn of around $15 million to $20 million for the business this year.

Thank you. I'm showing no further questions at this time. This concludes today's conference call. Thanks for participating, and you may now disconnect.