Verisk Analytics, Inc. (VRSK) September 15, 2026 Conference Transcript

All right. Good morning, everybody. We'll keep this on time. Thank you for being here. Day two of our Global Financial Services Conference. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Mana Fipnayak. I cover business and information services for Parkways. One of the companies under coverage is Verisk, and we're very pleased to have Elizabeth Mann, the CFO, back with us here again. So thank you for being here, Elizabeth.

Thanks so much, Mana, for having us, and thank you all for coming.

So I thought the best way to start would be to just talk about current trends implied in your guide, the long-term guide, but maybe before that, let's just knock the question around the AccuLinks deal out of the way, just kind of the latest update with the situation there.

Yeah, so I think we've announced, so the AccuLinks transaction, which had been under litigation, we have appealed the decision now, and so that is under appeal. the hearings would start in late October, so it is continuing to be handled on an expedited basis as the original trial was.

Got it. Okay, fair enough. So maybe just, you know, getting back to this year's guide, you know, maybe just remind us, you know, how the first half performance was and then kind of the, you know, the implied second half guide in there.

Yeah, thanks a bunch. Yeah, So our revenue for the year, the first half, had been impacted by some near-term revenue headwinds that we've talked about. I'm sure we'll get into that. Short-term factors, you know, the weather impact being the most significant, and primarily on the transactional revenue growth side, which is 17% of our revenues. Our subscription growth at 83% of our revenues continues to perform well. We've also – and then to your question on the second half, we've continued to say our expectation is that those short-term factors are – we are working through them and working past the time that they would have an impact. So we expect to see continued accelerating growth into the second half of the year with an expectation that we deliver within our, quote-unquote, our long-term or investor day guidance range of 6% to 8% organic constant currency growth. We expect to be in that range in the second half of the year, and we've also said we are confident to deliver another year in that range, meaning the full year 26 to be in that range.

Maybe just first follow up on the subscription side of the business. I mean, the first half of the year, the numbers actually got better despite some of what we thought were probably tough cons heading in. So what are some of the drivers of that slight acceleration in that subscription growth?

Yeah, I think we continue to see good outcomes and good interest from our customers on the value that's being delivered across the platform. And it's not just one business or one upgrade. It is really across our largest businesses. Our forms, rules, and loss cost business, which is our largest business, continues to see the benefit of CoreLines reimagined and the significant technology investments that we've put into our core products, including CoreLines. AI-based innovations. So that continues to express itself in the subscription growth there. Our Catastrophe and Risk Solutions business just saw the launch of Verisk Synergy Studio, the new platform there, as well as the new model for U.S. hurricane risk. So that's seeing strong subscription growth as well.

Got it. And I guess on both those, I mean, it sounds like you have a new platform and then core lines, you imagine, is also new capabilities. So is there a scope for further acceleration driven by those two? I guess how early in the innings are we on those two contributors?

Yeah, I think we will continue to see the benefit of those play out over a long term, meaning a couple of years. Both of those businesses, some of our largest businesses, have very long-term contracts with customers, meaning three years to five years for some of the largest customers. And so the benefits and enhancements that we've built in are being monetized in the subscription renewals. And so we do anticipate continued strength.

So I guess, but it's also fair to say that the current elevated or higher growth rate that subscription is sustainable. And then as the contracts come up for renewal, I suppose you can keep adding on more of the value in there.

That would absolutely be the intention. We don't give specific guidance by subscription or transactional revenue. We're targeting the total. But yes, absolutely, we do continue to see positive engagement with our customers.

And then maybe just touching on core lines, we imagine it was obviously a heavy lift for four to five years for you guys. I guess what is the – I know it never ends, but what is the end outcome today where we stand and, like, you know, what's the runway of the potential for going through this effort?

Yeah, absolutely. So CoreLine's reimagined was reimagining the benefit and really primarily the delivery mechanisms and the underlying infrastructure for our forms, rules, and loss cost business, really reinvesting in a product that had been deeply embedded in the insurance industry but maybe hadn't gotten an overhaul in quite some time. So that was a five-year scope. We started it in 21. By the end of this year, we will have delivered the full program that was envisioned then. And most of the new and newly rebuilt content is available on core.veris.com. We continue to turn things on module by module and line of business by line of business. By the end of 26, it will all be available on core.veris.com, and you won't have a need to go back to the old. ISONet platform, there may be still some customers who prefer to use it that way, but we will be pushing hard to shift them over to core.veris.com. So that will be kind of the, we will draw a line under the completion of the original scope of CoreLines Reimagine. It has been such a benefit and such a success. You know, when that was designed in 21, it was, we were doing a lot of machine learning. We were doing a lot of AI, but it wasn't an environment where everybody was talking about generative AI. We've brought some of those elements into our platform already, but I think where we stand now, we will continue to see benefit. We're not going to stop investing in the product. The investment scale may taper a bit, but we continue to see significant opportunity and significant client interest in what can be done off that core content that is so valuable to them.

And maybe just a few examples on that, because part of, I think, what you described felt almost like a necessary modernization of the way you have the data, the delivery, and the platform. So now that you have that, can you talk about whether that helps innovation, stuff companies, can you give some examples there?

Let me give some examples. So the product there is the fundamental, it is the lost cost, meaning the industry average-wide expected loss on a particular type of risk with deep granularity, not just by class of insurance, general liability, but by business type, say, commercial, you know, small commercial, by state, and by type of risk. So it's not just commercial liability for a restaurant. It is separated out into 13 different grades of restaurant. by state. So very granular views of risk based on the industry-wide average or the industry-wide views of the risk. And really no one carrier has enough penetration or sees enough data. That's the core value of the product. The delivery method was where, as we talked about, it had maybe been underinvested. And so if you go back before CoreLines reimagined, Those lost costs were primarily delivered by PDF in tables that customers would download and probably manually key in into their own internal systems or into their own workflow. That, we knew, was not how work should take place in the 2020s, even before anyone started talking about AI interaction with it. And so we've rebuilt the platform. We've rebuilt the underlying data. I should say this was all enabled because in the 20-teens, we moved that core data set to the cloud and on modern database infrastructure. So that was almost step zero of CoreLines reimagined in the 2017 to 2021 era. So we've got our database, our industry-wide data housed and manipulated in modern data methods. Of course, this was also an important prerequisite in being able to use and handle that data with AI and other modern methods. So delivery mechanism is more modern. Customers only download the PDF if that's still how they want to consume it. They can now access the data via API. They can access it through accelerators and integrators into their policy administration systems like a Guidewire or a Duck Creek. Today, if they choose to, they can interact with that data via an MCP using Quad. So those are some of the different delivery mechanisms. The content, the forms content, the policy language that is so crucial for carriers. Insurance, each policy is a legally binding contract with language that really matters. It matters first because it has to be approved by the regulator on every line of business in every state that you're doing business in annually. Your policy form has to be approved by the regulator. Updates and changes to it also need to be approved. And then it matters also because that language is court-tested. It sets policies. It assesses – it governs the liability for what carriers are exposed to on what risks. And so this is very legally sensitive language. It remains legally sensitive. What hasn't changed on our rules business is the number of actuarial experts, legal experts, It's local legislative experts that we have that is giving input into that forms language, which is far more efficient for us to do once versus each carrier in the industry doing that analysis and hiring those people themselves. That hasn't changed. What has changed now is the ability to interact with the forms language in much more modern ways, again, not just working with a PDF. We actually built a data structure underlying those forms and that policy language a couple years ago, before, again, before chat GPT and other things. So we have a modular data form underlying the forms and the policy language, which enables much easier and better interaction with that form. And so you were asking for specific examples. How does this save time? It used to be even five years ago, if an underwriter at a carrier was taking a look at this year's policy, they said, okay, I read there was a legislative change in Illinois. It's going to change my commercial property form language. They would download this year's form. They would have to search through and find the relevant paragraph and figure out how the language had changed. Now it is much more digitally interactable. You've got a map. You've got legislative monitoring. You can click on a state what legislative changes were made, click through what policies have changed, click through actually have these policies changed in other states and where has it changed my exposure. So those are all the things that are enabled now in the forms business that have been enabled by Coraline's Reimagine, and you can easily imagine and extrapolate from that how carriers might use Gen AI to interact with that to build their own modifications on top of our forms or to create their innovations on forms language. To be clear, any innovations that they make with those forms, number one, will need to be also filed and approved by the regulator. They can do it themselves from scratch, but that would mean taking legal liability on the full form. It would mean having that infrastructure to build the full form, and it would mean full regulatory review of that new policy. or they can start with the industry-wide gold standard starting point. They can download that. They can say, I've tweaked it in these three places. Because of our infrastructure with CoreLines Reimagine, it's much easier to identify where those three places are that they may want to tweak, and they can file that for approval and get reviewed just on those three modifications as opposed to the full form from scratch.

Got it. Okay, thank you for that.

Sorry for that. Long answer, but I wanted to bring to light what is one of really our core businesses and our core value proposition and what we continue to provide to the industry that is still valuable even in this world.

One of the other initiatives you mentioned briefly, though, was the kind of MCP delivery of data. So can you just help us appreciate, like, how much of the data that you guys have today is available through that and what the strategy with MCP is going to be going forward?

Yeah. The MCP that we have today is for convenience on the part of our carriers. What they see is the lost cost, which is the table, the industry-wide average. It is what we would call – that is what we would call the output. Maybe you would call that an analytic that's based on the internal raw data that is contributed across the industry. So they can see, they can interact with that lost cost data. It's the same thing that they get access to in their core subscription, but now they can ask questions of it. You know, why were lost costs trending down in Florida over the last couple years? It's because of regulatory reform. But so they can ask business-related questions. They can integrate it into some of their other things. But I think the key thing to know is that's the lost cost table. That is our IP that is created and being monetized and accessed through the MCP connector. It is not the raw data that's contributed across the industry.

So when you say for convenience, I guess it's just another delivery mechanism, but there's no uplift in pricing or some kind of a premium attribute to accessing that data?

At the moment, no. We are assessing the value that is created for the industry in accessing the data in that way and interacting with the data in that way. And if we believe there is value that's being created as they use it and interact with it, we will charge for it, and we will monetize that value.

And then maybe a couple of other examples of AI. I think on the call you mentioned Exact AI. So what is the uplift, or what are the new features of that?

Yeah. So the new features on Exact AI is a number of AI tools that is added to the core software, Exact Analysis or Exactimate. That's the software in our property and restoration solutions business. It's used by the carriers themselves and the contractors or third-party adjusters to develop an estimate and approve an estimate for property repair associated with an insurance claim. So a tree falls on a house, maybe in a hurricane, maybe not. The contractor goes on site, the insurance adjuster goes on site, and they build an estimate. They say, okay, let me assess the damage, let me take photographs of the damage, and then I build an estimate, and it's going to take, you know, it was three windows that were broken, I need this much wood for the frames, I need this many panes of glass, the labor, which is a very hard part to develop pricing on, it's going to take, you know, this is a job that's going to take three people, you know, six hours of work each, and here's the cost of that in this region at this moment in time. So it is both the software that develops that estimate. It is the pricing data, both materials and labor, that populates that estimate. And so that's what happens. The contractor, the adjuster, develop the estimate. It goes to the carrier. The carrier approves it. The carrier assesses, is it in line with my rules and policies and compliance? Is this an appropriate estimate in this region and for this type of work? the ai features enable the process and the development and those processing of that estimate much more quickly so now if you take a photo it can auto populate oh i see it's this type of window it was this type of glass and it will suggest you know this is this is what you're going to need and here's the here's the price from from the pricing estimate obviously that gets reviewed and and adjusted but compare that to you know it saves a significant amount of time for the adjuster versus taking a picture going back having to look at a price list having to look at you know trying

to assess what what each element in that photo is maybe forgetting a couple things and having to go back to it later got it um maybe just one moment to go back to the cat synergy studio i mean one of your main competitors is also uh introduced or has introduced their own platform is there a trend in the industry? Is it just AI capabilities allowing for this platform? And then also just for you, how should we think about whether that starts creating uplift in that specific business?

Yeah. So the platform, our platform or our competitors' platform were not designed as AI-specific innovations, but they will have, you know, they already do and may have further AI enhancements or obviously AI was used to develop the platform. I think it was more that they were built and created to have more modern and much more powerful infrastructure on which to run the catastrophe models. So it used to be the catastrophe models were run on on-prem, accessed on a platform that was an on-prem build. Now it is truly SaaS and can use as much power or compute as you might want. So I think industry standard used to be to run, you know, 10,000 paths on a Monte Carlo, but if you want it, if it's appropriate to have a more robust view, you can now run 100,000 views of risk. You can take and modify each of the parameters associated with the risk or with the portfolio that you have. So it's much more interactable and you can kind of take your own view on risk. And we can say, well, look, our expectation for the assumptions that you should use are this, but you can kind of take and modify those platforms.

And then the rollout of the studio, I know your competitors talked about it'll be a nice pricing uplift for many years. Is it the same for you guys? Okay. And so maybe just putting all this innovation, I'm sure there's more, but together, it sounds like a lot of it is being monetized through kind of your pricing uplifts in your renewals as opposed to directly incremental revenue. I mean, is that fair, or how would you kind of break that out?

The ones that we've talked about, so Core Lines Reimagined, Catastrophe Risk Solutions, those are fairly mature products that are, you know, deeply embedded in the industry, and so there's an expectation of what the product is. And so, yes, those innovations will be monetized through pricing on the core subscription. Something like an exact AI, which is more of an add-on, that is a separate queue, a separate revenue line that a customer can opt into or opt out of and pay for accordingly. So that you'll start to see the monetization.

And then maybe somewhat tied to this, if you go back to the last invest today, you actually raised the component of your growth that was pricing by 50 basis points. So can you just talk about the reason behind that? Maybe it was anticipation of all this innovation. Just curious.

Exactly. It is both anticipation of the innovation as well as increased comfort that we have in being able to monetize that based on the demonstrated success of what we had done, you know, with primarily Coraline's reimagined before that. And so if I rewind in 2023, we had said we expected pricing to be three to four percentage points of our six to eight percent growth. We actually delivered right about 5%, and that was both monetizing product innovation through pricing, yes. It was also, in fairness, had a contribution from the strong premium growth environment, which I'm sure we'll get to. So that helped the price increases there. with that confidence of having significantly over-delivered on that range. We raised the range from 3.5% to 4.5%. So 3.5% of annual growth we would target to come from price. If you like, that gives room for a little bit less pricing benefit from the premium environment versus the 5% we had already delivered while saying that we believe the pricing benefits that we get from product innovation, we expect to be sustainable and to continue.

Got it. That 5%, the 1 to 200 basic point outperformance versus your 23 guide, can you attribute how much of that was premiums versus your own initiatives?

We haven't quantified it, and it's actually not concrete or formulaic from a premium standpoint, so I couldn't tell you even if I wanted, but it was clearly both were in there, and that was our framework.

Okay. And so maybe let's just touch on the premium topic and, you know, maybe rehash again, as we do every year, you know, what the relation to the net worth and premium number is versus your contracts and how you look through those.

Yeah. So we set the stage when we became independent from the industry that we would grow as our customers grow. And so our contract renewals had an input into the renewal price increase that came from the customer's premium growth. I think that's a great revenue model. It ties our growth to an externally observable growing market, which is the insurance and the insurance premium market. And while any given year, it may vary a bit, and we've had a couple years of very strong premium growth, you know, but on average, we've got an input into our pricing that is growing, you know, mid, low to mid single digits. So that is a contributor to our pricing growth. We also have the opportunity to take our own, you know, various price increases in addition to the premium growth. So both of those things are inputs into the growth rate. We say it's about 20% to 25% of our revenues now that are on contracts that have some input from that premium growth component. It's not directly formulaic, but it is a supporter of that. So we probably grow faster in stronger premium environments and a bit more moderated. uh, in softer premium environments. There is, I should, the one other thing I should add is there's a two year lag on that premium growth, uh, dynamic.

Got it. And, and maybe if you could just remind us of the statute given before in terms of, uh, you know, you said you, uh, in the softer market, which is what we're seeing now, you would expect a moderation of growth. You know, how much is moderation imply?

Yeah. So the, the, the historical view and each year is different and there's always different dynamics. But when we went back, we said this at our investor day, when we went back, since we went public in 2009 and we classified the years into soft market years or hard market years, the years that were soft market years, our average, and this is just organic constant currency growth in our insurance business throughout this time, it was 6.8% in the soft market years. It was 7.3% in the hard market years. So you can see in there there's a bit of a headwind when the market is softer or a bit of an acceleration in a hard market. But at the end of the day, it's only moderate, and both of those kind of average out to our 7% historical average growth rate.

And I don't remember the premium growth in those previews that you talked about, but, for example, you said the last few years have been really good premiums, right, in the upper high single digits, and now you said they're kind of low to mid. I mean, I think the first half was like low single digits thus far. So is that data also encapsulated within that?

That's about the range. I don't know the exact averages in those years, but the highest, you know, the highest years were high single digits. We may have, you know, maybe one year tipped this barely touched double digits. That's kind of the high end of the range. The low end of the range, at some years in that time period, you've actually seen premium growth being negative. and we've continued to grow even in those environments. But, yeah, more recently the kind of, you know, the last couple of years have been high single-digit premium growth, which is very high, and you've probably read and heard about this, if not experienced it yourself as an insurance consumer. This year it is moderating. So, yeah, for the first half of 26, we're seeing low single-digit premium growth. It varies line by line of business as well.

Got it. Maybe we'll switch quickly to the topic of weather. I think in the last update you said weather was tracking below average or light versus what you had assumed, I suppose, or maybe just some of color flesh out exactly what the assumptions are and what you're seeing today.

Yeah. So our property restoration solutions business that I talked about before gets revenue by helping process claims associated with property repair. Last year was, and so it can get benefits in very active weather years, which certainly was the case in 23 and 24. For 2025, as it happened, was a very light weather year. It was the first year in a decade that no-named hurricanes hit landfall in the U.S. That is a good thing for homeowners and a good thing for policyholders and a good thing for insurance carriers. It was a headwind for revenue associated with claims. I want to be clear. Our business is mostly subscription, and even in that business, We have been converting, you know, converting more and more customers to a subscription basis. So the transactional piece is kind of the incremental piece. But, you know, because of the stability of our revenues, people have been watching that transactional revenue as it's maybe one of the swing factors. But, you know, with a business as stable as ours, you know, 25 basis points or 50 basis points moves the needle. So we've been watching those weather activities. Because of the subscription nature of our business and because this is only incremental, we plan and forecast for, quote, an average year of weather, which is what we've done consistently throughout. In 23 and 24, we significantly outperformed that average year of weather. 25 was a much lighter weather year. Going into 26, I would say we planned for an average year of weather. So far, it appears to be a bit on the lighter side. I don't think that doesn't, you know, that's not necessarily a headwind versus 2025. To be clear, we don't anticipate that it would, you know, it didn't change our guidance range. This is just modest variability within the range. I think the trends that we're seeing right now in mid-September is playing out as we roughly in line with what we saw and what we expected as of the end of July when we spoke at the end of our second quarter call. So relatively light, it's mid-September, there hasn't yet been a major hurricane in the U.S., which again is a good thing and is kind of in line with how we talked about our guidance before.

Got it. Okay, thank you for that. Maybe this is a good time just to help us appreciate what all is in the transaction business, because I know subscription is a majority, but you get, I think, the majority of the attention on the transaction side. So what exactly, like what is the mix of the different items in that transaction business today?

Yes. And let me start with our goal is to maximize revenue across the portfolio. And our goal for each of our products and businesses is for them to develop and establish the revenue model that works best for that business and its customers. And so each of our businesses tends to evolve to a mix of subscription and transactional. Across the portfolio, again, we're about 83% subscription, 17% transactional. So what's in that transactional revenue? There are some businesses where it's really more of a usage-based or a volume-based business, and we have a traditional price volume. That can be some of our underwriting data products. So in the UDAS part of the pie can have products where it is a data pull that is typically correlated with an underwriter, underwriting a piece of business. On the claim side, we have some businesses that are, as I said, associated with volumes of typically number of claims. That is often a subscription with an overage tier that correlates with the number of claims. The other area that we have is services, businesses. So where we have some software businesses on the life insurance side, on the specialty business side, we have a services component. These are not kind of heavy implementations. They're pretty quick, but we've found it enables our customers, you know, easier access and improves the sale of the license revenue to have some support in implementation. So we've got some services revenues in there. And then, yeah, the final piece, which is volume, kind of falls in that volume category, is the weather elements, claims associated with the weather. Those are the largest parts of our transactional revenue portfolio.

Okay, that's helpful. So maybe just on the broader topic of AI, I think at your Investor Day, you did a pretty good job in uplining how much of it is proprietary data, et cetera. Just a few lingering questions that we get. So the first one tied to you guys is more over the years, Varys has talked about the softwareization of the business. And so the question is more how much of that is just true software that could be right-coded away versus how much of that is integrated with your proprietary data?

Yeah, I think, you know, we gave the pie chart at the Investor Day. A lot of our products are built on contributory data sets from across the industry, which we view as very differentiated. There's another significant part that is proprietary data where we're the only ones that – or where we create it and have it in-house. It's not easily vibe-coded away. There may be, in some cases, you know, a couple other providers of similar data, but we have strong performance and strong proprietary data there. We had another category that we called proprietary analytics and IP, and those are things that aren't exactly data businesses but are built on very deep domain knowledge that would be very difficult to replicate. The catastrophe models, for example, would be in that category. or the, you know, we talked about the exact where the pricing and restoration, property and restoration solutions business. Some of that business, yes, is software or it is delivered as software, but it is software that is built on top of and enables the access to the pricing database, which is proprietary and very difficult to replicate, certainly, for example, on the labor pricing side. So that would go in that bucket. Those categories together amount to 85% of our revenues. There's only 10% of our business that we would call, you know, through software, and another maybe 5% that are services-related businesses in the casualty space or in the international space. So those would be the ones. And the software, in theory, you could say, oh, maybe that 10% could be vibe-coded away. We still think it is pretty – it is either based on deep domain knowledge in very regulatory-sensitive spaces, like life insurance, for example, or it is software that is protected by a network characteristic, for example, in our specialty business solutions product, where the software, again, is enabling something that is transactions between a broker and a carrier, and you have, you know, the software is where they come together to transact. So we may have businesses that are software, but what's differentiated may not be the software itself. It's more the characteristics of the business where it's a network-type business, and it's where the industry comes to interact, to exchange financial transactions.

The other one we get is, like at this conference, I think a lot of large carriers are here, and I guess they tell investors, yeah, we're going to use AI to do a lot more with our data and bring stuff in-house. In your discussions, does that impact your business? Does it create opportunities? Just how would you react to that?

Yeah, we think it creates opportunities for us. There have been, you know, for many decades, Verisk has been a strong participant in the industry. We contribute a lot of data. We contribute a lot of insights and value to them. From a scale perspective, our revenues are 30 basis points of the total industry premium. So for every $100 a carrier gets in premium, they spend $0.30 on the Verisk data. We think that is good value to them to protect the insights and the views on selecting the right risk, pricing it appropriately, and then processing the claims accordingly. As you can see, there's many things outside of that $0.30 that they may do on their own. They may each take different approaches. The large carriers will have more bandwidth to invest and will do some things with their own data. The small and mid-sized carriers may be interested in doing some of the same things but might be interested in productizing, you know, from different products from us to enable them to have the same reach and scale. I think another thing that may be, you know, underappreciated in this is we are already speaking across the industry. We have that contributory data angle that gives us a perspective on the full industry that we can share back to them and create value, even for those that are doing things in-house. And when you think about the fragmentation of the industry, insurance is a very large market. The largest players in their largest lines may have 20 or, you know, max 30% of the market in a certain line. As, you know, I have been in rooms with customers that say, that's great. You know, I have 70% of the market that I don't see, and I need to know what's happening there to be able to price the best risk. So that is our kind of our fundamental value proposition that we think will be maintained as an element of even what the large carriers are doing.

Okay, and then two minutes we have left. Maybe let's end with capital allocation. You know, since you backed out of the AccuLinks deal, you did a big bunch of buybacks. So maybe just remind us of current leverage levels and kind of the plans for buybacks and other capital allocation priorities.

Yeah. So leverage at the end of the second quarter was two and a half times debt-to-EBITDA. That is at the midpoint, essentially, of our two to three times debt-to-EBITDA range. And we have significant and growing free cash flow. So we are fortunate to have significant capital allocation, firepower capacity, and bandwidth. We have the opportunity to continue buying back shares in the market. Yes, the AccuLynx appeal is pending, and we'll have to see how that comes out from a large allocation standpoint. But we're very comfortable with our leverage range. If, and this is a big if, but if that transaction were to ultimately go on and be completed, we have the bandwidth to do so on an all-cash basis and get back to our two- to three-times leverage range within a relatively short period of time.

Okay. All right. We'll end it right there. Thank you so much, Elizabeth. Appreciate the time. Thank you, everybody.

Thanks very much for attending.