Match Group, Inc. (MTCH) September 9, 2026 Conference Transcript

Excellent. Let's get started. I'm James Michael Sherman Lewis. I'm on the internet team here at Citi. Joining us is Stephen Bailey, Chief Financial Officer of Match Group. Stephen, thank you so much for being here. Before we get started, I'll read the safe harbor. During this presentation, Match may discuss their outlook and future performance. These forward-looking statements may be preceded by words such as we expect, we believe, we anticipate, or similar statements. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, and actual results could differ materially from the views expressed today. Some of these risks have been set forth in periodic reports filed with the SEC. Also today, we may discuss certain non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures are provided in the published materials on their IR website. These non-GAAP measures are not intended to be a substitute for GAAP results. With that out of the way, Steve, let's start with Tinder. Dow's declined 4% in 2Q, improved to roughly down 2%, 2.5% in July, and approaching positive growth in early August. As we sit here today, has Tinder crossed into that positive territory inflection yet? And, you know, how would you rank order the largest drivers of improvement as we're moving through the quarter?

In August, we're getting close, closer by the minute. In August, it was down minus 1%, so better than July and better than Q2, so we're headed in the right direction. And then September's looked a little bit better so far, too. So we're getting there, and we should get there soon. Really, the biggest factors are the algos, which we've talked a lot about. It's a culmination, and we've done a lot. So it's all the product changes, but if you had to boil it down to the one, it would be the algos. In particular, we released a new unification algorithm, the version 2 of that algorithm, mid-July. That's had a pronounced effect on Sparks and Sparks coverage, all of which have been better in August. And that's leading to the improvement in DAU, too.

On the algo and the connection with improving the retention and the frequent usage, how do you think about leading indicators of, you know, sparks versus DAUs versus MAUs and the connection underlying those? And as we scale Tinder back towards growth in 2027, do you think there's a possibility that some of these metrics could, you know, maybe converge together?

I do think, you know, the DAU and MAU metrics will ultimately converge. I think what you're seeing now is there's really two drivers of MAU. There's users, new users, and then there's retention, right? And the product of those two things is effectively MAU. And so why you're seeing DAU outpace MAU today is we've made more progress on the product side, on the engagement side. Users are staying longer, and they're using the app more frequently throughout the month because they're getting more value out of the experience. That's what's improving DAU at a little faster clip than MAU. The big push over the next couple quarters is around reconsideration and perception change and getting that other part of the formula, the user growth part of the formula, headed in the right direction. So that's how we get MAU from the minus 7 we were at in Q2 up to flat. And I think over time, throughout 27, those two metrics will converge.

Makes sense. I mean, marketing should obviously help. But the biggest driver, kind of as we see it, is the algorithm improvements. So just circling back to that for just a minute, the architecture changes, you know, the more unified recommendation stack, as we put it. What does the new architecture enable Tinder to do that it couldn't previously? And how do you think about, you know, potential next-gen recommendation systems from here?

There's really two parts of it. One is technical, which is just the approach to the algorithms. You know, Spencer talks about it this way. I think it's a good way to lay it out. Before, the old architecture was, think of it as stacks of cards. There's about 15 stacks of cards, independent stacks of cards, cards being profiles. And each stack was optimized towards one objective. So it might be the revenue, a stack optimized towards generating revenue, or generating matches, or generating a boost for the new user experience. And then we basically decide which of the 15 stacks we would show you first. And you'd get through that one stack, and then we'd decide what next stack to have you go through. Now it's one unified stack. There's one stack of cards, not 15, and that technically has just worked better and been more efficient and effective. The second part is really not technical. It's more strategy-driven, right? And that is all around optimizing this new unified algo towards sparks and towards meaningful connections. Whereas before, it was, again, a number of different constraints, revenue or matches or what have you. And that's been a huge unlock. I think that's probably been the most powerful thing. And, you know, one of the things I'm sure you'll get a question on it is around the sort of user give back budgets. You know, one of the reasons we created that budget, we were a little concerned that we might end up spending $60 million in revenue on user give backs. It ended up being less. It's because we removed the revenue stack altogether. We thought that would have a pretty detrimental impact on the business. It turned out not so much just because this unified stack as a whole just outperformed those individual stacks, even when we deprioritized the revenue.

Makes a lot of sense. This unified stack that was still fully on Tinder, are we close to a point where we're leveraging, call it more cross-portfolio signals across your brands to, you know, really, like, maybe unify and upgrade that recommendation stack more broadly.

Yeah, we're, we do have a team, we have a central AI team that's working on more longer-term horizon efforts that are centered around some of the things you just mentioned, really leveraging the size and the scale of our business in more unified sort of data stack way that we can apply AI and machine learning to. It's a little, that's a little bit more longer term. I think the next big unlock for Tinder specifically when it comes to algorithms is more real-time algorithm updates. So later this year, probably towards the end of the year, later in Q4, we're going to roll out real-time matching or real-time algo updates. Today, it takes about four hours for the algorithm to adjust to your changing behavior on the app. That's far behind, I would say, the sort of benchmark today for like a social media app. You know, we've all used TikTok or Instagram, where it feels like it's being updated in real time.

In a session.

Right. Within a session. We're going to get from about four hours to a few minutes by the end of the year. I think that will be the next big unlock for Timmy on the algo side.

That's exciting. As we think about, you know, kind of these next unlocks and the cadence of improvements, the initial algo changes, I think, were targeted towards women. But we saw, you know, not just the women's sparks increased by 6%, but also men's sparks increased by 5%. So could you talk a little bit about, you know, the next iteration of extending these recommendation capabilities towards, you know, straight men and LGBTQ users? How should we think about this, you know, network effect really compounding?

Yeah, I think it's hard to extrapolate it out with precision because, you know, like you said, improving the experience for women also improves the experience for men. So it's a double-sided network ecosystem. A little bit hard to predict the actual impacts. But what I can say is we expect very much so that it will be a positive, right? It was a big win for women. It should be a meaningful win for men. It should be a meaningful win for LGBTQ+. You know, how many points of Sparks improvement will that create? It's a little tough to say, but it's in test now. We plan to roll out, you know, globally by Q4, so what we'll see pretty soon.

Good to hear. Can we move on to, you know, maybe Tinder monetization? Tinder payers, you know, down 5% in Q2, but payer penetration was up globally, and I think in your top markets. What underpins your confidence in improving tender payer trends in the back half? And how much of this strength could really be driven by these improving audience trends that we talked about versus payer conversion?

Yeah, what gives me confidence is it can really come from two places. One is improving user trends, improving MEU trends, and two is monetization, optimizations that we've been doing this year. We don't talk about it as much, but we've had a lot of success optimizing on the monetization side. And so we've got a lot of sort of irons in the fire, both on the monetization roadmap and on the product roadmap, events, misconnections. We're going to start testing groups, these algo changes. So I think it's a collection of all those things that give me confidence that we can keep moving the payer metric in the right direction. I don't think it's going to be a step function change next quarter or the quarter after. Remember, we're saying we want to get back to payer growth by the end of next year, by Q4 of next year. But I do think it will improve to some degree.

Great. On improving these payer trends and kind of balancing the free experience with the paid experience, how do you think about, let me reframe it this way, how are your product and, you know, algo teams now working maybe more closely with your revenue optimization teams to balance the growth of, you know, the users versus the payers?

Yeah, you know, I think one interesting thing that happened is the fact that we created this user giveback budget, The $60 million is a good back budget, it was a big number. Part of that was by design, and part of it was, it wasn't just external, but it was also internal, because we needed to shift the culture away from one that was, you know, just very myopically focused on revenue. And so we get in these situations where the product teams were sort of culturally sensitized to revenue, and if there was any drop in revenue at all at any of these tests, they would shut the test off. So we decided to put this budget out there to give them the freedom to sort of innovate. It's okay if there's a small hit to revenue. We can manage it if it's long-term beneficial to the users. It's okay to have a test budget and to, you know, sort of stir things up a little bit in a smaller geography or in an A-B test because that's how you, you know, sort of unlock real innovation. And so that's worked. The culture has shifted. I think, you know, the sort of the revenue shackles are off a bit. And, you know, obviously what we found is it hasn't had as big an impact of revenue as we expected, but it's created a more innovative sort of work environment. And that itself has created a place where instead of the modernization team and the product innovation teams being in opposition of one another often, kind of arguing whether this feature should get rolled out or not, it's helping users, but it's hurting revenue, where should we land? And everybody's aligned now on we've got the room to innovate and iterate. And the other thing that was beneficial is we're all working towards one key KPI, which is Sparks, which is user outcomes. And that's sort of always the tiebreaker, if you will. So the culture around setting this budget and the setting of a key metric around Sparks, which really galvanized the teams, okay, this is what we're shooting for, has made it much easier for the teams to work together. So I think they're working better than they have together in a long time.

Good to hear. On improving this experience for existing users, I think as we've talked about, the next phase being maybe driving reconsideration amongst lapsed users and, to your point, the marketing efforts that are potentially to come. If we could talk a little bit about those marketing dollars that are coming. Lower funnel channels, I think, are now 50% of your marketing spend. How do you think about whether it's the intensity or maybe the ROI on those marketing And are there any, you know, maybe historical markers in Tinder's history as to, you know, maybe the intensity, you know, the magnitude of those dollars?

Yeah, well, I think a few things. One, a bit of what we saw in 2026 is a catch-up for maybe a little bit of underinvestment in years past. Part of that was sort of managing margins. Part of it was that, you know, the product just wasn't evolving very much. There wasn't a whole lot to talk about, and a lot of the marketing went towards a brand narrative, a broader brushstrokes brand narrative, you know, spark something new or meet somebody new, and that didn't really perform well. So we didn't, you know, we weren't spending at the same clip. Now what you've seen is the products evolved. There's a lot of new features to talk about. We've shifted to more down funnel marketing, like you mentioned, and it's, you know, the sort of ROI has improved, which has unlocked more spend for us. The metrics we're really looking at are driving registrations and reactivations. Marketing is doing a better job driving registrations and reactivations than it has in the past. And those new users are retaining at healthy rates, similar rates to the organic users we see. So we know that this is sustainable financially. And then we want to get the message out because we've got a lot of new features. And a key part of the strategy from here is changing reconsideration and perception. So particularly around events and a big push into social, we think marketing plays a key role in amplifying that message. And it's what's needed to get us from down 7% or so in MAU to flat. That's sort of the next leg in the tunnel.

How do you think about some events is really interesting to me, kind of bridging that digital to in-person dating experience. A lot of great early KPIs. I think you've talked about the 70% of eligible 18- to 24-year-olds engaging with the events tab already. As we think about events expanding towards the 75 cities by the end of the year, how do you think about the broader opportunity set here, how much you might spend, but also maybe economics for events?

Yeah. Look, we've done this in a pretty smart way, I think a pretty scalable way. We've partnered with existing prevents providers. We're not curating these events on our own. We're not putting a lot of money into creating the events. The events are there. We're partnering with events aggregators or events companies that already have the events and are looking to fill seats, and we've got the users to do that. So most of the dollars, we've got a couple development teams working on it. So there's a sort of a tradeoff there that could be working on other things. But we think events is the right place to have them. We've got a small events sourcing team, and it's less than 10 people, so it's relatively manageable, and we'll scale up quite well. And then most of the spend is on the marketing side, co-promotion and marketing the events themselves. You know, we're, as we sort of just mentioned, this is not about getting as many of our users to go to an event as possible, per se. Obviously, we want users to get to events, but it's a bigger strategy than that. It's changing perception and reconsideration for all users. And what will likely happen is a small percentage of users will actually go to events, but a lot of them will think about Tinder through a different light because it has events. And we've seen that with, like you said, 70% of Gen Z are interacting with the events page. They're coming back week after week. That shows there's interest. A smaller percent are actually going to the events. I think that will go up over time, but they like the idea. This is what they want, and so I think it's a powerful message for changing reconsideration. And then the economics, the unit economics are pretty good and scalable. I think the economics for the user are very good, right, because one issue that I think the company and the industry faces is that, you know, while the 20 bucks a month you pay to be on the app is not really all that much money if you're meeting new people, You know, the $200 you've got to spend on a dinner in New York is a lot of money. I think that is a constraint for Gen Z. Events offers a better value prop to users. 30% of the events are free. Those that cost money cost about $30 a month versus the dinner in New York. That's far more expensive. You're meeting not just one person and hoping it turns out well. You're meeting lots of people and having a good time, kind of, no matter how it turns out. You're often bringing a friend with you, which lowers the pressure. So I think it's exactly what users are looking for and helps bridge the sort of economic gap for the user themselves. So those are all reasons why we're really excited about the events and the broader social push overall.

Love it. Can we turn to Hinge? So, Hinge MAU is up 13%, Pairs up 17% this past quarter. As we approach this kind of billion-dollar revenue target, and, you know, both your core markets mature, but your, you know, newer international markets continue to emerge, how do we think about the growth algorithm? Whether that's audience growth, Pair penetration, you know, some pricing, potentially. And how do you think about that mix changing, you know, maybe this year and into next year?

Yeah. For the loaded questions. Well, there's a few good ones in there. Let's take the sort of payer-RPP mix first. What we've seen over the last few years is heavier growth on the payer side than the RPP side. I think that will continue for the foreseeable future, including in 2027. There's a couple reasons for that. One is, you know, the international markets or the expansion markets are growing faster than the core markets, and they're usually a lower-priced market on the outset, So that puts a little pressure on RPP and drives more conversion and payer growth. I expect that dynamic to continue. And then the second reason is this lower price tier that we can talk about, which we're testing. That will affect all markets, but core in particular, that will drive more payer conversion than RPP. And so I think that that mix will be kind of similar in 27 than it was in 26, which is sort of the mix we want. In terms of, you know, growth and the mix between international and core markets, you know, one way to think about it is this year, you know, obviously the growth rates are much higher in expansion markets than in core markets where they're a little bit more flat, but the quantum of revenue being generated by core markets versus international expansion markets is similar, like in a dollar term. I think that will probably continue in 27 as well. So I don't think the sort of algorithm is going to change all that much. In the core markets, if we want to just stay there for one second and talk about growth within core, you know, revenue growth is still quite strong. User growth has flattened out a little bit. You know, we spent a lot of time looking at this. We think there's a lot of opportunity to continue to grow in core markets. One is on the monetization side. They monetize, you know, Hinge monetize at lower rates than tender in core markets. You know, the RPP is higher than tender, but the pair penetration is much lower. So there's room to grow that pair penetration rate in core markets for sure. And then two, you know, Hinge is more scaled and maturing in certain markets to some extent. But if you look at it, let's just take the U.S., it's mature in liberal coastal cities. It's mature in New York. It's mature in San Francisco. It's mature in L.A. If you sort of dig in, there's a lot of room for growth still in those middle America markets, southern markets, maybe more conservative parts of the country. They under-index versus Tinder greatly, and so I think there's a big opportunity to just have a hinge appeal to a broader swath of the U.S. than just the markets that they really kind of got started in. So that gives us confidence. And then if you break it down by age, for example, there's still a lot of opportunity in a little bit older segments. They've done very well with Gen Z. But as you get into the mid-30s, into the 40s, there's still a big opportunity there where an app like Hinge that's higher intent can appeal to that population too. So I think between going after those underpenetrated demographics and geographies plus opportunities on the monetization side, we'll see pretty strong core growth in 27 as well.

Yeah, it makes a lot of sense. Touching on the monetization just a little bit more, I know you referenced the lower price subscriptions. Can you walk us through just a little bit more of the rationale behind that decision and what early learnings from that could you potentially apply to Tinder as well?

Yeah, there's a few things we looked at and thought about. One, most large-scale dating apps have a three-price tier system. Tinder, that's the case for Tinder. That's the case for Bumble. Hinge, right now, only is two. Makes sense to add a third. There's a precedent there. Hinge is also higher priced than those other apps. And so the fact that they're a higher price point, which makes sense for a more higher-intentioned dating app, leaves more room for a lower-priced tier than maybe you would see at a Tinder. That third tier they added was actually a higher-priced tier, not a lower-priced tier. That's part of it. And then two, what I think is really interesting is the tier there is going to be focused on women in particular. That's a huge untapped opportunity for the category as a whole. The category has done very well finding ways to add value for men, see who likes you, unlimited likes. Those are men value prop features, not so much what women are looking for. So it'll be a really interesting, you know, you asked, what can we learn from this test? I think that will be where a lot of the learnings come from. Can we create features that women value? Is that an unlock to increase pair penetration across the business of the category as a whole?

Perfect. I would like to take a minute to open it up to the audience for any questions. Otherwise, I can keep going. All right, no problem. Let's move on to the apps for economics. So alternative payment savings expected to now reach $130 million. That's up $20 million. Could you break down what has driven the additional upside in expected IEP savings this year? And given the changes in the landscape, any update on where things stand with the Apple versus the Google app stores?

Yeah, this is moving quickly. So I spent a lot of time tracking this very closely. So let me give you an update, because there have been a few changes since even the earnings call about a month ago. Let's just kind of go platform by platform. Google, no change since the last earnings call. They've basically rolled out their own global fee structure. It's not subject to court approval in the US anymore. Unfortunately, for us and other developers, it doesn't offer much incentive or ability to offer alternative payments. The economics, it's not very economical for us to do it. When we run the numbers and look at it, we will offer that to customers, but it's maybe about a $5 million benefit, we think, to the bottom line relative to the world we've been working in for Google over the past couple of years. So a little bit disappointing, quite frankly, but at least we've got some certainty about where that's headed. Now, could it change? Could the DMA come out in Europe and say, this is not good enough, Google, you have to do better? Of course. But for now, they've rolled out a global policy that goes into effect. You know, kind of between the end of this year and into next year across the globe. And it's basically one consistent policy. Apple's taken a different approach. They have a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction fee structure that's quite hard for developers to follow. But there has been a little bit of new news there since earnings. Two things. One, as it relates to the Apple v. Epic court case that's ongoing in the U.S., They proposed to the court's 15% fee on alternative payments, which is less than the 30% fee you pay for in-app purchases, but for more than the 0% we're paying today, aside from the credit card fees. It's now in the court's hands. The court needs to decide what they think an appropriate fee is. They can agree with Apple. They can say, no, we think it's a different fee. And so we just have to see how that plays out. And we expect the court to sort of say something later this year or early next year. And until then, at 0%, we'll continue to take advantage of it. But we'll still have to see how it plays out. Then in Europe, that happened in mid-August, they made that announcement. And then in August, about a few days later, they made an announcement on European fee structure where, I don't know, somewhat ironically, they increased the fees for in-app purchases in Europe by three or four points. So that's a bad guy for us relative to the fee structure we had before, but they did offer more optionality around alternative payments. The economics aren't great, but they are better. It's a similar 15% fee for link-out web purchases. So now it's on us to try to optimize around alternative payments in Europe, which we haven't done in the past, try to reduce the impact of that higher fees on in-app purchases, and we'll sort of have to see how that plays out. But if we stood there and did nothing, it'd be a negative to us for 2027. Those are some of the things going on. But the big one, which is Apple app store fees in the U.S., still 0% on alternative payments. That won't change until the court rolls, we think, sometime later this year or early next year. It must be challenging to navigate that environment. I'm sure we'll spend less time on alternative payments. Ultimately, what we want is user choice, right? We want users to be able to choose between different forms of payment. And we want, you know, economics that makes sense for developers like us. And we hope that, you know, the courts and the regulators, you know, get there.

Perfect. Let's move to E&E, maybe briefly. E&E direct revenue down 17%, you know, continued pressure, obviously, from Azar. As you continue to kind of evolve the portfolio mix, you know, with our time, BLK upward, but also bringing on, you know, incremental investments, Do you think about E&E more broadly over time as, you know, maybe a growth opportunity or really a free cash flow and profit driver?

Yeah, you know, I think the reality is it's hard to talk about E&E as one, you know, monolith. It's true that most apps are now on one platform, which I think is a big unlock going forward. But, you know, different brands within that sort of portfolio within a portfolio are in different, you know, stages of their life cycle and deserve, you know, different levels of investment. And so really what we've been doing is looking at brand by brand what makes sense. Spencer's really leaned in here. We've defined what our priority brands are, those that deserve, you know, investment in marketing and in, you know, development and in headcount. And those that should share from the, should gain from the shared platform capabilities, right? If we get a win on the shared platform, all brands, you know, benefit from that. But maybe don't get as much, you know, brand-specific investment as some of the other ones with a bigger competitive moat or with a better opportunity to get back to growth. And so, you know, we've done that. I think that's been a helpful exercise. And, you know, the other thing we've done is for those priority brands like the Match.coms, like the BLKs, like the Upwards, we're crystallizing their brand positioning. You know, what customer does Match.com, who is their target customer, how are they positioned, and, you know, what should that message be, and how should the product serve them? And we're also bringing in some of the same philosophy we had at Tinder around driving meaningful connections and sparks and a real focus on the user to the E&E portfolio. So I think the strategy will benefit those brands over time. I think certain brands within the portfolio will get back to growth, going back to your question. I think the collection of brands as a whole at E&E will probably still decline in 27 as a whole, but again, I think there's certain apps Azar could certainly get back to growth, Paris could be growing, and certain apps within that traditional E&E bucket could get back to growth too.

Could you elaborate quickly on the brands you're prioritizing, specific kinds of demographics or geographies, user cohorts?

It's brands that we feel have a competitive moat, have staying power, have brand equity. And so I mentioned most of them, Match.com, Upward, BLK, The League, Azar, Pairs. And then we'll spend a little bit less time and effort on brands like OkCupid, for example. Not that we won't invest in them. They'll, like I said, gain in any rollout of improvements we make across the shared platform, but we're just going to invest a little bit less in marketing and in brand-specific resources. The same holds true for a brand like Plenty of Fish. So I think trying to spread our time, management capacity, and investment across all these brands of the portfolio equally was the wrong strategy, so we've kind of crystallized where we want to focus, which I think is the right call.

Makes sense. Anybody else in the audience have a question? Could we, sorry, could we bring the mic over? Nice long walk.

Hi there. You've got a new CEO, Jackie Gentos at Inge. I suppose, what are sort of her key strategic priorities? What are the areas and parts of the markets that she's targeting and focusing on at the moment?

Yeah, a few things. One, she is new to CEO, although it's been a little while now. But she's not new to the company, and she's been there for a long time and worked very closely with Justin, who was the founder, and it was a well-orchestrated and planned succession. I think it's went very well. She's got a marketing background. She's worked for some of the biggest brands in the world and I think brings a real strategic eye to the consumer, which I've appreciated. You know, the strategy has not changed, you know, from what it was before her taking the reins at the highest level. It's a real focus on, you know, staying true to the ethos of Hinge, which is the app designed to be deleted. It's staying true to a brand that's for high intent users, prioritizing, you know, product innovation and investment. I think of late, we've been talking a lot more about how do we get the category back to growth. Hinge is the brand, is one of the brands to do it. It's a brand that resonates really well with Gen Z, and it gives a lot of users what they're looking for in terms of a product experience. So we're talking more about, you know, how do we not only win back lapsed users, but how do we really get new users to enter the category, and what role can Hinge play? And one area, for example, that we're focusing a lot on is trust and safety. It's always been important, but, you know, it's one of the biggest barriers to entry, and what role can Hinge play in really leveling up trust and safety to break down some of those category barriers and get, you know, singles to try dating apps for the first time. So that's some of the areas of focus. We're spending a lot of time, she's spending a lot of time focused on the core markets. We understand that the hinge equation for long-term growth is both continued growth in the core markets and geographic expansion. And so I mentioned a lot of things we're thinking about on the core market side, but she's very involved in all that. And then I think the second or the last thing that we've been focused on and she's been focused on as the CEO is where does Hinge go next? What does the next geographic market look like? Is there an opportunity to expand into Asia? What countries would we go into? What timeline would there be? And how do we make sure we do it right? How do we make sure the product is, you know, customized or localized to meet the sort of expectations of, you know, users in India or Japan, and really that methodical approach to geographic expansion that worked in Europe? How do we use that same playbook to win over Latin America and Asia over the next couple of years? Because that's how we get hinged, not only to the billion dollars, but beyond that.

Last 20 seconds, maybe, capital allocation. Good, I'm glad you're getting, you know, in the back half. But as you return Tinder to growth, does that change your capital allocation strategy?

No, it doesn't. I think what we've been really good at is cutting costs in non-strategic areas. You know, we did the reduction in force and the reorg that I think has not only reduced costs, but set up innovation. We've saved a lot of money in alternative payments. We'll continue to sort of juggle the changing landscape there and do the best we can to save as much money as possible and then reinvest that organically to make sure Tinder and Hinge are getting the investments they need. That while giving 100% of free cash flow back to investors through buybacks from the dividend, we'll do more than a billion dollars this year, and we plan to give 100% back, maybe not in any one quarter, but certainly over time. So I think it's a powerful combination. The buyback, reducing shares outstanding, while turning around tender, I've called it the coiled spring before. I think as we get at the other end of this, it'll be really a powerful value creation formula for investors over time.

Let's end on that coiled spring. Thank you very much for being here today. Appreciate it.