Prepared remarks
Good morning, everybody. Thank you for taking the time to join us today. As you may have seen from our press release this morning, we delivered strong financial results in the first half, we made further operational and strategic progress, and we continue to see positive momentum across the group. Underlying revenue growth was 7%. Underlying adjusted operating profit growth was 9%, and adjusted earnings per share growth was 11% at constant currency. All four business areas continue to perform well. On this chart, you can see the relative sizes of the business areas and their growth rates: Risk with continued strong growth, STM with a step-up to strong growth, Legal with a further step-up in growth and Exhibitions with continued strong ongoing growth. In Risk, underlying revenue growth was 8% and underlying adjusted operating profit growth was 10%. Strong growth continues to be driven across segments by our deeply embedded AI-enabled analytics and decision tools, leveraging our unique contributory and proprietary data sets with over 90% of revenue coming from machine-to-machine interactions. In Business Services, which represents over 40% of divisional revenue, strong growth continues to be driven by financial crime compliance and digital fraud and identity solutions and strong new sales. We continue to expand our extensive differentiated data assets with integrated advanced authentication and behavioral intelligence to address the increasing complexity of risk decisioning for our customers. In Insurance, which represents around 40% of divisional revenue, strong growth continues to be driven by further innovation and adoption of contributory databases and market-specific solutions and strong new sales. We continue to expand our products, adding data sources and analytics to enhance value for our customers. For the full year, we expect continued strong underlying revenue growth with underlying adjusted operating profit growth exceeding underlying revenue growth. In STM, underlying revenue growth was 6% and a step-up from full year 2025, driven by the evolution of the business mix towards higher-growth, higher-value analytics and decision tools supported by the increasing pace of new product introductions and strong new sales. Underlying adjusted operating profit growth was 8%. Databases, tools and electronic reference, which represents around 40% of divisional revenue, delivered strong growth, driven by higher value-add solutions with continued rollout, adoption and usage growth of our AI-enabled tools. We continue to expand our solution set with new releases built on industry-leading trusted content, including our research-grade AI workspace LeapSpace, which has been positively received by customers. In Primary Research, which represents a little over half of divisional revenue, good growth continues to be driven by volume growth. Article submissions continue to grow very strongly across the portfolio by over 20% in the first half, with the number of articles published growing 7%, in line with our long-term average. For the full year, we expect continued strong underlying revenue growth, with underlying adjusted operating profit growth exceeding underlying revenue growth. In Legal, underlying revenue growth improved further to 10%, driven by the continued shift in business mix towards higher-growth, higher-value legal analytics and tools supported by strong renewals and strong new sales. Underlying adjusted operating profit growth was ahead of underlying revenue growth at 13%. In Law Firms & Corporate Legal, which represents around 70% of divisional revenue, double-digit growth is being driven by the continued adoption of Lexis+ with Protege, our core AI-enabled legal platform with its integrated agentic assistant. Ongoing releases of new functionality and tools integrating additional capabilities into our core platform with its comprehensive verified legal content are increasing the value add of our trusted legal AI. For the full year, we expect continued strong underlying revenue growth, with underlying adjusted operating profit growth exceeding underlying revenue growth. Exhibitions delivered strong underlying revenue growth of 6%, reflecting the strong ongoing growth profile of our event portfolio, slightly moderated by some travel disruption. First half underlying adjusted operating profit growth of 2% also reflected event cycling, timing and the rescheduling of some events to the second half. We continue to make good progress with our growing range of value-enhancing digital tools. For the full year, aside from uncertainty around remaining events in the Middle East, we continue to expect strong underlying revenue growth with an improvement in adjusted operating margin over the prior full year. Our strategic direction is unchanged. Our improving long-term growth trajectory continues to be driven by the ongoing shift in business mix towards higher-growth analytics and decision tools. This is being supported by the continued evolution of artificial intelligence, which is enabling us to add more value to our customers and to develop and launch products at a faster pace. Our growth objectives remain for Risk to sustain strong long-term growth, for STM and Legal to continue on their improving growth trajectories, and for Exhibitions to sustain strong long-term growth. When combined with continuous process innovation to manage cost growth below revenue growth, the result is a higher-growth profile with strong earnings growth and improving returns. I will now hand over to Nick Luff, our CFO, who will talk you through our results in more detail. I'll be back afterwards for a quick wrap-up and Q&A.
Thank you, Erik. Good morning, everyone. Let me start by providing more detail on the group financials. As Erik said, underlying revenue growth was 7% with underlying adjusted operating profit growth ahead of that at 9%. As a result, the adjusted operating margin improved by 70 basis points to 35.5%. Strong operating results flowed through to adjusted earnings per share, which at constant currency increased by 11%. Cash conversion was strong at 98%, and leverage was 2.3x, up slightly from the year-end, reflecting the first-half bias of dividend payments and the buyback. Given the strong financial performance, we are increasing the interim dividend by 7% to 20.9p per share. We spent GBP 103 million on two acquisitions in the first half, and we have deployed GBP 1.75 billion out of the planned GBP 2.25 billion of share buybacks this year. Looking at revenue, you can see here how all four business areas contributed to the overall 7% underlying growth. The group as a whole, total revenue growth at constant currency was 5% after minor portfolio effects in Risk and Legal and after Exhibitions cycling, timing and rescheduling effects as well as a further step down in print activities. In sterling, total revenue growth was 3%, impacted by the relative strength of the pound against the dollar compared to the prior year. Here, you can see the 9% underlying growth in group adjusted operating profit. We continue to target cost growth to be below revenue growth in each business area; as a result, Risk, STM and Legal each delivered underlying profit growth two or three percentage points ahead of underlying revenue growth. Exhibitions' growth reflects the event scheduling referred to earlier. After portfolio effects and the decline in profits from print, total adjusted operating profit growth in constant currency was 7%. There's a similar currency effect on profit as there was on revenue, giving adjusted operating profit growth in sterling of 5%, with profit growth ahead of revenue growth in Risk, STM and Legal. Margins improved in those business areas, driving an overall improvement of 70 basis points to 35.5%. Turning to the group adjusted income statement, you can see the underlying growth of 7% in revenue and 9% in operating profit. Interest expense was almost unchanged with the effect of higher average debt levels offset by lower average interest rates. The effective tax rate was 22.8%, up 30 basis points on the prior full year and first half. Net profit was up 7% at constant currency and up 5% in sterling to over GBP 1.2 billion. With the lower share count as a result of the share buyback program, adjusted earnings per share were up 11% at constant currency and up 8% in sterling to 68.6p. Turning to cash flow: cash conversion was strong at 98%. EBITDA was almost GBP 2 billion and CapEx was GBP 292 million, equating to 6% of revenue. After interest and tax, total free cash flow was over GBP 1.1 billion. And here's how we deployed that free cash flow. We completed two small acquisitions in total consideration of GBP 103 million and then one small disposal with proceeds of GBP 62 million. Dividend payments were GBP 151 million. And as I mentioned earlier, we've completed GBP 1.75 billion of share buybacks. Overall, net debt was GBP 8.7 billion at the end of June. The ratio of net debt to EBITDA calculated in U.S. dollars was 2.3x, in the middle of our typical range of 2 to 2.5x. With that, I will hand you back to Erik.
Thank you, Nick. Just to summarize what we have covered this morning. In the first half, we delivered strong financial results including a step-up in growth in both STM and Legal, as we made further operational and strategic progress. We continue to see positive momentum across the group and we expect another year of strong underlying growth in revenue and adjusted operating profit as well as strong growth in adjusted earnings per share on a constant currency basis. And with that, I think we're ready to go to questions.
Questions and answers
Our first question comes from George Webb of Morgan Stanley.
Erik and Nick, well done on the first half numbers. I have a few questions, please. Firstly, on STM: I think you called out that you're still seeing over 20% article submissions growth in the first half. I think you said publications were 7% for FY '25 and publications were north of 20% as well — I may be misremembering — and publications of 10%. So I'm curious what's driven that publication growth moderation whilst submissions growth has stayed above 20%. Second question — a bit tied to that — are there any numbers we can think about at this early stage with regards to adoption of LeapSpace into your customer base? And then lastly, for you, Erik, on the Legal business: it's nice to see the pickup in growth there now at 10% underlying. We talked a bit last year about how you see the different dynamics between the legal reference content market and the legal workflow market, given how quickly the whole space is evolving, both in terms of where certain labs are playing and where AI natives are growing. I'd be curious for your latest thoughts on the overall growth opportunity you see there for RELX and the competitive landscape.
On STM, yes, we continue to see significant growth in submissions. That's a combination of what's going on in the industry and the global science and research market where the number of researchers continues to grow, global research spend continues to grow, and productivity tools make researchers more productive. That's why we continue to see that increase. There may also be an element where concerns about research integrity could lead to a slightly higher volume for us because of our longer history and bigger brand in many areas of the portfolio, and that might be a component. When it comes to the long-term trend, we continue to expect strong volume growth for many years to come. I don't expect it to remain over 20% forever. Historically we used to say that submissions would grow in the high single digits. At this point, we probably would see it moderating down to low double digits on average over time — higher than before based on these drivers, but probably not at this level indefinitely. When it comes to the number of publications, we have over time published a decreasing proportion of the articles we receive, meaning we're becoming more selective and more targeted. I think that's important for our quality positioning in the industry. So the number of articles published should grow below the number of article submissions over any longer time period — any short time period can of course be different — but from our perspective, we are seeing a very rigorous, quality-focused selection process across our roughly 3,000 journals. So it's intentional from our side. On LeapSpace and penetration, it's important to look at LeapSpace as a continued evolution of ScienceDirect AI that we launched earlier. LeapSpace overall is going very well. It's an extension of ScienceDirect AI and also a stand-alone launch because so much new functionality is included. It's too early to talk about a full penetration curve because of the two alternative interpretations you can have — a transition from ScienceDirect AI or a new launch — but the key things we can tell you: customer feedback is very positive, user satisfaction is high, with specific comments on how it supports critical thinking and saves time in concrete examples. We're seeing a lot of interest from institutions that see the value. Most importantly, the number of active users has risen significantly since we did the full transition from ScienceDirect AI to LeapSpace. For example, in the 90-day period from March to June, the number of active users almost doubled. It's very early to extrapolate a trend line because it involves early use, trials and early customers. But the amount of usage during that time grew significantly faster than the number of users, which means users see the value and use it more. Those are the early trends and they're very positive. On Legal, the step-up in growth is driven by continued development and rollout of higher-value AI-enabled tools that we're putting into our core platform and onto the platform. The continued penetration trend is that number of institutions is probably growing slightly faster now; users is growing faster than institutions; and usage growth is faster than user growth. Customers really see the value in these tools. They continue to get significantly better on a regular basis with meaningful upgrades every couple of months. There are other companies in the broader legal tech industry leveraging generative AI to provide efficiency, workflow tools and software improvements; that's natural and probably good for the overall understanding of these tools in the industry. We come from the information-based side, which is the smaller side of that market. When you put these tools on top of our unique, comprehensive, verified and trusted content sets, the value increases significantly. We think a large number of our customers will continue to use those tools on top of our content sets. That does not mean it comes at the expense of anyone else in the workflow or software technology space, which is significantly larger than the information-based tool space we're in. We continue to see significant upside to help the legal industry for many years to come and we expect to continue to do well and take a share of that upside in terms of how we add value to our customers.
I've got three, please. First, you referred to strong new sales in Risk, STM and Legal in the release. As those will flow gradually into revenue growth, does that give you good confidence on the growth rates for those three divisions into next year and beyond? Second, on Legal again: can you talk about how much of your growth is coming from upgrading customers who were not on the Lexis+ platform to that platform, versus customers already upgraded who are now paying for additional offerings such as linking product into internal documents or other workflows on top? I'm trying to understand that dynamic. Third, you've seen good margin improvement in Risk, STM and Legal in the first half more than we've typically seen. Are there any timing effects there, or can we expect progress on those margins for the full year?
Strong new sales are an important indicator of momentum in the business and an indication our customers see value in our new tools. New sales are a small part of the overall revenue of the company in any one year, so while they are important for the long run, they are not the dominant driver of current-year revenue growth. Think of new sales as an indicator of momentum and a driver of longer-term growth trajectory rather than the immediate year-on-year revenue. Regarding Lexis+ with Protege, we are seeing that new sales are increasingly almost exclusively on Lexis+ with Protege. Last year we said the vast majority of new sales value was Lexis+ with Protege and Lexis+ AI; this year roughly 90% of the value of new sales is coming from the AI-enabled platform. For renewals, roughly three-quarters of the renewal value is coming from the Lexis+ with Protege package. What we then see is that customers who convert want to use more of the tools; they see more value and uptake follows. The initial conversion to the core AI-enabled platform is the starting point of the future growth opportunity, not the end point.
On margin: we focus on ensuring that cost growth remains below revenue growth in all of our businesses. That's what enables us to drive profit growth faster than revenue growth. Over the last couple of years, that gap has become a little bigger as we've seen revenue acceleration and as we use GenAI internally to increase efficiency. We absolutely expect that to continue. All things being equal, that will drive margin expansion over time. Exactly where that lands in any one period depends on currency and M&A effects and the like, but our plan is to continue to drive that forward.
Two questions on the Legal division. First, following up on Protege: you described the upgrade as a starting point for adoption and that you can grow revenue beyond just converting that customer to the AI platform. Can you give more detail on what that product looks like and what the additional add-ons customers can buy are, so we understand how you generate more revenue after the upgrade? Second, I understand you provide these Protege add-ons on a fixed subscription basis rather than passing through token costs. Do you need to move to some form of consumption-based pricing if token usage goes up a lot? Or do you have better economics in terms of token usage or better technology that means less token usage than some competitors? Can you describe how that's operating in practice?
On the first question, you have to look at this over time. We keep upgrading and adding tools and functionality to Lexis+ with Protege on an ongoing basis. Lexis+ with Protege is significantly more valuable and broader today than it was a few months ago, and that will continue. Think of the transition to Lexis+ with Protege as analogous to the print-to-electronic transition: you must move customers onto the core electronic platform before you can offer higher value-add analytics and decision tools. That core integrated AI-enabled platform is the foundational piece that will drive revenue for many years to come. An example of an add-on launched recently is Lex Machina, which brings legal analytics, strategic insights from historic cases and helps you judge the merits and duration of a case — we've integrated that into Lexis+ with Protege. Many other integrations and add-ons of analytics and workflow capabilities will follow.
On token cost and pricing, managing token costs effectively on behalf of customers is a competitive advantage. Our technology configuration maximizes customer value by dynamically managing which model and which agent are used in a particular use case or step of the process. Because we've preprocessed the underlying content to allow efficient operation, our solutions tend to be less token intensive. Customers want us to help manage overall token consumption, and we see that as a competitive advantage. Token costs are rising for some providers, but token cost is still less than 1% of our overall cost base. Given our approach to keeping cost growth below revenue growth, token costs are manageable within our strategy.
A few questions. First, has the ability to leverage AI internally reduced the need for M&A given that developing products organically has become easier? Second, on STM and the goal to accelerate growth further: what are the key dynamics or initiatives needed to drive that growth from here? Third, on the visibility of scheduled events in the Middle East and the Exhibitions division: how do you see those trading?
The use of GenAI internally is helping us do things faster and is enabling a faster pace of new product introduction. Our focus remains on organic development as the primary driver of growth across the group and the key source of shareholder value. We will continue to consider M&A where it enhances or accelerates organic development and where we're the natural owner of something. The level of M&A spend will vary period to period depending on opportunities that arise, but our primary focus remains organic.
On STM, the main driver of the growth pickup so far has been continued development and further rollout of higher value-add AI-enabled tools. We believe that's what will continue to drive growth for many years. We're very early in the rollout stage of these tools in the science and research industry. Scopus AI, for example, continues to do well and is on the same path as in Legal but adoption is a bit slower because the customer base is more fragmented and decision cycles take longer — roughly 50% longer in many cases. However, users and usage are growing quickly, and LeapSpace is similarly adding significant value in the very early stages. We've also done this in several other smaller areas of the company, such as medical education with SurePath AI. Combining products with AI capability has led to double-digit growth in some subsegments. There are many opportunities across Elsevier to build tools that increase value, user engagement and usage, and therefore growth, but in STM growth will likely come through more gradually due to fragmentation and longer decision cycles.
On Exhibitions and the Middle East: the shows yet to run in the region represent about 3% of divisional revenue or less than 0.5% of group revenue. We have rescheduled some into the second half and are planning to run most of them, but there is uncertainty around how they perform. I would focus on the other 97% of the portfolio where we're seeing strong ongoing growth — that's the key focus going forward.
Two questions. First, the U.S. administration has made announcements on scientific research funding that are getting headlines. The most relevant to RELX is the OMB proposal to make journal subscription costs and APCs unallowable expenses on federal research awards. From conversations we understand these proposals could have a real chance of being enacted for 2027. With 10% of global research federally funded and perhaps 40% of open access funded, could you talk through how these proposals would impact RELX if introduced? What tools could Elsevier use to mitigate a potentially impactful proposal? Second, on Legal: there have been publicized announcements from AI-native players in Legal such as Harvey and Logora, suggesting rapid scaling with combined ARR in excess of $400 million and strong user growth. You talked about healthy adoption of your workflow products. Could you give any comparable metrics on engagement or revenue to help us assess market share?
On policy changes and the OMB proposal: the pace of growth in scientific research is clear from our numbers — scientists are operating faster, discoveries are happening faster, and they're using new tools that increase productivity, which drives submission volumes. Government policy in individual countries changes over time, and different measures have been introduced historically. The fundamental global drivers of scientific research remain the same, and that's what's ultimately going to drive the business going forward. We continue to provide our customers with choice so they can publish in journals that meet their funder criteria, and we've been doing that for a long time.
On Legal AI and the market: it's important to look broadly. The U.S. legal information space where we operate is an order-of-magnitude $5 billion market for information-based products. We are an information-based analytics and decision tools company and we increase value by AI-enabling those tools and adding process and workflow capabilities on top of verified, trusted content. The broader legal tech software space is an order-of-magnitude $25 billion today and many analysts believe it could grow to $75–$100 billion over the next decade. That larger workflow and software market is where many new providers will be active. We integrate analytics and AI capabilities inside our secure environment with verified content. We are not trying to be the leader across the entire workflow and software marketplace; instead, we aim to capture the opportunity in the information-based, content-driven analytics and decision tools. The presence and success of other players confirms the size and importance of the space, and we will capture a portion of that upside while focusing on areas where our content and analytics create differentiation. We have hundreds of thousands of users and many tens of thousands of institutional customers paying for our products with high usage of these tools.
Just to come back on the OMB proposals around journal subscription costs and APCs: is it fair to understand from your comments that you wouldn't expect any meaningful impact in the event of the introduction of those reforms?
We provide our customers with the choices they need so they can publish in journals that meet their funder requirements. We've been doing that for a long time, and we see no reason why we couldn't continue to provide those choices and manage through policy changes.
Three questions. This year you've completed around 80% of the announced buyback program in the first half compared with roughly two-thirds to 70% in recent years. Stepping back from timing of execution, does the larger and faster deployment of capital into buybacks reflect a different assessment of the relative attractiveness of buybacks versus other uses of capital, such as M&A or organic investment? I know you said organic remains the priority. Second, on Risk: Risk has delivered around 8% organic growth for a number of years despite its scale. Looking at the different subdivisions, what ultimately determines the sustainable growth rate of that business and where do you see the greatest scope to outperform? Third, a quick one on the Doc acquisition you proposed in April: could you elaborate on what you think that brings which would have been difficult or time-consuming to build internally and how you think about the broader M&A space in Legal AI?
On buybacks: no change in our overall approach to capital allocation. The primary focus is supporting the business, primarily through organic development, which is the key driver of growth and value creation for shareholders. We will continue to look at M&A to enhance and accelerate organic development where appropriate, and the amount we spend will vary by period. After capital investment and M&A priorities, we think about returns to shareholders, with the dividend being a priority and buybacks acting as the balancing figure to keep leverage in the right range. We're mindful of where the share price is and we use the leverage range of 2 to 2.5x thoughtfully.
On Risk, over the last decade we've averaged around 8% annual growth in that division, generally in a 7–9% range excluding the early COVID disruption. The main driver of that consistent growth is continued development and rollout of higher value-add decision tools. Typically it takes about five years to fully roll out a product across the industry. The industries we serve are regulated and complex, so rollout and adoption take time. Technology today might allow faster development, but the customers' adoption cycles still take time. For Risk to permanently grow faster, we'd need several subunits to pick up simultaneously. We believe that's possible and we aim for it, but it's not something to assume will happen consistently.
On the Doc acquisition you referenced: it's an example of the sort of bolt-on M&A we pursue to enhance and accelerate organic development. The company (referred to in our remarks as Doin) has been around for about a decade building a valuable content set in France, with workflow tools and AI around those content sets that complement what we do in France. It's the sort of thing we think we're the natural owner of and an example of the acquisitions we're interested in, though it's relatively small at the group level.
Three quick ones. First, on Claude for Science: any particular comments on uptake of LeapSpace or feedback from customers in terms of using Claude for Science relative to LeapSpace? Second, remind us on Arabian travel: how big are international — specifically Western — visitor or exhibitor numbers for that particular show in percentage terms? And third, on travel: and on like-for-like growth at 6%, which is below previous years, you referenced travel disruption; do you mean specifically in the Middle East overall or is that 6% being affected by something else?
On Claude for Science and similar model offerings: many providers will offer models with workflow layers for science. These tools are designed to support the conduct of science itself — for example in drug development — and we think they are positive enablers of productivity in science. Anything that improves the productivity of scientists or the productivity of spend on science is a positive driver for our business. LeapSpace supports research workflow, idea generation, literature exploration, collaboration, funding analysis and drafting within a verified, trusted, secure and confidential environment focused on researchers' work. We see Claude for Science and other provider tools as complementary positive enablers of scientific discovery and therefore positive for our market rather than direct competition.
On Arabian travel and Exhibitions: those shows yet to run in the region for Exhibitions are about 3% of divisional revenues or less than 0.5% of group revenue. One particular show is heavily international but in the context of the group is small — keep that scale in mind. On the 6% growth in Exhibitions in the first half and the reference to travel disruption: we were referring to travel from and through the Middle East to our other events. Participants traveling from the Middle East or through the region to other events had some effect, which moderated the ongoing growth in Exhibitions slightly in the first half.
On STM: what should we expect from the settlement made by Anthropic with publishers? It seems to me it could be almost 1% of STM revenues. Will it show up as revenue and operating profit at the same time? Will it fall in H2 this year or FY '27? Anything you can say would be helpful. Second, on print: the resilience of print profit was very good in H1. Is that the pattern we should expect for the full year '26?
On legal settlements, I won't comment on individual legal settlements. However, any receipt from a legal settlement is not revenue; it's treated as an offset within costs, as are the expenses of defending such matters. On print, our objective is to reduce exposure over time to remaining print activity. You saw another step down in revenue in the first half. We're doing that through outsourcing, joint ventures and other mechanisms, so the natural decline continues but some actions accelerate that decline while we aim to hold onto as much profit as possible during the transition. A continued high single-digit decline in print profit is in the territory we've been in and we expect to continue to manage it going forward.
Two quick questions. First, both Legal and STM ticked over to 6% and 10% respectively. You tweaked STM outlook up to 'continued strong', but you didn't alter the Legal outlook language from 'continued strong.' Can you briefly talk about how you view the sustainability of the acceleration in Legal? And does 'strong' stop at 10% or could 11% also be described as 'strong'? Second, in Insurance: as auto risk evolves with advanced safety features and autonomous driving, should we think of this as a shift in the type of data required rather than a reduction in data demand? Are you evolving your data sets beyond traditional driver characteristics toward vehicle usage, location and other signals?
On our language: 6% and above is what we refer to as 'strong' — that's the terminology we use consistently. You shouldn't read more into the specific wording beyond that.
We have said repeatedly that our objectives for both Legal and STM are to continue the improving growth trajectories. We've had a tick up in Legal's growth rate recently; much of our Legal base is subscription — roughly 85% — and STM is also majority subscription at around 80%. That subscription base means growth improvement tends to come through gradually rather than in sharp, rapid ticks every quarter. We think we're at the beginning of capturing the upside from AI-enabled tools in our products over several years. Regarding autonomous driving, the industry — insurers, car manufacturers and technology vendors — will evolve and use different data sets. Historically when safety features are introduced, accident frequency often drops but repair severity rises. That increases complexity and creates opportunities for us to add value by integrating new and varied data sources. As vehicles and their systems become more complex, the interaction between manual, partially and fully autonomous vehicles will create decades of complexity. That increases demand for data and more sophisticated models. We have increased the number and sophistication of data sets we collect, including some sourced from manufacturers on software and technology interactions, and we expect to continue evolving our models to address these needs.
Ladies and gentlemen, with no further questions in the question queue, we have reached the end of the question-and-answer session. I will now hand back to the CEO, Erik Engstrom, for closing remarks.
Thank you all for joining us today. I enjoyed talking to you, and I look forward to speaking with you again soon.