Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us for Rivian's Second Quarter 2025 Earnings Call. Today, I'm joined by RJ Scaringe, our CEO and Founder; Claire McDonough, our Chief Financial Officer; and Javier Varela, our Chief Operations Officer. Before we begin, matters discussed on this call, including comments and responses to questions, reflect management's views as of today. We will also be making statements related to our business, operations, and financial performance that may be considered forward-looking statements under federal securities law. Such statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially. These risks and uncertainties are described in our SEC filings and the shareholder letter we filed with the SEC. During this call, we will discuss both GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures. A reconciliation of historical non-GAAP to GAAP financial measures is provided in our shareholder letter. Just before the earnings call, we published and filed our shareholder letter, which includes an overview of our progress over the recent months. I encourage you to read it for additional details around some of the items we will cover on today's call. With that, I'll turn the call over to RJ who will begin with a few opening remarks.

Thanks, Derek. Hello, everyone, and thanks for joining us today. Over the past few months, we've made tremendous progress in R2 and our technology, including our autonomy platform. As we move closer to the start of production, our confidence in R2 and future variants underscores our long-term vision for scaling our business. We believe that the technology and products we're developing will position Rivian as a market share leader. Our long-term view on electrification and the opportunity in front of us remains the same. However, there have been changes in the external operating environment that affect the nature of this transition. While we believe deeply in the long-term value drivers of our business, the policy environment continues to be complex and rapidly evolving. Changes to EV tax credits, regulatory credits, trade regulation, and tariffs are expected to have an impact on the results and the cash flow of our business. We remain focused on developing world-class technology and efficiently scaling our manufacturing capacity in the United States in light of these policy changes. As we look ahead, Rivian shares the administration's excitement in advancing technology development and manufacturing capacity within the United States. With all that said, having spent a lot of time driving R2, I'm more bullish on this vehicle than any product we've developed. I believe the product market fit is incredible, and the overall value proposition sets R2 up for meaningful share. R2 is a core focus for our team and a critical step in achieving our objective of delivering millions of vehicles per year. We are currently amidst our design validation builds where we're building R2 vehicles on our pilot line. These vehicle builds enable us to validate the performance and capabilities of the full vehicle along with working with our suppliers on their ramp. Importantly, the quality of the build and associated software stability is incredibly high. We strategically invested in early development assets and new vehicles, allowing us to advance development and supplier validation much earlier in the timeline compared to R1. We performed a variety of crash tests and component level tests as well as on-road testing with strong results. In preparation for our manufacturing validation builds later this year, we've completed the construction of our new 1.1 million square foot building in Normal, Illinois, which will house R2’s general assembly and body shop. Our team is focused on installing and validating the equipment to support the manufacturing validation builds. In parallel to the progress we're making on R2, we continue to make improvements in AI and autonomy. We see autonomy as becoming increasingly important in the customer's purchase decision. By later this decade, we believe ultimately every new vehicle will need advanced levels of autonomy to be successful. Because of this, the development of our Rivian Autonomy Platform has been one of our most substantial and important focus areas. Our platform uses the high-quality data coming from our best-in-class onboard sensor set to drive our data flywheel for training our Rivian Large Driving Model. We've already seen positive feedback from customers on some of the growing autonomous capabilities. We launched enhanced highway assist earlier this year and are seeing meaningful uptake in the usage of our autonomy platform. With our high-quality sensor set and a large amount of data collected from our vehicles every day, we believe we have the right ingredients to quickly establish leadership in this space. We plan to host our autonomy and AI day in December and look forward to sharing the progress we've been making. While we approach some exciting releases across R2 and our autonomy platform, last month, we also launched the R1 Quad-Motor, and the feedback has been incredible. We believe that Quad elevates our R1 platform, which is already one of the best-selling vehicles in its class. The customers, journalists, and influencers have had a chance to drive the new Quad or seen the unique combination of on- and off-road performance, advancements made with our Rivian Autonomy Platform, and software features that allow customized dynamics with our RAD Tuner. With the progress demonstrated this quarter, I can't wait for our autonomy and AI day. The launch of R2 and realizing our long-term scale potential with our midsized platform. I want to thank our employees, customers, partners, suppliers, communities, and shareholders for their support. With that, I'll pass the call over to Claire.

Thanks, RJ. I want to echo our excitement for the upcoming launch of R2 in our autonomy and AI advancements. It is great to see our vertically integrated technologies go into our design validation builds for R2. This is a key driver of the structural cost advantages we expect to achieve on R2 while also delivering fantastic performance in utility. During the second quarter, we produced 5,979 and delivered 10,661 vehicles from our manufacturing facility, which was the primary driver of the $927 million of automotive revenue. We saw a significant decrease in production volume compared to the first quarter as a result of a variety of supply chain-related complexities partially driven by shifts in trade policy. We believe we now have visibility into these components for the remainder of the year. Automotive gross profit in the second quarter was negatively impacted by lower production volumes, which resulted in approximately $137 million of fixed cost included in cost of revenues as compared to more normalized volumes. Automotive gross profit losses were $335 million. Our software and services segment reported another strong quarter with $376 million of revenue and $129 million of gross profit. About half of the revenue within software and services was a result of the software and electrical hardware joint venture we created with Volkswagen Group. We also experienced strong growth in gross profit contribution from remarketing, service, accessories, and charging. Our consolidated revenue was $1.3 billion, and gross profit losses were $206 million. Included in this was $185 million of depreciation and $37 million of stock-based compensation expense. Adjusted EBITDA losses for the quarter were $667 million. We saw a slight increase in overall operating expenses in the second quarter as compared to the first quarter driven by the ongoing investments we're making to develop R2 and our key technologies as well as the continued growth of our sales and service infrastructure and organization. We expect to see increasing operating expenses in the second half of the year as we advance R2 towards production and continue the build-out of our sales and service infrastructure to support R2's volumes. During the second quarter, we also strengthened our balance sheet. On June 30, we received a $1 billion equity investment from Volkswagen Group at an effective price per share of $19.42, which represents a 33% premium to the $14.56, 30-trading day volume-weighted average stock price. During the second quarter, we also refinanced our senior secured notes due October 2026 by issuing $1.25 billion of green secured notes at a rate of 10% maturing in January 2031. In addition to the $7.5 billion of cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments reflected on our balance sheet, we expect to receive up to an additional $2.5 billion of incremental capital associated with our joint venture transaction as well as an up to $6.6 billion loan from the Department of Energy associated with the buildout of our Georgia facility. Turning to our 2025 guidance. We are maintaining our delivery guidance of 40,000 to 46,000 vehicles and our CapEx guidance of $1.8 billion to $1.9 billion. As a reminder, we plan to shut down our Normal facility for approximately 3 weeks starting in September of this year to prepare for the planned launch of R2 in the first half of 2026. We anticipate the third quarter to be our peak delivery quarter of the year across both consumer and commercial vehicles. As RJ mentioned, while we believe our long-term opportunity to drive meaningful growth and profitability remains strong, some of the recent policy actions will have an impact on our results and cash flow of our business. This includes increased tariffs, which had a minimal impact during the second quarter but are expected to have a net impact of a couple of thousand dollars per unit for the remainder of 2025. In addition, due to changes in certain regulatory credit programs, we do not expect to earn revenue from these programs for the remainder of 2025. We expect total 2025 regulatory credit sales to be approximately $160 million as compared to our prior outlook of $300 million. As a result of the changes in our regulatory credit outlook, in addition to our second-quarter results, we expect our gross profit for the full-year 2025 to be roughly breakeven. We are also increasing our guidance for our adjusted EBITDA loss to $2 billion to $2.25 billion as a result of the modifications to our gross profit outlook. Our focus remains on cost optimization and efficiently scaling the business. We're actively studying tariff mitigation strategies to best position the company, especially as we look ahead to the Section 232 automotive tariff offset, which ends in April 2027. We remain steadfast in our belief that R2 and our technology development will be truly transformative for our growth and profitability. I'd like to turn the call back over to the operator to open the line for Q&A.

I want to start with the question I think that's probably on everyone's mind, which is just bridging from R1 to R2. And I think the obvious key here is the cost reduction, and you're saying you can cut the cost by more than half. But maybe you can just remind us again about what are the things in R1 that won't recur? And on the flip side, you're talking about things like sourcing and contracts that can help on R2. What is the conviction that you can get the required cost reduction from these items to get appropriate economics on R2.

Thanks, Dan, for the question. This is incredibly important and has been an absolute core focus for us as a business as we've been developing R2. If you think about the cost on the vehicle, there are two major drivers. The first is our bill of material costs, just the costs we're paying all of our suppliers for the components going into the vehicle. The cost of those components reflects how the vehicle is being designed, how the systems are being integrated. We talk a lot about this, but our success in either consolidating parts or eliminating parts through design is a big enabler here. We previously said the bill of material cost on R2 is about half that of R1. That's not a hope, that's not a wish. That's actually contractually negotiated with suppliers. We've spent the last two years developing and negotiating with suppliers to put in place contracts that we both selected suppliers that can scale with us and ramp appropriately but also can deliver a much lower cost structure. Linked to that, of course, is then how the vehicle assembles. The cost it takes us to convert all those parts into a vehicle, which we often call conversion cost and then some of the non-bill of materials COGS, sets logistics, warranty accrual, and some of the other items that feed in. Claire and I have both spoken about this on these calls before, where we're projecting with a lot of confidence that that will ultimately be less than half of what it is on R1. This is really reflective of an incredibly high focus on ease of assembly, design for manufacturability, leveraging the many learnings that were born out of what we went through on R1. So simplified body architecture, simplified closure systems, and further simplifications of network architecture and associated wire and harness. In totality, what that gives us is a vehicle with a much lower cost basis, which supports that dramatically reduced pricing of R2. R2 is a meaningfully smaller vehicle than R1. It does deliver on the brand promise of Rivian, but we've been very thoughtful in some of the content decisions we've made, where it's not as extreme in terms of performance or capability as what you see in R1.

And if I may add, RJ, today, we have the R2 100% sourced. So it's a fact. We know the prices of our components, and we can confirm this 50% reduction.

Okay. Great. As a follow-up, I think related, a year ago at your Investor Day, you outlined a path to EBITDA breakeven in 2027. We've obviously seen a number of changes since then with a lower regulatory credit environment as you're talking about tariffs, the loss of the EV tax credit. So the question is, what are the areas in which you need to pivot the business now to still see that path to eventually reaching EBITDA positive? And how much more does this make licensing deals or other partnerships with automakers on the tech side more of a necessity to ultimately get to where you need to be on the EBITDA margin side?

Thanks, Dan. As you know, our objective is to drive to positive EBITDA as a result of the full-year R2 production and strong software and services performance anticipated as we look ahead to 2027. While there have certainly been meaningful headwinds relative to the conversation we had about a year ago, we're working across a number of cost efficiency initiatives in the business to drive and scale the business as efficiently as possible. I'll invite RJ to talk to some of the opportunities as we think about continued growth and development of our software and services and future opportunities with other potential OEMs as well.

Yes. We talked a lot about R2 being such an important inflection point for us in terms of volume and scale. Of course, along with that significantly widening the aperture of addressable market with its lower price point. A lot of what feeds into that is the technology we're developing. On the vehicle software side of things, we have a joint venture and software licensing deal that we put together with Volkswagen Group that continues to progress nicely. To be able to deploy our software stack and associated topology of ECUs across such a wide range of vehicles in terms of price point, configuration, and end market with Volkswagen Group serves as an outstanding demonstration that we, as a company, are able to do this within a complex, large existing business. And we do believe there are opportunities above and beyond the relationship with Volkswagen Group for further licensing of our software and technology. We also see opportunities emerging with a lot of the work that we're doing in our autonomy stack. We're investing heavily into that. As I said in my opening statement, this is an area of the business that we're very excited about. Customers will start to see the fruit of a lot of this hard work that's gone into building a robust data flywheel. We put on our Gen 2 R1 vehicles a world-class sensor set with more megapixels of cameras than any other vehicle on the road in North America. We couple that with outstanding imaging radar, and that's feeding a powerful data training flywheel that's going to demonstrate significant capabilities in terms of higher levels of autonomy. We do see that as another avenue for us in the long term. The core to all that is to make sure that the technology we're developing in-house with our teams remains really front of the curve. We do think there are many opportunities.

My first question is on the $6.6 billion loan with the Department of Energy that's associated with the build-out of Georgia. Can you confirm, has any of that loan been drawn? And is there a scenario where you would decide not to draw on that loan? Because from the readings of the shareholder letter, I don't see much of an update on CapEx going into the build-out at this point. But just maybe kind of where are we on that? What's your thinking on that loan? And then I have a follow-up.

Sure. Thanks, Adam. As it pertains to the Department of Energy loan, it's more of a construction finance project finance-based loan, and it does require Rivian to be deploying capital on-site in Georgia. We have not yet started construction of the site, which precludes us from having the opportunity to draw on that loan as we sit here today. As we look at the future roadmap, the attractive cost of capital that the Department of Energy loan affords Rivian is quite attractive to us. We do intend to draw on that loan as we look to expand our manufacturing base in Georgia.

Okay. Thanks, Claire. Just as a follow-up, you spun off Also Inc. in March of this year, your micromobility unit. You seem to have attracted some pretty serious talent to that unit as well. And I think there's probably more announcements to come there, I would assume. Aside from the minority stake held by Rivian, and maybe you can confirm how big that is, is there any other relationship between Rivian and Also Inc.? And how much time, RJ, are you spending on this entity with your current role as Chairman?

Yes. Thanks, Adam. We had a skunkworks project within Rivian that was looking at essentially how do we electrify the world, what's necessary. A natural conclusion is that there are markets like the United States and Europe that are very vehicle-centric, but beyond those markets, much of the world moves on things that look very different than cars. So two-wheel, three-wheel, even four-wheel quadricycle-type products. The initial effort when it was housed within Rivian was to look at ways that we could take this technology base and apply it into the micromobility segment. As we were doing that, we realized the market opportunity was very significant, and in fact, bigger than we had originally anticipated. It took the decision to move that outside of Rivian, allow it to secure outside capital, and allow its branch trajectory and company trajectory to look at markets differently, positioning differently than the Rivian product line. Rivian is still a significant shareholder, just under 50% ownership in this entity. We continue to have a lot of the technology that Also is using, which leverages some of the core of what Rivian built. There are ways that we can be really creative where we see the Rivian product line and the Also product line coming together. We often think about them as two Avengers fighting for the same mission. If you want to electrify the world, of course, Rivian is part of that; we hope to inspire competition in the vehicle space. But Also; hence the name, we also need to electrify a lot of other things, two, three, four wheel things, and that's why that company exists.

I think Rivian's COGS per vehicle went up about $22,000 sequentially. Can you elaborate more on what drove that and to what extent these are temporal relative to sustained costs? You spoke about taking costs down by more than 50% with R2 compared to R1. So I'm hoping to better understand if there are some sustained higher cost levels you're seeing with the R1. Does that change the absolute cost that you expect R2 to come in at?

Sure. As you think about the drivers of the cost of goods sold per unit from Q1 to Q2, the largest driver, as we mentioned in our prepared remarks, was driven by the lower production volume, and therefore, the lack of fixed cost leverage that we had in absorbing those costs into inventory. That represented about $14,000 a unit of impact. We also had higher levels of LCNRV in this period as well as some warranty and other related costs constituting the other increases in COGS per unit for the automotive segment for Q2 relative to Q1. As we look at the Q1 baseline, we see that as a helpful starting point of demonstrating the opportunity set we have with R1 with higher levels of production volumes. However, that Q1 comps per unit doesn't include the impact from tariff-related costs, which are roughly about a couple thousand dollars a unit that we'll begin to see more so in the second half of this year. As we look at the R2 cost structure, we do have similar impacts as we think about the tariff impacts on R2 on a go-forward basis. However, one of the core benefits we have in R2, and hopefully, R1 will benefit from as well, is some of the joint venture shared sourcing opportunities as we think about the low-voltage electronics that will be shared between Rivian vehicles and R2 vehicles, currently in market sourcing that can produce incremental upside as we think about the COGS roadmap for R2.

Yes, as Claire said, the production volume output of Q2 going from in Q1, around 14,000 units to Q2 being around 6,000 units. The lack of fixed cost absorption, you can really see it in the numbers. This was reflective of the supply chain environment that we're in and some of the trade-related and export control-related items we encountered in Q2, but an important point to call out here is that as we launch R2, the benefits of fixed cost absorption will be felt not just by R2, but carrying that across R1. We'll also start to see that and this is really important for us as we grow volume in the plant in our Normal, Illinois production facility going into 2026.

Very helpful. My other question was around ASPs. I'm hoping to better understand how Rivian is expecting ASPs per vehicle to trend. You launched the Quad motor, talked about the positive pricing benefits of that product line, but with the IRA credits going away in the fourth quarter, I'm wondering if you think Rivian is going to need to adjust its pricing strategy and perhaps it may be a headwind. So any more color around how to think about pricing would be helpful.

We're tracking closely how R1 is doing in the market. It's important to call out that it continues to be a market share leader in the segments it operates—really a core leader. If you look at electric vehicle SUVs sold over $70,000 across the United States, it's the market share leader by a significant degree. Uniquely, if you look at California and now the state of Washington for the premium segment, EV or non-EV, premium segment SUV, so SUVs over $70,000, it's the market share leader. We continue to see that in light of some very aggressive incentives from other vehicles that might be cross-shopped with Rivian. As we look at the remainder of this quarter, we expect Q3 to be our strongest quarter of the year. However, we also think that some of the irregular incentives we're seeing in terms of the marketplace will subside, and the market will continue to support our market share leadership on R1.

One other item I’d just add on is we do anticipate there being higher levels of commercial van deliveries in the second half of the year relative to the first half of the year. So as you look at the overall Rivian blended ASP, you’ll see the commercial vans reducing that figure, although we do anticipate there being strong ASPs on the R1 program, as RJ noted.

I'd like to double-click a little bit on Dan's first question on the EBITDA breakeven in '27, because it does seem that there are quite a few meaningful headwinds, especially in the near term. Some items you talked about seem long-term opportunities. Shouldn't we expect to move the EBITDA breakeven into later years given the plan we discussed last year?

Thanks, Daniel. Claire and I will speak to this one. First and foremost, we spoke earlier on the call, but the R2 cost structure and the way we've developed the vehicle provides us with a cost platform that's materially different than where we've been on R1. Despite some of the headwinds, we've had a number of factors that are actually positive movements for R2. The ability to look at joint sourcing of some of the electronic components used in R2 and some of those will be used across the Volkswagen Group as well. As Javier noted, we are in a position where the bill of materials on R2 is sourced and is no longer something we hope to achieve. As we now think about continuing to grow relationships with suppliers in 2027 and beyond, the whole supply base has been looking at ways to drive cost efficiencies into the business to address these major headwinds. While the EV credits environment is a meaningful source of revenue, it is a short-term reduction in positive cash. However, we expect to see less incentive among incumbent manufacturers to make the transition, which we believe will positively impact our market position.

The other key driver is as we look at the broader software and services opportunity. This is an area where we anticipate significant growth over the next two years, especially as we recognize greater levels of revenue from some of the background IP considerations associated with the progress in the joint venture with Volkswagen Group. This will be a key contributor to the automotive gross profit standpoint and as we scale and grow the car park, ultimately driving additional EBITDA.

Maybe just two quick clarifications and then a bigger picture question. Like you previously on these earnings calls have said you were baking in several hundred million dollars in policy impacts, which I know was vague, but I think was interpreted as suggesting tariffs and some regulatory credits. So I know you just lowered regulatory credits to basically not assuming anything in the back half. That seems like it could be half the EBITDA reduction. But what exactly got worse on tariffs and now you see it a couple of thousand dollars per vehicle higher?

Just wanted to clarify on your first question, Joe. The couple of thousand dollars a unit on tariffs is consistent with the commentary we provided last quarter, so there's no change in terms of the outlook from a tariff impact as we look at '25. The incremental impact, as we mentioned earlier, is really driven by changes in the regulatory credit outlook. We no longer anticipate selling or earning revenue from regulatory credits in the second half of this year related to changes in some programs. As we look at 2027 EBITDA, we won't get into specifics on what has changed in our outlook in terms of a regulatory credit standpoint, but we acknowledge that the bar has risen given some headwinds we are working through.

The second question I want to touch back on something Adam brought up earlier, which is the second plant. You're taking three weeks downtime here in September to get normal capacity to 215,000. You're currently producing at, I don't know, probably like below 20% of that utilization right now. I realize that it's not fair because you have much higher volume for the R2. But at what level of utilization do we need to see a normal before you really start thinking about commissioning Georgia?

Joe, it's a great question. When we think about the normal facility, we've talked about this a lot in the past. It's ultimately going to be producing R1, R2, and our commercial van. As we look at the variances on the R2 platform, bringing on the Georgia facility not only expands capacity but allows us to build some of these additional variants and grow both the addressable market and fill in where we see significant volume opportunities. We're building out across two phases, and we're starting construction in early 2026.

Has any of the impact of these policy changes, whether it's emissions or consumer credits, changed how you view the R2 or R3 with respect to whether it's pricing, cost, or how much capacity is needed? And I know there's some sensitivity around the preorder number for the R2, but if you'd be willing to share an update, it probably would go a long way in assuaging concerns around the needed capacity with Georgia.

Yes. We’re not going to share the number here, but I have said a couple of times. We're extremely bullish on R2. Developing a product like this involves a significant amount of effort, a lot of iteration defining what the product is. We've landed on something we feel has an outstanding product market fit in the heart of the demand curve, overlapping with the largest segment, both in terms of price points and feature content. The R2 is designed not just for the U.S. but for the European markets, which represents a significant increase in the addressable market.

I appreciate that. On the technical aspects of your approach to autonomy, some of your competitors are opting for camera-only solutions, while others are more hardware-heavy approaches. What gives your team confidence that your early sensor fusion approach to autonomy is the correct one?

It's an important question. The approach of using early sensor fusion represents a significant step forward. Prior to 2021, self-driving platforms used a set of sensors to identify and classify objects, passing those inputs to a planner. This late fusion process had challenges deciding which sensor set to trust. With our AI-centric approach, we have an enhanced view of the world as early as possible. A large model drives the vehicle’s performance, fed by a robust data flywheel. Very few manufacturers have this comprehensive approach. We are investing significantly into it. Customers will see improved levels of autonomy and features soon, which will include eyes on, hands off capabilities. Our goal is for customers to get their time back where possible, allowing them to simply input an address and let the vehicle take care of the rest.

When I look at your software and services revenues, excluding the JV, they were up sharply versus last year. How should we think about the growth trajectory and profitability for it? And to what extent is this embedded in your expectation for positive EBITDA by the end of '27?

As we think about the key contributors to the growth and profitability from software and services, a driver of this is the growth of Rivian's remarketing program. This includes trade-in vehicles for consumers getting into Rivian for the first time, along with the sale of used Rivian. This will open the aperture to attract more consumers at diverse entry points, maintaining strong residual values. Continued growth and expansion of our service infrastructure is also contributing to maintenance revenue growth. We are in the process of opening up our charging network to additional vehicles, which will be another contributing factor for us going forward. We are very optimistic about these growth factors contributing positively in 2027. As we look at the overall outlook for R2 unit economics, we see a much faster path to positive gross profit on the vehicle itself due to its lower underlying material cost structure and the existing volumes from the Normal plant that will help us reach this goal as we scale up operations. We think as we exit 2026, this is achievable, especially as we add a third shift into the plant, helping to continue to reduce costs.

One of the big strategic reasons for launching R2 from the Normal facility is to benefit from shared fixed cost absorption. From day one of production and sales of R2, we will already have the benefit of all the fixed cost absorption from R1 and our commercial vans as well. This gives us a fundamentally different path to profitability than we saw with R1.

Congratulations on the quarter. I think it is our first time making it to the Q&A, so a bucket list for us. I think a lot of our questions have been asked, but RJ, I was hoping to come back to ASPs. Given the macro environment, tariffs, and removal of tax credits, do you expect any changes to ASPs, particularly off the R2 line? Should we still target around $45,000 to $50,000? Any color there would be helpful.

Yes. If you look at ASPs through this year and into R2, as Claire referenced, we'll be selling more vans, which will lower our average selling price. However, the R1 has launched our Quad and demand has been strong. We have a positive movement on ASP for R1. The R2 has different variants, with the entry price around $45,000, but we will be designing desirable configurations that also support greater margins. The mix shift will depend on our production in 2026 and 2027, but we expect R1 to see positive mix shift in the second half of this year. In terms of autonomy, this represents a major focus and commitment for us. The approach we have with our Gen 2 vehicles is designed to create a robust data platform to train a capable model. The more deployed fleet we have, the better our performance. Our customers will see enhanced features soon, and we are excited about the business opportunity it creates. Thanks, everyone, for joining us today. Hopefully, you're hearing just the enormous excitement that we have for R2, the state of the program, and the health of the program in terms of its cost structure and development status. We appreciate everybody's support and everyone joining this call.