STB Greenlights UPNS Merger Application…With Conditions

The Surface Transportation Board hit the industry with a surprise May 28th when it suddenly came in with a ruling on the UPNS merger application. In our latest Talk Track episode, Harris + David start unpacking what the filing actually says + how the STB is currently looking like the winner in all this.

They cover the Board’s pretty pointed request for more competitive data, what the further hearings might mean, + how the industry as a whole is starting to position itself - from capital being closely held to contingency plans being made. Alongside all of this, they also turn the conversation towards the Build America 250 surface transportation bill - CRISI grants, telematics investment, + the two-person crew mandate, in particular. Freight railroads are truly a hot topic right now + we expect more headlines to come!

Talk Track, hosted by Harris Ligon + David Correll of Telegraph™, is a spin-off series dedicated to timely rail industry news. From service shakeups to technology breakthroughs, each episode delivers a behind-the-scenes perspective on all the happenings shaping the future of freight rail. 

Harris + David will bring their decades of rail experience to help them parse through the latest industry headlines, evolving regulations, + the long-term forecasts for how railroads move freight across North America. Find us at telegraph.io/insights, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts. 

About Our Hosts

Harris Ligon is the co-founder + CEO of Telegraph. Prior to launching Telegraph, he spent nearly 15 years in surface transportation at Uber Freight, Norfolk Southern, + BNSF Railway. During this time, he led teams in operations, strategy, business development, + product development. 

David Correll is the Director of Freight Market Intelligence at Telegraph. He has spent two decades in transportation and logistics with the US Department of Transportation, the US Department of Energy, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Clark University.

About Telegraph

Telegraph is a leader in delivering digital solutions to railroads, shippers, logistics service providers, terminals, + railcar leasing companies. With an integrated platform that prov...

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:06

Hello and welcome back to TalkTrack, a Telegraph podcast where we talk about and respond to the news of the day that affects the railroading community. And by that, we're casting a pretty wide tent. We mean, of course, the railroads, the shippers, the railcar lessors, really everyone who's watching this space. I'm joined as always today by Telegraph co-founder and CEO Harris Liggan. And today's topic is basically a pretty busy May news roundup. Harris, there's a few things I'd like to kind of go back and forth with you on. I want to make sure we get to the recent STB decision on the UPNS merger. I know we've had internal conversations about that. Let's bring some of those to the light. I'm particularly interested in the new surface transportation bill that came out of the House and what's in there and what that might mean for railroaders. So there's a lot to get to, but let's start at the top. The STB, I think, surprised some folks with a ruling on the fitness of the application packet for the UPNS merger. How did that news hit you?

SPEAKER_01 1:08

Yeah, I I'm so happy to be back here with you because the last time we talked about this exact topic, why disagreement? I was ready for it, and I I uh so in talking about this today, it's uh it's May 28th, right? It's Thursday. I was not expecting a STB ruling today. And and I'm candidly highly confident that many other folks were not as well. They had up until June 30th, I believe, to kind of go through the process. So when I initially read it in all of its government ease and uh and thought about digesting all of the different kinds of um points around it, I wasn't surprised that they accepted it. I was surprised by all the conditions with which it was accepted. So I think the first thing that that kind of caught me off guard was we accepted, but we need you to still submit a bunch of different information across the competitive nature of the merger. I think switching access. There are a lot of different topics that that kind of were were embedded in there. They're also holding further hearings in abeyance until they get that information, which to me, as kind of thinking through it, felt a little more like um a little bit of pacing the process, right? So there is there's an idea that you know, with the way that the STB operates and many other government organizations, depending on when you file and when you submit information, you can compress the timeline with which other agencies or other parties have to review that specific information. And so it feels like the STB took a very thoughtful approach in saying, hey, we're not really gonna move on the process until we get these additional data points was how how I interpreted. Again, still still fresh off the press. I candidly was very surprised at it.

SPEAKER_00 3:02

You know, I I would agree with you, and and I think that's a compelling point that no one planned their day around expecting this decision. You know, it sort of dropped, and and you saw the headlines respond. I guess a couple things to to bring to that. And and the first one really supports that point is so the the thing came out, and you and I started talking about it, and then the headlines started coming out, and gosh, they are in two separate swim lanes. I mean, there's a group of headlines that say this reduces the likelihood of merger merger approval, this is a big bump in the road. And there's another set of headlines that said, hey, look, the application was approved, isn't this great? So to my mind, that bifurcation of you know trade press coverage is notable. To me, you know, so if you say who won, frankly, I think both sides can claim some victory, both those who are, you know, for the merger, they can say, look, this thing was accepted, it didn't have to be accepted. The people who are against it can say with these conditions, and and I do think we should talk about some of those. But just, you know, is someone really interested in governance? I think the STB really won the day today. I mean, if you look at that 42-page document, I was so struck by how thoroughly they are reading the comments, the public comments, and responding to public comments, even by name at some points, which is you know, somebody who has been in government above and beyond performance, frankly, to say like we are going through everything people have said about this, and we are taking seriously those claims, we are referencing those concerns, and we are tracking down the data to address them. I think, in its in the best sense of the term, the bureaucracy really showed up strong in this ruling. In a good way. In a good way. In a good way, yes, yes, in in a way that it's supposed to function. You know, you know, leadership, particularly elected leadership, comes with vision and they are elected with mandate. And the bureaucracy sort of has the function of being that glue that holds things together between different visions. And in the best sense, I think that's what we saw today. Does it change the outcome of if this thing will be approved? I personally don't think so, but I do think the the bureaucracy really outperformed in in this ruling.

SPEAKER_01 5:15

Yeah, so as somebody who, you know, when I think about rules and bureaucracy, it's something that I tend to be averse to. Um so when I when I read this today, I I I just felt a sense that we are we're actually following a set of rules. We're go we're aligning to some guidelines. And candidly, if if this is if this is to win and pass and process, it does demand every ounce of scrutiny that should be provided. Because if if the merits are truly there, then it should pass with fine colors, is is the way that I that I view this. And so asking for the additional information, uh, accommodating a better time frame logically just made made sense to me. I thought it was interesting, some of the very specific and pointed requests that did come through in that in the filing, um, because it is very clear that that the Surface Transportation Board, and I think more broadly, on like the rail regulate regulatory standpoint, is there's wide acknowledgement that there is more information available today in 2026 than there ever has been before. And there are many methods with which you can gather and bring that data in and visualize it and talk about it. I mean, that Kennedy, that's that's that's a lot of what you and I spend a lot of time doing. But it's been really interesting that there has been a clear lean in to transparency, and to echo a point that you made, seeing the kind of somewhat individualized and very personalized comments that came back, I think is is is echoing that. And so I I didn't I didn't walk away from that filing today feeling like this is just a rubber stamp, which I think you may disagree with a little bit.

SPEAKER_00 7:05

Yeah, no, no, I I didn't get a rubber stamp feel at all. I just still think uh, you know, to to quote the great railroad observer Leonard Cohen, uh I still think those dice are loaded. I mean, I don't think that there's anything in this data that is going to materially affect the potential decision. However, I think the evidentiary record of what this merger will mean, particularly against the yardstick it has to be measured against, which is for the first time ever, enhancing competition, that record will be fuller than it's ever been. So I still think the decision lives on sort of higher ground, but the evidentiary record that the STB is compelling is an impressive one.

SPEAKER_01 7:48

No, I I I would I would agree. So I think surprising, uh depending on where where you sit on the spectrum, probably I I think welcome on both sides, because the way the way that I view it is it it has felt like the industry to a certain extent is somewhat on pause today. Like let's just let's just be clear. If if this is something that you are planning for and you are a part of a partnership, you are making very specific decisions with your capital plans, on your PL, with your workforce, with your resources. You're making very um thoughtful decisions there, and you're probably not leaning in very much. I would say, on the contrary to that, if you are outside that potential deal, you are probably having to make some second or third or even fourth level plans of a what if. What if I do have to respond to this to maintain my market position? What if I do have to respond to this and think about my network structure or how I might advance into certain markets? And so you're likely holding back some capital and maybe doing some things on your PL that allow that afford you the opportunity to play offense at some point in the future if you need to. I appreciated the fact that we're the process is still gonna move on. We've passed a gate, we clearly know what is being asked, and now a new timeline has been set. I I appreciate it from that perspective. Um, because the longer that this drags on, I I don't I don't think we're gonna see true material aggressive revitalization of the rail industry. I think we're gonna be generally more accepting of a status quo until we get a good readout.

SPEAKER_00 9:28

You know, that's an interesting point. I I still think the timeline, you know, they've promised to continue processing. They're not saying everything's stopping, they're saying certain things are held in a band, so that can be interpreted as impacting the timeline. But you know, on the other hand of that, I think no one expected this to come out today. It didn't have to be as timely as it was, and it was rather timely. There's also lots of new sophisticated tooling that that allows this board and their staff to analyze this stuff. So my vision of the timeline, I'm not fully convinced that we need to rewrite that for a year, as you know, I know some some people are saying in in their review of it. Another thing that really struck me, and this is really a little perhaps even a little bit counter to the the intuition I had coming into it, is that Oh so you're right. Uh you know, they came in and said, All right, well accept your packet as complete, and I think they even lean used leaned on the term complying with the narrow definition of completeness. So they said, you know, in this very narrow scoping, we're gonna call it complete. We want all these other things, and I was impressed by the two reasons they gave. One, you know, to a T, this is what the public has said they wanted to know about, so we're gonna compel that from you. Second, because this is the first time that anyone's ever had to judge on these new rules, we want to be really thorough, both heartening um arguments. But the other one that does run, you know, makes me think twice about some of my um perhaps cynicism coming into it is there was a ruling on um relief from a rule against ex-party communication, which I understand to basically mean the applicant said, could we just talk to you all directly instead of having to go through these channels? And I guess there is some legal precedent for that that the applicant stated. And the STB said, no, you haven't met that bar yet. You know, and if if if this were a meaningless procedure, then that would have been an easy way to um prove that. But they disproved it. They said no, we are still holding to the rules strong and fast, um, particularly on who's allowed to communicate with who.

SPEAKER_01 11:39

Yeah, and and look, I think going back, you know, I I think you you and I have talked about running uh a sub-segment here about the storyline that nobody is talking about. And so I think the storyline that nobody is talking about is the fact that the SCB has not only held firm, and I'm not in any way, shape, or form judging that they have taken a step in any way, shape, I think they're just being very cognizant of what they represent, the levity of the situation, and that that is candidly, that is just a a breath of fresh air. And so I'm really, I'm really, really excited about that. Um, other storylines, not a ton of people are talking about, but I think when we talk, when we think about the broader um revitalization of the rail industry, how we're kind of thinking about that, I think historically, right? I think we all know, right, the railroads wouldn't exist in the way that they do today had it not been for the large land grants that came through in the 1800s. And so there is an interesting connection with the history of kind of government support and the rail industry. And so I think um one of the things that you mentioned at the outset is talking a little bit more about that Build America 250 Act. Like, bring us up to speed on what's kind of going there.

SPEAKER_00 12:52

Yeah, I think that's a great way into the sort of current history around that. So just for people who don't you know watch the space regularly, every new administration has a chance, we're really an obligation to reauthorize the surface transportation bill, which is just a fancy way of saying that the bill that funds things like highway programs, you know, grants for bridges, all of the surface transportation, uh railroad and the highway work has to sort of be revisited, and every administration has the opportunity in the reauthorization of that funding to impose their own vision on it. So people might be familiar with the last one. Uh it was sometimes called the bipartisan infrastructure law. A lot of big infrastructure was funded as part of the Biden administration's surface transportation authorization bill. A new one had to be done, it has to be done by September. And we just saw the first draft come out of the House Committee this week. I think, you know, to your point, what's really interesting there is at the time that it came out well take a step back. At the time that the current sitting Congress and the administration was running that committee, you know, there were hearings, and we watched those hearings pretty closely as part of what we do with market intelligence. And remember, that was the time of of Doge. So there were witnesses in those hearings saying, please don't cut everything away. We still need CRISI grants. We still need investment in American infrastructure to remain competitive. Because at that time, really the ethos was slash and burn. So I think one of the first things to think about is this bill is the first chance to see what this administration wants to do with service transportation. There was a concern that it was going to be dramatically cut support for programs. And so far we haven't seen that. The draft bill that came out actually continues to support you know, namely Chrissy grants, railroad people will know that, and some other things. It speaks to, I think, your point on the government wants to stay involved in in railroading. And then two ways that I think are really exciting, maybe we can think about, particularly to the t the telegraph community, what it means. The government wants to get involved in telematics. You know, we've been watching some legislation out of uh um Representative Neal's office now for a little over a year, basically saying the government ought to set aside money to help people invest in telematics for rail cars. That's exciting.

SPEAKER_01 15:14

Yeah. And I think, look, thinking back, I uh like thinking back to where we saw the massive adoption of telematics within an adjacent industry within trucking, had it not been for a federal mandate, I do not believe that we would have seen the rapid adoption and requirement of said units that are all you know, that is kind of a somewhat of a circular reinforcing loop. But as a result of that, we would not have then been able to see like the net positive benefits of having those telematics or ELD units on on in the in those trucking cabs. I think the interesting thing that the telematics in rail kind of narrative has always faced is ultimately like who who's paying for it? That that is the universal hands up, what why why it hasn't gotten more adoption. And it feels like, I mean, I think you wrote a blog about this some time ago, that one of the levers could be some sort of federal grants or federal support that allows for kind of a good market entry, a testing point, if you will, which candidly, I think is great. And I think we at Telegraph, because of the integrations that we've had and some of the partnerships that we we have currently and have yet to announce, I we see a ton of additive benefit of more data. It's just generally a net positive, not only for the shipper, who, by the way, pays the bills, and so it should accrue back to them, but is also helpful for the equipment owner and helpful for the railroad as well. I don't think railroads particularly get excited about disputing a ton of demurrage at any given point, right? Like that isn't something that I think they derive a ton of joy or hopefully shows up as a really good revenue line item. I like I we we've talked about it before. Demurrage represents inefficiency, inefficiency, bad for a network business, which ultimately means bad for railroads. Um, the storyline on this one that nobody is talking about is Chrissy grants are actually responsible for funding a majority percentage, a large percentage of the bridges that are on the majority of the short lines that are operating on any given day, right? And so I think we know, Rever, it's fairly capital-intensive business. And to operate heavy machinery over a span, you need some really good in-shape bridges. And so I think that's one of the things I was I'm clearly always excited about, the Chrissy Grants, because the the short lines that are doing the work on a day-in-a-day out basis, they suddenly get a little glow up, and that's really exciting to see.

SPEAKER_00 17:52

You know, let me call out two things there that I think are really exciting. And one, um, and I just want to speak for some of my um policy heads who may be listening. Um so I love it, and I think we agree we love it that the bill continues to support those investments, but there's a lot of potential devil in the details, if you will, down the road, and that like, well, to what level? You know, so having a line in the bill, first step. The the budgeting needs to be made towards, and there's already some concern around what that will be, but we just don't know yet. So it's there's the first hurdle. The other thing that I think is really interesting, and and you know, the the way you framed it, is really helpful, I think, to people to think about this. You know, that ELD mandate came out of a Surface Transportation Authorization Act in the Obama administration. And so we can use that to sort of contrast and think about U.S. transportation policy in that like Essentially the Transportation Authorization Act is the chance for the administration to put all his transportation ideas into one big bill. At that point, it was a government that felt comfortable with, you know, a mandate. And it was also at that time safety inspired. You know, it's been used for other things, but it was really built around safety. I think what we're seeing here with what we have in the current act is uh an administration and maybe broadly speaking a public that is not as comfortable with the mandate, but is comfortable with the safety-inspired subsidization, which is what we see with the telematics. But but that gets to people's concerns with this bill. So we've talked about the exciting things. Um they're continuing to support things that I think generally people believe should continue to be supported. They're supporting the investment in telematics and I think maybe some other telegraph efforts in uh something called gateway technologies. But they're also enshrining into law, at least in this draft, some safety concerns that have made railroads sort of uneasy. Namely stipulating two-person crews, so codifying into law an existing rule and other investments in um track sensors. And I guess the thing that struck me most about that, without commenting on you know if that those safety uh interventions will achieve what they're intended to achieve, I think you and I shared the Wall Street Journal article that said like that was a conversation in the Vice President's office. And then we've seen through social media posts by the President himself conversation about railroads. All of this leads me to the conclusion that the White House is talking a lot about freight railroads right now. That's not always the case. The White House has designs on U.S. freight railroads. It's a it's a unique time in the nexus between American freight railroading and American politics.

SPEAKER_01 20:38

I think historically, railroads have not like we can go many years back. Railroads have not historically done really well in the headlines of the Wall Street Journal. Like that is not the place where they wanted to be, right? At some point, many years gone by, railroads were kind of labeled as being monopolistic, and there was a legacy of barons, right? And so that was a very popular thing, right? There have been um, you know, over the past couple of years, when that merger has happened, there have been massive safety and shutdown issues, right? And more recently, there have been derailments. And so the point around these two-person train crews, um, it's interesting. It is a very interesting because we have a very visceral, fairly recent event that is, I think, somewhat memorialized. If you were around a TV or anywhere near computers, I think you can all remember a very clear picture of a mushroom cloud over in Ohio town, which was self induced, right? Like there was a decision to actually produce that result. So I I can understand why there is a little bit of extra scrutiny. And I think the average citizen, if they knew what was moving beside their house on any given day, I think that they would think about the, they would probably take the idea or concept of safety. In the rail industry, a little more seriously. Thinking about the two-person crew piece, it's interesting, David, because I many times have struggled with this as being on one side, somebody who works in technology, and it's all about the optimistic, powerful approach of all the great things technology can do. And with this instance, right, I know that within PTC and with some of the automated systems that are operating on locomotives today, you could run a great portion of the network fully autonomously today. The technology exists that you could absolutely do that today. And we should be proud that we have that technology and it's it's there and it's and it's available. And it is operating in Australia. This whole entire concept of auto hauler and ore and coal trains that are just operating over there fully independently. Now, again, safety standards, probably some speeds, there's a lot of different things that we would need to think through before we would ever be able to do that here. But I also can tell you from being in the third seat on many a locomotive at an earlier version of my life, there's a lot that goes into actually operating you know a 10,000, 12,000, 16,000 foot train across the nation. And um I'm not saying that you can't make that fully autonomously, and that and that that couldn't be a safe thing. But I can tell you is the people that are sitting in the in those cabs today are making thoughtful, practical decisions about how to operate their their equipment very safely. And candidly, on any any given year, if you look at the safety records and the numbers of railroading compared to many other industries, it is not even comparable. And so when I when I think about this, it's um yeah, I I don't I don't have a clear point of view, but um, but seeing this as being a consistent point reinforced at the highest level um is definitely interesting.

SPEAKER_00 23:57

It it is, and and I'd like to kind of think about it in context of other technologies because I think we really are at sort of an interesting inflection point on automation for supply chain efficiency. So, like right now, you know, what you've said, everything you've said about you know what is technologically possible on a train, I think we could say is also technologically possible on an autonomous truck. And even you know, more recently there was a battle around is I think also possible and proven technology around um ship-to-shore cranes. But we have had uh really cultural battles around if we want to allow that. So um, you know, people might remember uh a couple of years ago there was a a large strike of longshoremen on uh the coasts, and part of that strike is about public and particularly their acceptance of automated cranes at America's ports. Uh another thing that came out of the super the surface transportation bill is are we ready to take the required next step to allow autonomous trucking to happen, which is to cede some control of the highways away from states and give it to the federal government? Because you know, right now, you know, everyone who's driven across states know there's different speed limits, there's different insurance rules. That makes it very hard to run an autonomous trucking company. That's frankly, I think, the biggest holdup of it. And so I guess I bring all this up in that like this call on the two-person trains, to my mind, fits into that same picture of America wrestling with automation. And it's interesting to me to see, you know, as we started this conversation, you know, JD Vance wants to be in on that and wants to be seen as on the side of essentially labor in that argument. That could be the strategy going into the midterm elections because certainly um around the the dock workers, the labor unions were the political football that both parties were courting.

SPEAKER_01 26:00

Interesting. Interesting. So so as you were talking, the idea that actually came up for me is if if we if we look at surface transportation, truck and rail, okay, one of these has a fixed infrastructure that is basically a it is a guided network, right? There are no steering wheels on locomotives. So um if we are going to mandate in this space that you have to have effectively like two operators, one one engineer, right? Two operators in the cab, but in a completely effective comparable white space, you would have no operator. That is uh that is an interesting line to draw. And I can tell you, as somebody who's sat in a couple of A V rigs sometime, like technology is like really interesting. And I can tell you when I sat in it years ago, it's only gotten better now. Um, have you ever taken a Waymo?

SPEAKER_00 26:58

I have not, no.

SPEAKER_01 26:59

David, we we have we have got we we we need to make that happen. We we'd probably just do an entire episode just on that alone. The technology, as I was going around San Francisco, I I felt as if was we we always we was talking about like the these magical experiences you can have in life. That was far and away what one of them. I was completely blown away. It's just how like normal it was. Um, I think autonomous trucking has always felt like it's about 10 years away from like really being big. But if you've like spent any time in Texas, especially in the DFW era, you can see Kodiak trucks just like running around all the time, and it seems to be to be working really well. I think really the the the point that I'm making, or the storyline nobody that you know is talking about, is why on this fixed infrastructure, basically like guided network where equipment just can only move two directions, would you mandate that you have to have operators? I understand like that there's some good safety implications, but why in this other arena, which is widely open and has so many more inputs and fewer constraints, I I guess like where where is the comparable regulation there? I I I I would I would have a big question around that. Again, I I'm not advocating for any regulation. I love safety and I advocate for safety, but I just have this like these things are not they they seem to be a little bit at odds.

SPEAKER_00 28:21

I think that's you know 100% the case. And I guess what's interesting to me to think is like well, the the ingredient missing in that analysis is essentially who has the most uh skillful and powerful lobbying teams. Right. I think that narrates the conversation and that influences the decision. And and then to think about what is the most expedient side to take in the arguments ahead of elections. And I know I'm sort of coming back to that, but just to illustrate the just to illustrate the point, I I think you could get a lot of attention saying the other guy wants you to ride in a commercial plane with only one pilot. I'm not gonna let that happen. I think that's the gambit that's being run here is you know the other guy wants to make the next East Palestine more likely. Me and my friends are never gonna let that happen again.

SPEAKER_01 29:21

Interesting.

SPEAKER_00 29:22

I I think that's the gambit that's being played. So outside of you know the the logical technical considerations you bring up, it's a hard position to take ahead of some important elections that trust the technology guys, particularly in this environment.

SPEAKER_01 29:41

I I've been thinking about rail enormously more fuel efficient and better on greenhouse gas emissions compared on a per ton basis relative to truck, right? Fuel prices have definitely shown up in trucking rates, are starting to show up in rail rates. If we take a longitudinal over-the-horizon view, do we think that that fuel prices or like the total landed cost of trucking versus rail, do you think that plays into some of the autonomous regulation, right? Do you think the government cares that oh the total landed cost of moving something autonomously by truck is markedly cheaper? And I I guess the analysis hasn't really been done in rail yet, but do you think that that's like that has any effect on policy?

SPEAKER_00 30:34

So so are to make sure I understand you're thinking are it are policymakers swayed by the argument we could deliver goods more cheaply with an autonomous truck than a man truck.

SPEAKER_01 30:48

Yes. Yes.

SPEAKER_00 30:57

I I think they are more likely swayed by uh you know arguments around we have a driver shortage, and you know I have opinions on that, everyone has opinions on that, but I I do think that the narrative of the driver shortage is heard through the halls of Congress and at the highest levels, and you know, we've seen that I think um repeatedly. They're a very powerful organization. And so I think they're swayed by the idea that there's a demographic truth about workers in this country. We're getting older, we're short of laborers everywhere, so there's an argument to be made, we're short of drivers. I think that moves the needle on you know autonomy and and autonomous trucks. I think competitiveness with other countries you know moves the needle. So to my mind, those are the ones that that are more compelling. I I'd have a hard time seeing like a major shipper coming in saying like we need this bill to shave a fraction of a dollar off of our landed cost. I to my mind that doesn't uh sway the opinion makers uh but I guess it depends on on who's in charge, you know, whose ears that you're speaking to.

SPEAKER_01 32:11

Absolutely. Well, David, it is it has been uh an an honor and and a joy to get to connect with you again today, somewhat in an impromptu fashion, because we did not uh we did not foresee this happening, um, but really, really appreciate the the dialogue. And it sounds like we we've actually got some some other topics that maybe we can just check in on Tuesday of next week and and continue the party and see see where it takes us. Folks, thank you so much for watching the latest episode. Um, again, my name's Harris Liggan, CEO, co-founder here at Telegraph, and joined by David Corell, our director of free market intelligence. Really appreciate you you taking the time to watch. And if you can, follow us on LinkedIn. And uh and if you have any questions for the doctor, please feel free to write in. Thanks for joining us.