Neogenomics Inc (NEO) September 2026 Conference Transcript

Thank you, everyone, for joining us. It's my pleasure to introduce the NeoGenomics team. We're glad to have you here at the Morgan Stanley Healthcare Conference this morning. Joined by Tony Zook, Chief Executive Officer, Warren Stone, COO and President, and Abhishek Jain, the Chief Financial Officer. So thank you all for being here. Thanks for having me, Igo. Right. Maybe for Tony, for an investor that is not necessarily incredibly familiar with the neogenomic story, what is the simplest way to understand what you all do, how you fit into the precision oncology market? And now that you've been in the seat for a while, what do you think is the biggest misconception that you hear or that you encounter with investors when it comes to your company?

Sure. I guess first, you know, neogenomics, pure play oncology, I think is an important factor. We remain focused in oncology because we think it allows us to better understand and serve our customers. We focus in the community. And so we're proud of that fact. We help bring, you know, innovation into the community setting. Why? That's where the patients are. Almost 80% of patients seek treatment in the local community. And so we focus relentlessly on that community provider. Our genesis, while that was in diagnosis, our portfolio has continued to evolve in through therapy selection and MRD. I would say the area of that is probably not as well understood, and it is our effort to do so. We are obviously the market leader in heme, and how we leverage that heme position enables us to grow and penetrate into other market segments. And I think a lot of investors, when they step back and you look at neogenomics in totality, while it's only 10% of our portfolio is NGS it's a third of our clinical revenue and so we actually have a portfolio that is over $250 million in NGS and it's growing at 26% and so we believe that there is still ample opportunity for us to continue to drive and in fact our future is very much dependent on how we continue to drive our NGS and MRD business and so I think sometimes people ask us the question how will you compete as if we're starting from scratch when in reality we have a $250 million business that's growing quite nicely. And so I think it's incumbent upon us to continue to educate and drive that message home.

And, you know, since you've joined the company, where have you been most focused? What's been kind of the greatest area of change that you've looked to lead within the organization? And, you know, how should investors think about that across, you know, the different kind of high-level priorities, whether it's, you know, the indications that you're operating in, therapeutic categories, capital allocation.

Yeah, you actually hit it in the question with the focus. Where do I focus? When I joined NeoGenomics, I could tell you there wasn't a place you couldn't point that you wouldn't see an opportunity, right? This is a company that grew primarily through acquisition, so a lot of the fundamentals weren't in place quite yet, right? It's not an organization that had invested heavily in R&D, so there was an opportunity. Then you could look to commercial, and there was an opportunity. Then you could look over to IT, and there was an opportunity. I think for us, the biggest challenge was focus, focus, focus. Where do we want to put our resources? Where do we want to make sure that we're at our top three or four things that are going to drive value for us? And then really focus relentlessly on those. And I think that simplicity has actually unlocked a lot of value. And so today, you know, we always talk about the midnight question. You know, we try to boil down things at NeoGenomics to what is most important for N, the E, and the O of Neo to be successful. And it's for our R&D team to continue to drive our next generation portfolio, right? You know, for our commercial team, it's how do they continue to build out their commercial organization and infrastructure to better serve their customers. And, you know, in our labs, it's the lab of the future initiatives. And so these, the simplicity of focus is unlocking a lot of value for us.

You know, a lot of investors, when they look at this space, I think they're more familiar with the precision oncology that's practiced in, you know, academic medical centers or in research. You all obviously have a pretty big competitive advantage in the community oncology setting. How do you want investors to understand, you know, your focus in community oncology? What do you think is underappreciated about community oncology? Why is that a structural advantage for you all? Sure. Yeah, I'll kick it off, and then Warren maybe can drive more color.

Again, I think companies are built in purpose of their pursuit, right? And I think those organizations that are built to serve academia, they focus on innovation, and they have deserved their right with some of the great products that they bring to market. But in the community, that practicing position has completely different needs. They are ground in guidelines. They're ground in practicalities. You know, they're dealing with patient flow. They want to take out friction within the system. And so just like that drive on innovation can be a competitive advantage, so is a deep understanding of what your customer needs are at the community level. Simple things like how you prepare your lab reports could actually be the most important thing in their day, right? And so you have to be built for purpose, and we think that we are very much focused on what their needs are. And for them, better serving their customers with pragmatic solutions that unlock, you know, time so that they can more effectively treat their patients is something that we focus relentlessly on everything from through our labs to our commercial to even how we position our portfolio of solutions, not a product. So I think there is a big difference in how companies are built to serve those. Warren, give me some color.

Yeah, I think, and you've hit a lot of the key points there. I think most importantly, you know, first and foremost, ASCO does a survey every year about where do patients actually want to be treated. And the survey in 2026 basically indicated almost 80% of patients want to be treated within 50 miles of where they live. That's a pretty small radius. And why is that? They want to be treated where their family, their infrastructure is, because they're going through arguably one of the biggest events in their life, and they need support structures in order to support them through that journey, so they want to stay close to home. So that's really the relevance with regards to the community. And also if you think about a community practice, either that practice or in some cases even that oncologist is a generalist. So the type of patient that's walking into that practice could have any form of cancer. They could have a heme cancer, they could have a solid tumor cancer, and obviously different types. And in order to address the needs of those treating physicians who are seeing a patient every 15 to 20 minutes, breadth of portfolio where they can standardize on their send-out partner for diagnosis, for therapy selection, for MRD, becomes critically important because the last thing they want to be doing in their day is thinking about who do I send this diagnostic test or this therapy selection test or this MRD test to? Have they got this test? Have they got this indication? And I think this is where neogenomics really thrives. That breadth of portfolio, the almost 500 tests that Tony referenced, the cross-diagnosis therapy selection, MRD, solid tumor, and heme, we're able to address almost all of their requirements, allowing them to standardize on neogenomics from a send-out perspective. That really is one of the key differentiators. The second is we are relentlessly focused on taking friction out of the experience, making it as easy as possible to do business with neogenomics so they can focus on what they want to focus on. And that's treating their patients and ensuring the best possible outcomes in their patients. And, you know, we spoke about this in our Q2 earnings, but we have a net promoter score of 78, which is, if you know anything about NPS scores, an incredibly high indication of the experience that we provide to our customers in the community.

Maybe take us a level deeper, you know, as you think about the relationship with a customer at the hospital level or, you know, an established hematologist relationship, how does that translate into more testing across the diagnostic continuum, you know, to comprehensive genomic profiling, ultimately, you know, potentially into MRD? What does that look like? How do you drive that? How long does it take?

So I think first and foremost, and maybe just not to, I think what I want to say first and foremost is almost every single cancer journey starts with pathology. A pathologist's role is to diagnose cancer. That's where neogenomics started. That's where neogenomics grew up, and we've forged incredibly strong partnerships with pathology. But how does that help us in terms of understanding the sort of penetration from the cancer care continuum? You know, the next step is, let's just use an example of a patient who's diagnosed with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer, and that gets diagnosed. The next step is, yeah, we would want to run some therapy selection on that. And we then work with those hospitals and those oncology practices to put a care pathway in that says, as soon as that patient is diagnosed with the lung cancer, we automatically run a therapy selection test, which would then allow them to identify what sort of therapies you'd be able to put that patient on through this care pathway. Important in this particular example would be, okay, let's make sure we're also including TMB. So a pan-trace of family, or whether it be tissue or liquid, would include TMB. Why is that relevant? Because that will indicate whether they would likely benefit from an IO therapy. Great, they're going to potentially benefit from an IO therapy. We now indicate through the care pathway, let's run MRD, let's run our radar ST, because we now have I.O. as an indication that they can actually track the implications or the benefits of I.O. therapy for that particular patient. So you can see how the portfolio sort of layers on each other. And, you know, this was one example from early stage small lung cancer, but there's many others through the portfolio where you can see how these things just layer on top of each other, starting with the pathologist, and as we implement more care pathways, more directional interfaces, the sort of decision-making with regards to what tests to use become less relevant because the care pathway actually informs that.

And, Michael, another point I think that is important to understand, anytime we talk to a physician, seldom do we bring a product solution to that physician. We're trying to bring a portfolio solution to that because we can almost with certainty say there is a need that they have for some of our products. It may not be, you know, liquid, but they're using tissue, or they need this, or they need that, and so we can then run that continuum, and it even figures into how we look at our portfolio development, and Warrant Pantracer Pro might be a perfect example of that.

I think that, building on that, it's a great call, Tony. I think, so earlier this year, I think it was February, we launched our Pantracer Pro, which is, it's just a simplified ordering process. And all it does is it takes the decision-making out of the hands of their treating oncologist to determine, based on this patient, based on their cancer type, based on their stage, what test should I order to actually inform therapy? What test should I order to inform MRD? We, from a neogenomics perspective, take that decision by looking at our oncotree, by looking at guidelines, and actually determine what test to run. So they don't have to even think about in their practice any longer, or what test should I be running. All they need to tell us is who their patient is, what cancer do they have, what is the stage. We take everything else from there, and we will run reflexes if need be, we'll run add-ons if need be, but they will get a report back, which will be a comprehensive report that will indicate what therapies that they should potentially put their patients on, what clinical trials are available for their patients, and just comprehensive solution with literally requisitioning one test and simply indicating the patients, their disease type, and their stage.

And maybe just to add on, can you say a little bit more about in the community oncology setting why that is so important to be able to do all of that, like help paint the picture of what the community oncologist looks like relative to how patients are treated in an academic medical center, why that's so valuable?

Yeah, I mean, look, in academia, it's always the question of what's possible, right? You know, additional information, I'll find a use for that information, right? So they're probing what might be. In daily practice, 25, 30 patients a day, I mean, they barely have time to breathe. And just crossing the hall, they better have simplicity in the lab report that they're reading. And so anything that removes that friction or makes life easier or takes certain decisions that are just, These are decisions the physician would make, ultimately, had the information, but they'd have to wait for it, and then it would require another test request. And these types of simple things take all the friction out of the system for them and let them focus where they want to focus, which is in patient treatment. And, again, it's a big difference when you're dealing, as Warren said, with generalist physicians in the community versus, you know, people that are trying to push the envelope of information in the academia center. It's night and day difference.

And maybe one more thing I'll build on there. Again, coming back to ASCO, obviously it's a very important body. They run a survey every year as well in terms of pain points and unmet needs for treating longer physicians. And actually within the top five, I don't know exactly where it's next, within the top five in 2025 and 2026, just the speed at which the industry is moving, the number of new therapies, the number of new tests, and the ability physicians to keep abreast of what's happening is one of their top challenges. And with putting solutions like Pantracer Pro in place, we take that burden away from them, and we actually take that burden on, and that allows them to focus on what they want to do, and that's treating their patient and ensuring the best possible outcomes for their patients.

Right. So in each of the last couple of quarters, your NGS-based testing revenue grew, you know, circa 26%. and I think today it's roughly a third of your clinical revenue. How should investors think about what's driving that underlying growth if you had to deconstruct it? Is it volume? Is it pricing? Is it better collections, reimbursement, different testing modalities? What's the right way to think about that?

I wish I could earn some money this morning. Come on.

So on the NGS revenue growth, first like 26% growth is what we put together in the first half of the year. We have called out the volume growth has been in the mid-team and the remaining came from the RCM initiatives and the RCM growth. So if we were to start to parse out the volume growth, for example, on the volume, we are seeing a shift from our single gene panels and the targeted panels to the larger panels. It basically goes back to that whole portfolio company where we have basically a sizable portfolio on the NGA side and that basically shifts in the single gene to a larger panel test that is also kind of impacting the volume growth. And that's the reason we started to provide this new metric that our larger panels are growing at 20% plus. So that probably is the first piece that I would want to highlight in the volumes that our volumes for the larger panel test are growing like ahead of 20%. The second piece is on the RCM side. As you rightly pointed out, that RCM growth of roughly 10% or so, two-thirds of that RCM growth is coming from that mixed shift. Now, if you were to think about it, that our volume growth is a little bit depressed because you are seeing the transition, but that is being reflected in your pricing increases because that mixed shift is driving your AUP growth. So, two-thirds of that 10% is coming from that mixed And the remaining one-third of the RCM growth is coming from various initiatives that we have under our RCM umbrella, starting from the contractual wins, your policy wins, ability to drive the price increases, your ability to drive more collections in our processes. So we're going to look for those opportunities as to how do we continue to drive the RCM benefits. So those are different pieces, and we are very pleased to see the durability of our NGS business, which is going in a pretty decent pace.

And on the RCM point, is there anything more there to unpack for investors on how they should think about the durability of the growth from some of those initiatives?

No, absolutely. And we have shared, Mike, in the past that in 2026, we will see a slightly higher proportion of our RCM benefit in our overall growth. So, for example, in the first half of 2026, our clinical revenue growth was about 14 percent. And the volume growth was in the low single digit, whereas most of the growth came from the AUP. but generally what the investors should be viewing that half of our growth is going to be the volume and the other half is going to be RCM on a go forward basis. Now, if you were to then parse out within the RCM what's going to give us the durability or how we will continue to drive the RCM benefit, again, two third of that is going to be coming from the mix shift and here you will take the company level approach then you will start to see that our NGS volumes and the NGS revenues are growing at a much more faster pace as compared to the rest of the portfolio. So that automatically gives us the RCM benefit, and we are seeing that. And the other one-third part of the business on the RCM side, again going back to the different initiatives, we have been able to win the I.O. now from the MoldiX. We have been able to drive the commercial pairs on the contractual side. As well as we have called out that over 60% of our clinical revenue comes from the direct client bill. we are able to kind of get some price increases there on an yearly basis, which basically helps us drive the RCM. Last but not the least, I would want to call out in our collection efforts, there's definitely a lot more room. As the company is shifting towards more NGS testing, more MRD testing, we need to kind of improve or build on our billing infrastructure. And actually in the third quarter of 26, we implemented a new billing system, Xyfen. And that's a big undertaking in the sense that this particular system will help us be more effective in our collection processes while as well as making us more efficient there.

And Abhishek, I think, Michael, to your question of durability, you know, we're not going to get into long-term forecast business again, right? But, you know, if we sit here today and what we can say with confidence and our own belief in the durability of this over time, right? We sit here today, 10% of our volume. It's represented about a third of our business is NGS, and it has this mixed shift element to it. You go out into the future, we can see that that moves from a third of our business to over 50% of our business. And when you start to look at that, being NGS and MRD, even if you just take industry norms relative to margin, you're going to see over half of our business in growing is in the mid-60-plus margin range, and then you combine that with the existing base business. And, you know, you can see not just revenue growth, but you can see margin growth. And we believe that that is very, very foundational to where we want to take the company.

Anything else from, you know, your perspective or from where you all sit that is helping drive your level of confidence that NGS can kind of continue to grow above the market rate?

Well, I think there's a couple of factors. So first and foremost is looking at the number of new therapies come into market, particularly within the heme side of things. I think pharma companies have been heavily focused on solid tumor cancers from a therapy perspective, and there's still a very robust pipeline coming through, which is encouraging. That'll drive demand for therapy selection on the solid tumor. However, the number of new therapies that are coming to market on the heme side of things is also very encouraging, and it's one of the reasons why we're seeing above market growth on the heme NGS side of things. So I think that's a very key indicator for us. I think the other aspect is not to lose sight of is we still estimate that, you know, from a therapy selection market penetration perspective in the community, it's somewhere between 35% and 40%. So the majority of physicians are still not actively using large panel therapy selection in their treatment monitoring simply because it's not in guidelines yet. But it's becoming more relevant in guidelines, and as it does, it's going to drive more demand from an NGS perspective. So I think there's a lot of indications that demand for large panel NGS from a volume perspective is going to continue to be robust into the future, coupled with obviously many opportunities on the RCM and the mix side of things for us. So we're very confident in terms of the outlook. Got it.

Maybe just shifting gears a little bit. You mentioned the Pan Tracer product earlier. There's a tissue, there's a liquid, there's Pan Tracer Pro. So what's the right way to think about, like, Pantracer as a product family? You know, are they distinct tests? Is it, you know, more of one continuous offering? Like, how should investors think about that?

I think I would love for investors to think about this as a solution. And it really is. It's our solution for therapy selection for solid tumor cancer. That's really what it is. And every situation actually dictates a different need at the end of the day. within the community because of historical guidelines which still point to sort of single-gene or small-panel NGS, there is still very much a tissue-first mindset within the community and because it's been driven from the guidelines perspective. So we still very much see physicians asking for tissue-first and if we aren't able to get a result with tissue because there isn't enough tissue or the quality of the tissue might be exhausted or the quality of the tissue is not good to then make use of liquid. In the case of lung, we see concurrent testing because that's in the guideline as well. And then ultimately we'll reflex to liquid if we don't get a result on the solid tumor side. So we see it very much as a solution. And every situation, depending on the cancer type and the stage, actually demands a different part of that particular portfolio, which is then also coupled with various add-on IHC markers, which also helps to determine what type of therapies to put somebody on, whether it's a PD-L1 or a CMAT or a Claudin-18 or whatever the case is. We have that all within our portfolio. But we approach this from a portfolio perspective and a solutions mindset to the customer. As Tony said earlier, it's not distinct products. It's really around a workflow solution.

And what are you seeing from the standpoint of the test mix and how that's evolving, whether it's, you know, tissue, liquid, you know, what you reflect to, you know, if you're not able to necessarily get enough, you know, tissue sample, you know, how has that evolved and where do you see that going?

I would say, you know, in absolute terms, we still see a higher growth rate on the solid tumor side. And, again, it's a tissue-first mindset. If you look at it in a percentage perspective, yeah, liquid probably is growing faster, but it's off a smaller base at the end of the day because we only launched the product roughly a year ago or so. We still see, though, there is the exception always where a physician wants to go directly to liquid and there are some benefits for doing that, but that's really the exception. We anticipate for the foreseeable future that it will still be a solid first with liquid as the alternative when I haven't got enough tissue or I actually want to run them in parallel with one another, which is becoming increasingly popular when you want to understand the microtumor environment. That's where you can use liquid very effectively. And when you want to understand the tumor properties, you use the actual solid tumor test. So that's becoming more and more relevant, and we might see guidelines adapt over time to actually offer concurrent solutions and other indications like they do in lung today.

So the pen tracer liquid now has Medicare coverage. From your perspective, what do you think needs to happen for that to become a more material contributor to growth? And how should everyone think about that in the context of some of the more emerging or competitive tests in the liquid biopsy space? Simply put, time.

Just time. As Warren said, when we go into this, we go in as the pan-tracer family, which, by the way, is demonstrating remarkable growth. So we're very, very happy with what we see happening with Pantracer as a family of product. When we launch a product, we typically look at, first and foremost, its effect on the portfolio. And Pantracer Liquid has had a very nice halo effect on the portfolio because it complements the offering. It gives the physician another reason why this is a complete offering from Neogenomics. And so in its own right, Pantracer Pro, Pantracer Liquid helped in the uptake on the growth curve of Pantracer tissue, right, and Pantracer as a family. And if we look longer term, go into the latter part of 27 going into 28, Liquid in its own right will be a substantial contributor of that, I'm sure. But Pantracer Family will be a significant growth driver for us in 27 and 28. Yeah, right.

Maybe shifting gears to radar and to MRD. So folks may be familiar with a coverage decision that you got in late August. But for those that aren't, what was that? Why is it strategically important? What does it cover? And how do you see that in the context of the radar platform more broadly?

So, yeah, we communicated, I don't know, a month ago that we got coverage from an IO perspective. And that's really relevant for us for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, we estimate that that represents about $4 billion from a TAM perspective, maybe slightly less than that, but around the $4 billion out of the roughly $20 billion TAM that we see from an MRD perspective. So large from that perspective. The other aspect is IO, as an indication, actually covers multiple forms of cancer. So what it actually allows us to now do is as we go to market, we can position ourselves as more of a can-panser, can-panser, pan-canser, sorry, solution to our physicians, which is important. It comes back to this sort of message to our physicians that I was talking about earlier is that, you know, we're a complete solution for you. We're not only taking certain indications, et cetera. So that definitely rounds out the messaging from a physician perspective in the community setting. So those are two material. size of the market that we're now able to address and the fact that we can go to a pan-cancer messaging of the two material aspects. And again, reimbursement very much in line with what's out in the marketplace from sort of the market leader and others out there. So it really does allow us to do that initial exome up front and then subsequent six-time points beyond that as well, which sort of takes a typical patient to this two-year monitoring cycle. And really the purpose here is to actually understand how IO as a therapy is actually affecting their cancer. You know, is it being effective? Isn't it being effective? And do you need to adjust treatment or not is sort of how it's going to be utilized. And more and more of the therapies come into market right now are IO-based as well.

And maybe in IO, but, you know, more broadly, you know, MRG has obviously become a very important, you know, growing large space, but also, you know, more competitive. What would you like investors to understand about why NIO wins in this market and how are you thinking about your kind of commercial strategy or go-to-market strategy more broadly within the context of what's happening in this space?

I think maybe I'll kick it off and then Warren can get into more detail and very specific to MRD. But I think first and foremost, as I said before, we don't look at it as a product. We look at it as a portfolio. And I think as we continue to build out our MRD portfolio, that holds true there as well, right? Physicians are looking for the robustness, a company that can handle from diagnosis through therapy selection to monitoring. And we believe that we have now a complement of a portfolio that achieves those objectives for them with high-quality tests. Within MRD alone, we have now a building foundational point. And as Warren said, I think IO gives us kind of that cornerstone of a foundation to enable us to be broad-based with our promotional efforts. And then when you build from that with additional indications, all of a sudden you have a competitive offering in MRD that is second to none. And then with that, we're going to add with next-gen MRD, and, you know, we're going down the path of other opportunities in MRD as well. And so this portfolio approach extends not just across the entirety of neogenomics, but within MRD very specifically.

I'll build on that and say, first and foremost, our Radar ST product is very competitive. I want to start there. We have detection limits down to as low as 1 ppm, first and foremost. So that's a key driver and meaningfully better than many products in the market. The second aspect is if you look at peer-reviewed publications, we estimate that we're number two in the market, off the market leader, in terms of the number of peer-reviewed publications out there. So data is an important driver. So that's the second point. And thirdly is the amount of tissue that you need to run our assay relative to others. Very, very competitive. So the Radar ST assay is a very, very competitive asset. It's the first thing I want to leave you with. Secondly, we've been investing commercially, and we communicated as part of our Q2 earnings that we've now basically optimized the structure of our commercial organization and our go-to-market strategy, where we now have two distinct sales teams, one focused on pathology, one focused on oncology, And not just the sales team, but the leadership structures and the marketing support functions and the enablement functions that support that as well. So we've been investing over the years, probably for the last three, four years, to really build out our oncology sales team. And I think July of this year really became a tipping point now where we have the scale, we have the critical mass to really focus on oncology. You couple that with a portfolio, the pan-tracer family, our Heem NGS solutions, and obviously now our radar ST for MRD. It really rounds us out as a solutions provider to the community setting.

Maybe for Abhishek, you posted solid operating cash flow for Q2. Can you talk a little bit about where you see that metric going for the full year?

Yeah, sure. However, as we have stated previously, Mike, that our goal is to be cash flow positive by the end of this year on a full year basis. I typically always suggest that, okay, we should be looking at the cash flow generation on a full year basis because the cash flow could be impacted by some of the timing considerations. So, of course, for example, in Q3, we had the DOJ settlement for which the cash was paid out in the third quarter. So, it will impact the cash flow for the third quarter. The cash could also be impacted by some of your compensation cycles. So, for example, we pay on a bi-weekly basis to our employees. That means there are 26 paychecks. So, in one quarter, you will pay six. The other quarter, you will pay seven. So, sometimes your cash flow is also impacted by the timing of some of the policies in the company. And the third piece, of course, is that we are really glad to implement the new billing system in the third quarter of 26. Now, this is a big undertaking, but Zyfin is a leader in the billing space, and that will give us a lot of capabilities to be able to collect more cash. But on a full-year basis, as I was saying, if you were to take a full-year view, our goal basically stays to be the free cash flow positive for the company.

Got it. And maybe one last question. With the majority of the 2028 convertible modes now refinanced, how should investors think about capital allocation priorities from here?

Sure. I can start and then feel free to chime in there. So again, on the capital allocation, I would say the first and foremost that we have a sizable portfolio. We have a really robust product portfolio with radar winds that we are seeing under our belt. So, it's not that we have to do a large M&A to be able to fill certain gaps or holes. So, we don't have to do that. But more specifically on the capital allocation, I think there is a lot of opportunity for us to invest in our sales organization. As one kind of pointed out that, okay, in the radar space and the therapy selection and MRD, both of those areas, how we continue to build our sales capabilities to be able to accelerate growth. So, that will definitely be one of the opportunities for capital allocation. The second area would be our product pipeline or the innovation on the R&D side as to how we advance our clinical studies and trials so that we are able to get paid on the tests that we are actually performing. So that will be the second area where we would want to continue to invest the dollars. We would want to invest the dollars in our IT infrastructure and our product platforms. We have publicly kind of stated that we would want to be kind of moving away from the NovaSeek 6000s to the NovaSeek Xs. We need to be able to kind of invest our dollars there to be able to kind of not only... So there are a couple of factors that are helping us drive the growth. There are a couple of factors that will help us drive the profitability by being more efficient. So these are the various areas where we feel that, okay, we need to do the capital allocation. And last but not the least is the G&A line where we would want to be as efficient as possible so that we continue to kind of reallocate our resources from the G&A line to some of the other parts and continue to drive a balanced approach in terms of driving the revenue and the profitability.

All right, great. Well, that's all the time we have. Tony, Warren, Abhishek, thank you very much for joining us. I hope, thank you.