[[Home|🏠]] <span style="color: LightSlateGray">></span> [[Interviews]] <span style="color: LightSlateGray">></span> February 12 2025 **Insider**: [[Adam Spice]] **Source**: [TD Cowan 46th Annual Aerospace & Defense Conference](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-VRTqB5rbA) **Date**: February 12 2025  🔗 Backup Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-VRTqB5rbA ## 🎙️ Transcript >[!hint] Transcript may contain errors or inaccuracies. **Moderator:** Good morning, thanks everyone for attending here. This is the morning session at the TD Cowan conference, and we're very excited to welcome Rocket Lab CFO Adam Spice. **Adam Spice:** Thanks for having me. **Moderator:** I think maybe you have a presentation to start off with? **Adam Spice:** I'll run through perhaps 10-15 minutes of overview, and then we'll jump into any questions. ### Company Overview **Adam Spice:** I'm sure many people are familiar with Rocket Lab, and people really associate us as a rocket company - it's not a totally unforeseen conclusion given the name "Rocket Lab." But what people don't appreciate is the fact that over 70% of our revenue is actually generated from non-launch related activity, what we call our broader space systems business. We have a launch business where today we have a small dedicated launcher called Electron that can put 300 kgs into lower Earth orbit. It's the market-leading solution for small dedicated launch. I believe as of earlier this week we had our 59th launch, so it's a very established vehicle. Electron is a small dedicated launcher that really provides a lot of value to our customers - very different than, for example, a rideshare or a large dedicated rocket. It serves a very unique purpose in the market, and we are by far and away the market leader in that segment. As many people are aware, we're developing a medium launcher called Neutron. Neutron is targeted to be brought to the market later this year. Neutron will address what we think is a significant gap or opportunity in the market in the medium class launch where SpaceX and Falcon 9 really dominate. It's a vehicle delivering 13 ton to lower Earth orbit. If you compare that to a Falcon 9, which is around 16.5 ton to lower Earth orbit, it addresses that market which, if you think about the ecosystem and how constellation customers have developed their businesses and architected their satellite solutions, has really been focused around vehicles that look a lot like a Falcon 9. We think bringing Neutron to market when we are is an opportune time given there are a lot of new constellations coming to market, not only in the commercial market but also on the government side. So I mentioned that's the rocket piece - that makes about 30% of our revenue. About 70% comes from space systems, which is a combination of spacecraft where we sell merchant subsystems into the market - things like solar panels, reaction wheels, star trackers, command and control software, and other things that help other people make satellites. Key customers there are people like Lockheed, Northrop, York, and others. Ultimately our goal is to be able to put our own assets on orbit. We think our ability to design spacecraft, manufacture them at scale, and launch them either on a small dedicated rocket or on a medium-class rocket allows us to do that in a very rapid and cost-effective way that will give us a significant advantage in the market. ### Rocket Lab at a Glance We're a much more diversified company than people would normally assume. We've grown very quickly - when I joined the company about 7 years ago, we had about 100 employees. Now we have over 2,000 employees spread across five US states, New Zealand, and Canada. We operate three launch pads today: two launch pads in New Zealand and one in Wallops Island, Virginia for Electron. We're building a second pad at Wallops Island for Neutron. We have significant manufacturing operations to address both the rocket side of the business (bifurcated between the US and New Zealand) and our space systems business, which also manufactures products in Canada, US, and New Zealand. ### Global Footprint We operate on a pretty diverse basis. The company got started in New Zealand, so we have a significant presence there with around 800 of our roughly 2,200 employees located there. It's a significant advantage for us - the cost of labor is quite a bit lower than you'd find in the US, particularly on the engineering side. It's a location that's scaled very quickly for us and has been a continued strategic advantage. We then expanded through organic and inorganic means across the United States. We've acquired in Canada, and we've acquired four companies in the last several years, right around the time that we came public: 1. The first company we acquired was Sinclair Interplanetary in Toronto that did reaction wheels and star trackers, or what's called attitude direction and control components. That's been a very successful high-growth business for us. 2. Then we acquired a software company called ASI that interfaced with those command and control components to orient satellites on orbit. 3. Then we acquired a company called Planetary Systems Corporation that makes separation systems. If you think about it - you have a rocket, you put a spacecraft on the rocket, the separation system is what deploys the spacecraft from the rocket. It's a very critical step in getting assets on orbit. Those separation systems are used not only on our vehicles but also on essentially almost every rocket that launches in the western world. 4. Lastly, we acquired a company called SolAero which gave us the capacity to make high-volume, high-quality, space-grade solar cells. That's been a default supplier into a lot of national security missions where you need high efficiency, high reliability, long-life solar power generation. So it's a very diverse business across lots of different geographies and has been growing very quickly. ### Customer Diversity If you look at our customer roster, it's very diverse as well. If you look at the mix, it's about 50/50 commercial versus government, but within government, it's split relatively evenly between civil and defense. This is the factually correct depiction of our customer base, but when you peel that commercial level back, most of those commercial customers are also government-dependent. If you really look at our customers, it's probably more north of 80% that have a strong government-driven demand for the business. That's where we like it to be because there's always been a lot of hope and dreams about commercial space. I think we're seeing a lot of those come to fruition now, but we really believe you have to have that solid government background because that's what pays the bills historically. We're actually in a very unique time now because things like the Defense Department's initiatives like SDA (Space Development Agency) and their proliferated Low Earth Orbit architecture has created a government hockey stick that we've never seen before. We're able to take advantage of that through our space systems manufacturing business but also ultimately through launch. ### Launch Vehicles Electron is a multi-faceted vehicle - we can deliver payloads to orbit with Electron, but we also have a variant called Haste. Haste is being used to support hypersonics test development programs for government customers. Right now it's all US government customers, but ultimately we think there could be a bigger opportunity to work with other friendly nations. Neutron will be coming to market later this year. We are the second most frequently launched vehicle behind SpaceX in the western world. Having launched Electron now 59 times, it's a very established, proven vehicle. I get the question all the time: "Why would somebody choose to go on Electron versus a SpaceX rideshare?" When you try to compare them side by side, people ask, "Why would you pay in some cases four times more to be on Electron versus being on a SpaceX rideshare?" The answer is if you need very unique orbital insertion requirements, you're not going to get that on a rideshare. Rideshares are like city buses - they have a defined route and go to popular destinations. If you want to go to a bespoke destination, you really need a dedicated ride. If you have a small satellite, you don't want to put it on a large expensive rocket; you want the smallest rocket that you can. That's what defines and supports the small dedicated launch market. ### Infrastructure We own more infrastructure than most would imagine. We actually have our own privately owned and controlled launch range in New Zealand with tremendous access to launch on a very frequent basis. We don't think launch access for Electron is ever going to be a practical issue. We own two pads there for resiliency and redundancy, and we also have the pad at Wallops Island, Virginia, which is a NASA range. We'll have a second launch pad there for Neutron that's well advanced in its development, so we'll be able to amortize the cost of Wallops operations across two vehicles. ### Neutron Development Neutron addresses what we see as a monopoly today that SpaceX has in the medium launch category. It was a monopoly created out of performance because it's hard to knock SpaceX - they've done amazing things. The commercial and government customers are grateful that capacity exists, but there are customers that would prefer not to put their spacecraft in the hands of an arch competitor. Also, the US government customer needs diversity of supply. Neutron is the right vehicle - it's a very modern vehicle compared to even the Falcon 9 when you look at the carbon composite materials for the tanks and structures and the engine architectures. We're bringing the latest and greatest to market embodied in Neutron. Rocket Lab always does very aggressive things, and bringing Neutron to market in the timeframe and cost that we're doing it is no different. Most rocket programs take close to a decade to develop; we're bringing this to market in a much shorter period - three to four years. When we came public in August 2021, we were targeting the end of 2024. We've had a bit of a slip to that schedule and have communicated no earlier than the middle of this year. But when you look at the time scale and add in how much more capital efficient we are in bringing that vehicle to market, it's a combination of things that creates a tremendous amount of shareholder value. We've been able to begin signing up customers for Neutron. The challenge with bringing a new rocket to market is that it's almost a codependent dance with your customer. What you don't want to do as a satellite operator is commit to a vehicle that may not be ready when your satellites are ready. Time is money, and they need to deploy their assets to start generating revenue. The worst they can do is sign up and then wait for two years for the rocket to make it to the pad. Same thing on the rocket developer side - you don't want to sign up sketchy customers or ones that you don't think will deliver their spacecraft on time. If you look at our history now of operating Electron across 59 launches, the launch delays we experience are rarely driven by the rocket - it's almost always caused by satellite delivery. Our satellite customers absolutely want to get their assets on orbit as quickly as possible, but satellites are very complex machines. You build them, put them in their test environment, and something could fail at the last minute, requiring remediation and retesting. This highlights the importance of having a mature business with a robust pipeline because it presents opportunities to shift things around if one customer is late. That's one of the reasons why customers pay the premium to be on Electron - because of that flexibility. They know that if they're late by a month or two, they're not going to get put to the back of the line and rescheduled 12-18 months later. ### Space Systems Space Systems is the lesser-known part of Rocket Lab but represents over 70% of our revenues. We build full spacecraft solutions - the first one we did at scale was with GlobalStar MDA. We built the satellite buses for that program, and those are coming off the production line now and will be teed up for launch relatively soon. We followed that with a large contract with the DoD to win a Tranche 2 Beta award for the SDA program. We went from our first contract award of about $150 million to a second award which is over half a billion dollars. We have other programs as well that are more small, bespoke programs, including two satellites we manufactured last year that will ultimately orbit Mars to do scientific research for NASA. People ask why we're building spacecraft for other people. There are financial attributes - we're generating cash flow and scaling up the business. But all the programs we've elected to take on in our space systems group have been about building our IP portfolio. The real strategy is ultimately owning our own assets on orbit. We go with what we call "teaching customers" where we don't take a program that won't allow us to create new capabilities really at our customers' cost. It's a capital-effective way to do it rather than a "field of dreams" approach. We work with customers to develop technology, bring it to market, and then we own that technology for our own benefit down the road. We have multiple variants of our satellite platforms, from small satellites that launch on Electron to much larger ones that will launch on Neutron and currently launch on other vehicles like the Falcon 9. We're incredibly vertically integrated - if you look at a Rocket Lab spacecraft solution, the satellite bus is probably 70% internally manufactured with all the subsystems. That's important because without vertical integration, you can't control cost and schedule, which typically are the boogeyman of space programs. The one thing we've currently stopped short of is the payload side. We've focused on all the key elements of the satellite bus, and the next step will be adding payload capabilities so that we can bring the full solution to customers and for our own internal needs. Through our acquisitions and organic work, we've built a tremendous amount of space heritage, which is incredibly important in this market. It manifests itself in important financial ways - it's not a market where people make quick choices to save a few bucks on a key subsystem. Once you have that heritage and legacy for a subsystem, customers don't want to risk a mission by trying to shave costs for a new entrant. Once you're in, it's usually a pretty stable, predictable business. ### Backlog and Financial Performance We exited last quarter with over a billion dollars in backlog. The backlog is representative of the overall mix of the business, though recently it skewed a bit more to the full systems build because of that large SDA contract. It's roughly an 80/20 mix right now between space systems and launch. That will change as Neutron becomes more dominant in the backlog and in production. We like that mix of two-thirds to three-quarters of the business coming from space systems and roughly a quarter to a third coming from launch. Launch can be an unpredictable, lumpy business where you recognize revenue at the point in time when you launch the rocket. On the space system side, we have a lot of ship-and-bill from our components business, plus the larger spacecraft manufacturing programs where you're recognizing revenue as you're deploying resources and incurring costs against the program. It's much more programmatic, and you can model and predict your revenue and profits more predictably. We've been able to exceed the $100 million revenue per quarter threshold. The guidance for the fourth quarter that we provided several months ago was to be in the $125 to $135 million range. The business is growing very rapidly, with growth in both the launch business and our space systems business. The layering of our backlog has enabled that steady climb up and to the right, but we're still in the very early stages of developing this business. Volatility and lumpiness is going to be the nature of what we do until the ecosystem develops more fully and our customers get their business to the point where they're more predictable in delivering a steady stream of spacecraft. We've had steady expansion of our gross margins. The focus right now is our operating expenses and particularly R&D spend because we're putting a tremendous amount of capital towards bringing Neutron to market as quickly as possible. Investors are very focused on when we have that turning point - when we turn into an EBITDA positive, cash flow positive business. That's totally dependent on Neutron because that's the only part of our business today that's really consuming capital, and it's consuming in a major way. The beautiful thing is once you get the rocket to the pad, you can take a significant step down in R&D. You continue to invest in the vehicle as it matures, and you typically do several block upgrades before the vehicle gets largely frozen from an R&D perspective. That's when the real margin expansion comes into focus. Once you get that first rocket to the pad, you can start to have a much more predictable roll-off of that heavy R&D and capex spend. ### Q&A Session **Moderator:** [00:20:39] Thanks, Adam. I definitely want to hit on space systems a lot. Also, you guys haven't reported Q4 yet, so I don't want to get ahead of anything, but it looks like launch cadence was pretty good in Q4. I think you guys came in at 16 launches. It was down a little bit from your initial expectations at the start of the year, and you did talk about some of the customer readiness and lumpiness. Maybe just to start off at a high level, talk about the economics of launch - it's not unattractive, right? So maybe talk about the progress billings and the cash cycle, the underlying economics to start off with. **Adam Spice:** [00:21:17] The launch business is a very high fixed cost business. You have launch ranges to maintain, a lot of testing facilities to test your engines and so forth. The profitability of that business is really dependent upon cadence. As you mentioned, we've grown the business quite nicely in 2024 - we went from 10 launches in '23 to 16 in '24, so that's a pretty nice growth rate year-on-year. We came into the year with 22 launches on the manifest and delivered 16. The delta between the 16 and the 22 was all customer readiness, which is the one thing we really can't control at this point. What we do is continue to build the backlog, and hopefully we get to a point where you've got satellites sitting on the shelf waiting to go. When one customer slips, since we own our own range in New Zealand, we can swap launches in and out. We've got ability to compensate for customer lumpiness, but it's going to take a little more ecosystem development for that to really be the case because a lot of our customers are new themselves, so it's difficult for them to have confidence in delivering things on schedule. Our margin model for that business - we think that Electron can be a 40-45% gross margin business when we're launching twice a month. We're not quite at that rate yet, but based on going from 10 to 16 launches, and hopefully a number this year north of 20 launches per year, we start to get that in focus. There's very little R&D, if any, for Electron at this point, so you can imagine it gets to be a pretty nice contribution margin business. Neutron's going to take a few years to get there because it's just at the beginning of that process. Neutron is quite different in that it was designed from day one to be a reusable launch vehicle, versus Electron that we've been backing our way into reusability. We think that Neutron can be a 50%-ish gross margin business and have a lot of the same characteristics as Electron. This is not a "let's see what happens" situation - we've launched 59 times, we've got a lot of infrastructure, we understand what it costs to bring a rocket program and maintain it. We think pushing 50 points of margin, mid-20s to upper 20s operating contribution margin for those vehicles is probably the right way to think about it, but it will take a few years for Neutron to get there. We're pretty close to getting there with Electron. **Moderator:** [00:23:47] And looking forward, you have Neutron coming up here hopefully mid-25. How should we think about the cadence and ultimate split between Electron and Neutron at steady state? **Adam Spice:** [00:24:06] The market opportunities for those vehicles are quite different. Neutron was developed as a constellation deployer, while Electron was developed more as a bespoke mission support where you're testing new technologies out in orbit - what we call "pathfinder" type of technology missions. There are some constellations that can deploy in their totality on a small launch vehicle, particularly in the earth observation market, and we've got a lot of customers there that use us for that. But the scale opportunity for Neutron is different. We don't plan on doing rideshares like a SpaceX Transporter - we don't think that's the right approach for this vehicle. It's really going after large constellations. It's a bit too early to speak specific names, but there's obviously the government NSSL program opportunities, government launch opportunities outside of NSSL like with NASA, and ultimately we hope that the satellites we're building for SDA will launch on Neutron. We think the market opportunities are similar, and if you look out in time and lay a Neutron and an Electron long scaling history, they're going to look very similar. You could probably lay them over top of each other pretty easily. **Moderator:** [00:25:33] On Neutron, because it's very topical, what should we be looking for going forward? What needs to happen for you guys to hold that mid-25 timeline, and maybe any updates on demand? I'm sure demand is still strong, but how should we think about future bookings? **Adam Spice:** [00:26:00] I'll save some of that for the earnings call, but I would say that the demand environment stays very strong. Pete and I have said before that we worry about a lot of things running a rocket company, but demand is not one of them. There's healthy demand - it's all about bringing the vehicle to market. Bringing a rocket to market is very challenging. I wasn't around when we brought Electron to market - I joined after the first test launch in late 2017 - but watching and being involved from a greenfield perspective, it's absolutely astonishing what it takes to bring a program like that together. We do incredibly ambitious things with ambitious targets. We've made steady progress - people can see almost on a daily basis the infrastructure coming together at Wallops, which gives an indication of where we are on that work stream. We provide pretty steady updates on propulsion testing and so forth. It's a rocket program, it's very difficult. If you look at New Glenn that launched maybe a month ago for the first time - that was supposed to launch in 2020. It's not uncommon for rocket programs to have lengthy delays, but fortunately Rocket Lab has an execution track record where we don't experience those kinds of things. We think we're positioned well to get Neutron to the pad in a timely manner. **Moderator:** [00:27:30] Just on the R&D profile of Neutron - where that curve goes, I think it was $300 million in R&D - and when we get over that curve and possibly to breakeven? **Adam Spice:** [00:27:51] When we came public, we said it was going to be a $250 to $300 million program to put the first rocket on the pad. That was never a number that embodied the cost to scale production and ramp. We're still very much in that ballpark, though it's looking a little bit north of $300 million to bring that first vehicle to the pad. You also have to put minimum viable infrastructure in place. Once you get the first test launch off, you're kind of at 80% of where you need to be from an infrastructure perspective, absent the demand signal from the market saying, "You guys underestimated demand, you need to scale up faster and in a more meaningful way," which might require more plant infrastructure or more pads. Given how we've planned the business, everything has pretty much come to cost and schedule. Across capex and R&D for Neutron in 2024, we were spending upwards of $40 million a quarter towards that effort. You're going to continue to see increased spend on Neutron until we get that first launch off, so the timing is really important. The cost of the program is relatively constrained - you spend a similar amount of money whether it's spread over 12 quarters or 16 quarters or 20 quarters. A lot of the cost is prototyping, and that cost isn't affected by time - sometimes your vendors are late in delivering or they're on time. It's difficult to predict the exact timing of when all those expenses hit, but in their totality, it's pretty predictable. **Moderator:** [00:29:46] On pricing, I know Peter's been very vocal about waiting until pricing matures. How confident are you today on pricing, and maybe talk broadly about the pricing environment for Electron too? **Adam Spice:** [00:30:05] The reason we're so consistent in our belief of not discounting is because this business is really difficult to execute in, and what you've found across the landscape is a lack of execution in general. Competitors can put crazy pricing out there, but some of those competitors are no longer around. Once that shadow pricing lifts because people realize that putting anything on a slide is different than delivering a rocket to a pad on a consistent basis that doesn't blow up, we've actually seen pricing increase. When we started marketing Electron, it was a $4.9 million price tag, and now our price backlog is about $8.3 million, so we've seen a steady increase. We don't think Neutron is going to be any different. We don't see any competition that concerns us on pricing for the medium class market. Today you've got Falcon 9, and we've seen Falcon 9 pricing increases. You can take an easy metric like cost per kilo, which is really a lazy metric because it assumes you're selling a completely full rocket. Many times, especially for a Falcon 9 launch that isn't a Starlink launch, they're rarely full. It's all about what it costs for a dedicated vehicle that's going to take your payload where you need to be. Right now, we've said pricing of Neutron is $50 to $55 million, which pegs on a price per kilo basis to a full Falcon 9, because they can do 16.5 ton and they sell that for roughly $67 million. The latest we've seen is that Falcon 9 at that pricing has been delivering about 70 points of gross margin. We don't think this is a margin-constrained, dog-eat-dog market at this point because very few people will show up with a working rocket in that class. Between ourselves and SpaceX, there's plenty of business, and if there are other entrants that attempt to enter the market, it's probably big enough for them as well - but they just have to deliver, and not many people have. **Moderator:** [00:32:33] Are there any questions in the audience? **Audience Question:** [00:32:44] [Question about international customers] **Adam Spice:** [00:32:44] We launch for a lot of international customers today on Electron. You see launches from companies like Synspective, which is a Japanese SAR company. We launched recently for Kinéis, which is a French earth observation/remote sensing company. Those fall in that commercial customer category, but when you peel that onion back, it's government but foreign government. I would say we see that to be strong. Probably one of the strongest growing parts of our business is actually the Haste variant of Electron that I showed earlier, which is doing hypersonics test development work for the DoD. That will continue to be a big growth driver for our Electron business going forward. We see nothing but strength. People ask if we're concerned about the potential BRAC effect of the new administration going through the defense department. We actually think that bodes well for us because we're not that traditional, stodgy prime contractor cost-plus. We go in with aggressive firm-fixed price opportunities that bring a lot of value to the government customer, and we move very quickly. The heightened focus on efficiency and affordability plays to our strengths, so the trends have been very positive. I was at a conference a few months ago where people were complaining about the government customer and how slow they move and how complex they are. I've not found that to be the case - I actually find them to be easier and preferred to deal with than commercial customers in many ways. **Moderator:** [00:34:21] Off of that whole thinking around the government and moving to your space systems business - the SDA Tranche 2 - it seems like the government is getting more aggressive with going away from traditional primes. If you look at the growth trajectory of LEO, it seems like it's got a lot of legs. Maybe talk through Tranche 2 specifically but also going forward on other tranches and the growth opportunity there. **Adam Spice:** [00:34:50] This is one of those unique opportunities where the government has gone from being the slow, predictable, stodgy part of your customer base to representing one of the stronger hockey sticks. The SDA has presented an opportunity for small players to establish themselves. Even though you do see Lockheed and Northrop in those programs, you also see people like York, ourselves, Terran Orbital (which now got bought by Lockheed), Sierra Space, and so forth. It represents a huge growth opportunity for the non-traditional players, but that's come with its own challenges. There have been some supply chain challenges - if you go back a year and a half ago, the big challenge was electric propulsion, which seems to have largely been solved. Now the challenge has moved to optical terminals. I think it's just part of the growing pains of introducing younger companies and newer technologies into a market that traditionally moves slowly, while the government customer is trying to move very quickly. Overall, stepping back, it seems to be a great opportunity. We're excited about Tranche 3 - we're going to be throwing our hat in the ring in a very aggressive way for that as well. We think it's a very attractive long-term growth opportunity for us and hopefully a lot of other smaller players in the market. **Moderator:** [00:36:24] Remind us when Tranche 3 is - is that an RFP later this year? **Adam Spice:** [00:36:31] Yes, you should start to see indications. I think the award dates are going to be sometime in late Q2, early Q3. **Moderator:** [00:36:37] In the interest of time - just turning to the strategy, you guys have morphed from dedicated launch to this big space systems business. Where do you see the business in 5-10 years from now? **Adam Spice:** [00:36:58] I think, love him or hate him, Elon has shown us the model that works - an end-to-end vertically integrated space company. We think life as a launch-only company is probably not the most hospitable place to be because it's lumpy, takes a lot of capex, and has its challenges. We don't want to be just a "metal bender" satellite manufacturer. We really want to be an end-to-end player that can bring everything together in a very vertically integrated way. You don't want to deal with what has historically been lower margin contract manufacturing on the satellite side, and you want to control your destiny. To do that, you have to have all the various pieces of that overall satellite system. To us, that paves the way to owning your own assets in orbit - that larger, much larger recurring revenue opportunity. If you have a rocket and the ability to design, build, and operate spacecraft on orbit, you've got all the pieces you need. There are other elements you may need to pull together, like spectrum in some cases if you're doing a comms platform, or end customer relationships for a remote sensing business. This is where we think ultimately it's probably going to be a combination of organic growth, partnerships, and acquisitions that get us there. If you're a satellite constellation operator 5 or 10 years from now and you're trying to compete with vertically integrated companies that have their own launch and satellite manufacturing capability, it's going to be a daunting place to be. I'm not sure traditional satellite operators know what their next move is looking at Starlink and SpaceX as competitors, because they're getting outpaced on the ability to put assets on orbit quickly at a very reduced cost. We think you have to have that full solution. Five years from now, I think you're going to see Rocket Lab with Electron still launching and growing, a healthy merchant business that feeds off the overall growth in the ecosystem, but then you're also going to see us with our own assets and owning applications that are advantaged by the fact that we can put satellites up very quickly and cost-effectively with Neutron. **Moderator:** [00:39:28] Looking forward to it! Well, we're out of time, but thank you so much Adam for supporting us here. **Adam Spice:** [00:39:33] Thanks for having me. Appreciate it.