American factories have been sputtering for more than 25 years. First came cheap products from China, then a reworking of global supply chains. The U.S. manufacturing sector's output fell from about 15% of gross domestic product at the start of this century to less than 10% today, as a new service economy came into its own. "Made in USA" seemed destined for the scrap heap.

Not so fast. A new age of American manufacturing may be dawning, one that looks much different from the old one. Its most prominent feature, not surprisingly, is artificial intelligence. The huge data centers that power AI require staggering varieties of manufactured goods-from construction materials to cooling systems to the "racks and stacks" of the servers. At the same time, the end product of those centers-AI-is starting to improve manufacturing processes across industries, from candy makers to heavy machinery. Industry and tech are becoming intertwined like never before.

Other forces at work? Global conflict is lifting the aerospace and defense industries. And many American companies are starting to replenish inventories after a long stretch of running them light.

The upshot: The U.S. manufacturing sector expanded for the seventh straight month in July. In that month, the Institute for Supply Management's Purchasing Managers' Index generated its highest reading since May of 2022, thanks to new orders and expanding production. More could lie ahead. Nonfinancial S&P 500 index companies are expected to spend some $1.8 trillion on new plants and equipment in 2026, up from about $650 billion in 2021, per FactSet.

To see where this may be headed-and to identify investment opportunities-we assembled five experts for a roundtable discussion about American manufacturing. They laid out the potential of the revival, and its limitations. And the group's 10 stock picks-from big stalwarts like Boeing to specialist data-center supplier Regal Rexnord-offer a solid road map for the future.

The panel: Joelle Gamble Copeland, General Motors' chief economist; Scott Davis, founder and CEO of Melius Research; Adrian Helfert, chief investment officer at asset manager Westwood Holdings Group; Adam Ozimek, chief economist at the bipartisan public policy think tank Economic Innovation Group; and David Strauss, managing director of equity research in aerospace and defense at Wells Fargo. Edited excerpts of the July 21 conversation:

Barron's: So, where are we in the revival of the industrial economy?

Scott Davis: Coming out of Covid-19, we went into a period of rolling recessions. Now, in the industrial world, we're coming into an era of rolling recoveries. It started several quarters ago on the capital spending side. You're not going to see that in employment yet. You're not going to see people building speculative capacity. But we are seeing tremendous growth in anything that touches AI capital expenditure. The entire industrial supply chain has seen rising capital spending. That's always the first indicator of a large industrial up cycle.

From where we see it, the companies are spending. They are announcing on-shoring plans. A lot of those facilities haven't broken ground yet. A lot of the construction labor and such is being used for AI right now. There's a little bit of a labor shortage, but we would say that the outlook, at least from the industrial complex, is probably the best we've seen in my 35-year career. Having been an industrial analyst from the mid-1990s on, I don't ever remember a time like this.

Adrian Helfert: We're seeing positivity on new orders. Manufacturing is showing a little bit of growth, but not extraordinary growth. There is a large need for manufacturing growth based on reshoring and policy. You see things like...new orders going up, but labor is not there yet. However, it is not a bad stock market outcome because manufacturers can increase operating leverage and automation spending.

Adam, you're more skeptical.

Adam Ozimek: I'm not sure how much of a revival we have. It depends on what outcome you're looking at. If you're looking at industrial production, we are making more than we did a year or two ago. We have seen a slight bounce back. Manufacturing real GDP growth is positive, and that's good news. But if you look at the goals that trade war advocates set out for policy, we're not really seeing movement there. Manufacturing as a share of GDP has not moved up. Manufacturing employment is not declining anymore, but it's still down. In terms of those types of macro outcomes, I wouldn't really call it all that much of a revival. I'd call it more like a pause in the decline.

Joelle?

Joelle Gamble Copeland: The traditional measures of whether or not we're in a manufacturing boom-our overall output, employment, those kinds of measures-may not apply as well anymore. Some of the transformation that's happening in the auto industry, but also across several industrial industries, could be measured on a different set of metrics. If we're going to see a kind of boom in U.S. manufacturing, we're talking about a different kind of transformation of how you run your business. It's not just, can you produce more widgets? It's what do those widgets look like from a technology standpoint, and what does your production process look like?

In other words, we're talking about a jobless recovery?

Davis: Unfortunately, data centers don't create a lot of jobs, so I don't think we're ever going to be able to sit here and tell somebody that a manufacturing renaissance is going to create a tremendous amount of jobs. Instead, we're very positive on the automation players. The robots are coming. U.S. robotics companies are probably a little behind. If you were going to make a bet today on who is best positioned to win in robots, it may actually be China.

So, robots will solve the labor shortage! Is that a bad thing?

Ozimek: Every industry likes to say they have a labor shortage at all times. What employers mean is they can't get enough workers they want at the wages they can pay and remain globally competitive. There will be industries facing that kind of crunch. That will be tough if we're going to be more restrictive on immigration going forward. High-skilled immigrants are extremely important in strategic manufacturing industries.

When you're talking about an industry that's volatile, and you don't have this long-run commitment to growth, it's going to be hard to get people into that industry. Sometimes there will be a manufacturer who has spent a long time declining and laying off workers, booming and busting. Then they struggle to hire because workers don't believe that the factory is going to be there in 10 years.

Gamble Copeland: Investments and technical skills for our workforce are really important. We're doing a lot of retooling of existing facilities. We are bringing some more capacity on-line in the U.S. that was previously elsewhere. And so for us, it's not a question of how many workers to hire, but what skills does our workforce need to be able to meet the product plans that we have for the future?

Labor problems will be with us for years. What's the near-term outlook for the manufacturing sector?

Davis: We have seen the beginnings of a synchronized industrial recovery in 2026, with a very likely full recovery in 2027. Orders for the industrial companies that we track were up 26% last quarter and 18% the quarter before that. These are big numbers-far higher than what we are used to seeing at this point of the business cycle.

For those who are a little skeptical,?I think it's a little bit more of a timing issue.

We are looking at a huge increase in capital spending. Mega projects, which are those over $1 billion in size, now exceed $2 trillion [in total] by our count, and that's a double over the past two years, and 10 times the announced spend of just five years ago. The upside extends beyond traditional data-center suppliers. It's things like life sciences. We're also seeing a big bet on onshoring because of supply-chain challenges that started with Covid and just continue as conflicts emerged around the world.

Gamble Copeland: For the auto industry, we still have seen consumer demand holding up pretty well in the face of quite a bit of uncertainty over the past several years. Geopolitical uncertainty, policy uncertainty, and the war in Iran have weighed heavily. But we've seen pretty strong demand. We've seen folks still coming into the market to replace their vehicles. Truck demand has actually been holding up pretty strongly in the first half of this year.

For us, the strategy is really about execution and flexibility. In a world in which there are so many different exogenous shock-so many black swan events that you're starting to wonder if it can be called a black swan event, right?-you have to have a strategy where you have a business that's flexible enough to be able to navigate and pivot.

Ozimek: The trajectory is influenced strongly by policy, and policy is wildly uncertain. We had "Liberation Day" tariffs, which were revised within days, then declared unconstitutional, replaced temporarily by Section 122 tariffs, and now replaced by a different set of tariffs. Businesses need certainty, and certainty has a huge impact on investment. With steel and aluminum tariffs being high, it is difficult for businesses to build and expand, and that is reflected in the administration's gradual walk back of those tariffs, and gradual expansion of exemptions. Good policy can help, bad policy can hurt, and I think the trade war is bad policy.

On the other hand, you have really strong demand growth as a result of the AI buildout. And this is clear in the data. Industries that are providing inputs to AI data centers are seeing strong demand; they're investing, they're expanding. The electrification of the economy is helping battery production. All those things are tailwinds.

So, what's good policy?

David Strauss: We're a net exporter of aerospace. The idea that we were going to tariff aerospace components coming into the U.S. didn't really ever make much sense. It's not completely put to bed yet, but it seems like the regime that's been in place for a long time-where we don't tariff aerospace goods-is going to remain in place. Aerospace is a relative winner in the current environment. I wouldn't expect anything to change from a tariff policy standpoint.

From a defense standpoint, and the government selectively investing in these defense companies, we'll see how that plays out. We're in that place, in part, because there's been underinvestment in the defense infrastructure for quite a long period. At this point, we're trying to kind of throw money at the problem.

The defense budget is growing. That's a positive, right?

Defense policy budgets are very much determined by who's in the White House and who controls Congress. All the industry is looking for is some sort of certainty to be able to make these kinds of large capital investments. That kind of runs counter to how the process works. Even though the administration is making a lot of promises about investing, it's still an annual appropriations process, and Congress controls the power of the purse. The industry wants to make investments. But it's hard to get a lot of certainty and predictability, just given how the budgetary process works and the uncertainty with midterms and then who's going to be in the White House after 2028.

Davis: CEOs don't have time to wait for policy to become certain anymore. They waited, they delayed, and now they have to make decisions. And every single one of them that I've spent time with has stopped tiptoeing. They need to make a call now on where things are going to go. I've seen a greater level of optimism and positivity in the past several months than I've seen in a very long time. Companies that were notoriously bearish are now saying there are green shoots. Construction, which was not supposed to recover until 2028, is recovering. Less than 20% of the total end markets that we cover are still in recession. That includes sectors like agriculture and heavy-duty trucks. We could have a synchronous recovery in 2027. The AI halo is a big deal. There's a lot of purchase orders coming in on the AI side.

What are some of the longer-term issues you see?

Helfert: A key question is China. Some of the Chinese AI models are producing nearly the same quality as our high-level models and end up pricing about 10 times cheaper than the U.S. If we don't win on AI, and low-cost AI, we risk seeing a new round of outsourcing related to AI-infused machinery. When we talk about AI-trained robotics, China is already capturing the largest share.

Davis: Technology converging with industrial products is crucially important. There is a massive convergence.

3M, for example, is not a traditional equipment supplier but happens to be manufacturing a critical component called electric optical beam technology that Microsoft is reportedly deploying in its data centers. This could become a meaningful product launch for them over time. There are similar stories for a much wider list of industrials. We'd consider the industrial sector broadly to be the picks and shovel suppliers for the AI buildout.

3M is developing a technology for Microsoft, not Microsoft developing a technology for 3M. It's gone full circle where the industrial economy and the tech economy are one.

Helfert: We're going through a new evolution in manufacturing production; I'm talking SpaceX. Traditionally, Toyota, one of Joelle's competitors, has used kaizen strategy of continuous improvement and just-in-time manufacturing, which contrasts pretty significantly with the SpaceX-style manufacturing. Elon Musk has been this visionary CEO destroying $60 million machines and learning from the failure. That's the new style: Speed of innovation trumps quality control at the front end of the process. The same kind of thing goes with automation. Automating existing processes doesn't answer whether those processes still exist. SpaceX asks, "Does this process even belong? Does it matter?" They err on the side of deletions and adding back. After that, they automate what they must have.

How does all of this change investing in manufacturing? Does investing become harder or easier?

Ozimek: I do think it can be easier to identify which sorts of technology we're going to be winning. I think the easier investments are where you can pick things that are sort of upstream to electrification, such as demand for copper. It doesn't really matter which company wins; knowing that demand for copper is going to be strong as the manufacturing sector increasingly moves toward electrification and vehicles move toward electrification is a winning strategy. Investing in basic inputs into batteries and companies building the transmission systems-those are the sort of much more reliable bets.

Davis: There's a lot of truth to that. One of the reasons why I like our sector is that we are arms dealers to the tech world. So, we don't care who wins necessarily; we're selling to everybody. Look at what's going on in Big Tech right now. Who spends the most and innovates most effectively is going to win. But you don't know who that winner is necessarily going to be.

We always tell people, just follow the money. AI capex is going to be 52% of total S&P 500 capex in 2027. So, when people talk about how the stock market is one big bet on AI, I think that's actually true. You have to believe that there's a change going on here that is meaningful and has sustainability to it. It does feel like AI has something sustainable from a thematic perspective that's going to catalyze a tremendous amount of money being spent.

Ozimek: I would be remiss not to describe the scenario where AI is a bubble. I say this with the full disclosure that my portfolio is not short any AI companies. In the history of computing and software, every generation, things got smaller and cheaper. And at first, it seemed like the smaller, cheaper thing wasn't going to matter because it wasn't as fast, it wasn't as powerful, it wasn't as high-end. And so in every turn, these smaller, cheaper inventions were dismissed as not serious threats to bigger, faster, much more impressive machines. You have to worry that something like that will come for AI.

You can already see the threat from the open-source models that are smaller and obviously open source, so they can be free. Will it be the case that these leading-edge, very expensive models that are powered by a large data center are disrupted by models that do pretty good and are smaller and cheaper? It's a possibility we can't dismiss.

So, what is the winning manufacturing strategy? AI? Something else?

Davis: It seems to me, you have to merge AI and manufacturing. At the very least, AI is a productivity enabler. AI is tremendously exciting if we can get past the cybersecurity risks and challenges. It's not necessarily easy. When people think about AI, they always think about eliminating jobs. What we've seen so far is that it enhances the existing employees and their capabilities, as opposed to replacing them. AI makes them more effective and more productive. And that's the holy grail in manufacturing.

Ozimek: AI is potentially very important for manufacturing. But I believe that the AI diffusion through manufacturing is something that's going to take time. It's one of the things that makes me not think we're on the verge of 10% GDP growth. AI can help, but AI needs to be diffused. And so that will ultimately be a constraint.

There is more than AI?

Ozimek: When I think about how the U.S. can grow its manufacturing sector, I think of foreign direct investment, high-skill immigration, and institutions to spread knowledge of best practices. When GM wanted to learn from Toyota Motor about lean production methods, for example, they would send executives to the Fremont, Calif., plant to study, and then take that knowledge to other GM facilities. That is a case study of knowledge diffusion that's worth thinking more about.

Gamble Copeland: I think in an ideal world, there would be knowledge diffusion from Chinese companies to U.S. companies. But I'm highly skeptical that that would actually happen in practice, especially given many U.S. companies' experiences in China. I think China has excelled in gathering technological information from partners or ostensible partners. Yet China would be very remiss to allow the same thing to happen-to allow potential competitors to gain a competitive edge.

Strauss: We have to keep innovating to stay ahead of China. There's plenty of room for additional innovation, additional automation and productivity in terms of how we build airplanes. China is aggressively trying to catch up to where we are on the aerospace side of things, but I don't think that's set to happen this decade or even next-it would be even beyond that. But much like they've done on the auto side and high-speed rail, they're trying to do the same thing in aerospace, and they have big aspirations.

What are the broader implications of the recent rise in overall capex?

Helfert: If the U.S. economy is truly going through a reindustrialization of any sorts, there's some estimates that's a $2 trillion capex spend. We would have to spend significant amounts to get our capacity up to be more self-sufficient. We don't have the capacity to close our trade deficit in manufactured goods. And if all of our manufacturing facilities were operating at capacity, we would still be significantly short. We're going to end up with either higher growth rates in manufacturing or more complex factories. And as an investor, when you have more complex factories, the companies that are keeping those complex factories running are going to become more valuable.

Davis: We spend a lot of time talking about AI. What I think we don't spend enough time on is talking about the underinvestment for 25 years in the U.S. of fixed assets like roads, bridges, rail, ports, factories, supply chains, electrical infrastructure, and even water management. We can't ignore the fact that money needs to be spent in all these other areas. I actually think it will. And not necessarily because it's a "nice to have," but it's actually becoming a need to have. Things are breaking down. What it means to us is that a lot of money has to get spent. It needs to get spent. It's going to have to come from all levels.

And that money should help some stocks. Let's move on to stocks. Scott, tell us what you like.

Davis: We're looking at the entire data center supply base. Vertiv Holdings is a pure play. It's pulled back about 20% in the past couple of months, same as many AI stocks. We'd buy it at that price all day long. It is the pure-play electrical and cooling supplier to the data-center complex.

It's impossible to be bullish on AI in any way, shape, or form and not own that. They don't necessarily care who wins the AI arms race because they sell to everybody globally. Trane Technologies, Johnson Controls International, and Eaton also all supply the AI buildout, as well.

Vertiv has been a tremendous stock over the past few years. How do you convince clients it's still a buy after a big run?

Davis: Vertiv was never the quality of company that it is today. They were always a No. 3 player. If Google put an order in and the top two players didn't have enough capacity, Vertiv would get a crumb. Under the leadership of David Cote as the chairman and Giordano Albertazzi as the CEO, they have turned this company into a tremendously powerful, liquid-cooling, chip-level cooling, electrical-infrastructure company. They do a lot of modular units, which is really where the industry's going.

I'm not saying that Eaton and Schneider Electric aren't also excellent companies, but Vertiv is extremely well positioned. These guys are going to earn $20 a share earnings someday, and it may not be as far out as we think. [Vertiv is expected to earn $9.18 in 2027, per FactSet.] There's also a service annuity aspect to this stock because this equipment doesn't last that long, and then you're servicing it forever, and then you have next-generation chips that come in, and you're redoing the data center all over again.

Our price target is $427 a share, 35 times our 2028 earnings estimate of $12.20. That is a two-year price target, which is Melius policy.

What else?

Davis: If you go into the world of automation, the American players happen to be very good at automation. You're talking about companies like Emerson Electric, Rockwell Automation, and Honeywell Technologies, just to name a few. The name we would buy today is Emerson because they are the leader in utility automation. They are the leader in life sciences automation. And then they are also the leader in oil-and-gas automation.

I wouldn't have thought six months ago that oil and gas would be a positive thing to have on your résumé, but all of a sudden you take a look at the conflict in Iran and you say, there might be some money that needs to be spent in the next few years on energy security. Emerson is in a really good spot, and it's an out-of-favor stock again.

Our price target is $205, 25 times our 2028 EPS estimate of $8.20.

How about one more?

Davis: No one's talking about water scarcity. I've gotten maybe two phone calls in the past six months on water scarcity. We may run out of water in Phoenix and the West Coast. Data centers use a lot of water. Semiconductor fabs use a lot of water. Our water technology stocks, which would be primarily Xylem and Veralto, have come way down. The growth has been pretty anemic because the [spending] hasn't been there. But at some point, this country and countries around the world are going to have to start spending money on water scarcity. And there are only a few ways to play it. Of the two, Xylem is more of the pure play water company.

Barron's picked Xylem in October 2025. The stock hasn't done well.

Davis: It's a turnaround play. We have a relatively new management team. We like these guys; they're sharp, they're good, but they're 80-20-ing their product lines [focusing sales efforts on the 20% of products that make 80% of the money]. Whenever you're 80-20-ing, you're passing on a fair amount of business. We have not had federal money come into water yet. There are tens of thousands of municipal water authorities out there, and every decade or so, you see a federal focus on water where it helps the state and local folks fund it because these projects are expensive. That's a big part of it.

Our price target is $180, 25 times our 2028 EPS of $7.20.

Thanks Scott. Adrian, what do you like?

Helfert: We're looking for bottlenecks in production. Those bottlenecks are when you start manufacturing in a particular area, you need more of this input. Those inputs could be software, it could be chips, it could be data servers or warehouses and racks. It could be, of course, copper, water, and energy.

Bottlenecks in memory chips and power have sent the shares of Micron Technology and GE Vernova soaring. What are some other bottlenecks?

Helfert: To stay in industrials, which are part of the AI-power bottleneck, Hubbell is one I haven't mentioned yet. Hubbell is a picks-and-shovels play on the electricity grid. It makes the connectors, arresters, meters, and distribution gear that you cannot physically connect data-center load to the grid without. It hasn't run yet, up 7% year to date, trading for about 21 times 2027 estimated earnings, cheaper than last year.

Everybody wants the power bottleneck for AI. You can own it through Regal Rexnord's data-center switchgear at 10.5 [times estimated enterprise value to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, or Ebitda] rather than GE Vernova at 30-plus times. Same [bottleneck] at a third of the price.

I actually like the energy-industrial bottleneck where the scarcity is not yet capitalized, namely at Baker Hughes. Its Industrial & Energy Technology arm makes the gas turbines and compression that generate the power feeding data centers-and it's literally sold out of its NovaLT gas turbines through 2028.

Baker has a record Industrial & Energy Technology [segment] that has a backlog of $33.1 billion, has record orders, and recently booked $1 billion of data-center power orders in a single quarter. Yet it trades at 22 times 2027 earnings and has a 4% free cash flow yield. GE Vernova trades for 40 times 2027 earnings for the same turbine bottleneck.

Any other chokepoints?

Helfert: Production capacity in defense. We like the defense industry for improving growth. Obviously, we've seen it just more recently come off a little bit because of the expectation that the midterms were going to lead to a retrenchment in [the defense] budget. But the Iran war has highlighted the fact that we've really depleted our missile and drone stocks, and we're going to have to build more. If we are really moving to a more dangerous world, then we need to see more than just increasing our [missile] stocks by two to three times; it's going to be much larger. That helps the defense industry pretty significantly.

Lockheed Martin trades for 18 times earnings instead of a multiple that reflects high scarcity.

Missile and Fire Control at Lockheed is only 20% of the business. The F-35 is 25% and doesn't grow as fast as missiles. Is that a concern?

Helfert: Lockheed is more centered on the F-35 program, but they've got a pretty good backlog as far as that program is concerned, and we're seeing increased production. The F-35 program has visibility up to something like 2060. Their contracts are written in a way that even if there's a pullback on [volumes], they can still get paid in arrears. So, they're in very good shape for the program itself, but they don't want to be beholden to that single program. There are growth areas within the company, as well. Lockheed manufactured the crew capsule for the Artemis mission for the Orion capsule. So, it's not a large part of the business, but that's an area that they're going to capture more as we see more spending in space.

It's priced really well, too. It's one of the cheapest of the defense primes.

Strauss: The stock is relatively cheap, but when you adjust for some of the things that they're benefiting from more so than others, like pension [accounting], it's not, in our view, as cheap as it might appear on first flush. We're not favorable to Lockheed, partially because of the F35.

We have disagreement on Lockheed. Any other stocks to mention, Adrian?

Helfert: In the manufacturing space, Stanley Black & Decker is one. It saw a lot of competitive pressures, especially from Milwaukee Tool (a unit of Techtronic Industries.) But they're going through a program to revitalize their margins. They've done this in the past, but we think that has more credence now with a better balance sheet and more push behind it. And we think that they are priced constructively. So, it's a self-help margin story that doesn't need a housing boom. The stock trades for about 16 times 2027 earnings with a 5% to 6% free-cash-flow yield-one of the cheapest quality industrials. And the April aerospace-fastener sale to Howmet Aerospace repaired the balance sheet.

The stock is down about 50% over the past five years.

Helfert: They've promised margin recovery before. What's different is the gross margin is [moving higher] in the actual numbers, not just the presentation slides.

David, you have a hold rating on Lockheed-what are some stocks you rate Buy?

Strauss: In aerospace, the U.S. is still an industrial leader, China is trying to play catch up. They're trying to kind of replicate what they've done in other industrial sectors. But China's still well behind when it comes to Airbus and Boeing. They have trouble assembling their own airplanes from Western-built components. Ultimately, they're playing the long game and want to build out their own indigenous supply chain, but they're a long way away from that.

As far as an outlook on aerospace, we're not even to what I would say is midcycle in aircraft production. There's probably more than a 50% upside just to get back prior peak levels. If you look at the number of aircraft that the airlines need, it's way above what Airbus and Boeing can produce today because of some of the supply-chain difficulties that they've had. Boeing had its own issues that have held back their ability to ramp up.

We're more constructive on the aircraft production side of things as compared with the aftermarket or part suppliers, which have already had a really good run. We are positive on Boeing. That would be our top name on the new equipment side of things. We also like a smaller company, [aerospace materials supplier] Hexcel. It is likely to benefit from the upcoming widebody production ramp. The stock also trades at a discount to aerospace peers.

Boeing has had issues. The stock was north of $440 in 2019, just after the second tragic 737 MAX crash. What are you watching to judge the turnaround?

Strauss: The debate around Boeing is how quickly we can get back to midcycle cash flow, let alone thinking about where they could go beyond that. If you go back to pre-MAX issues, Boeing was generating $13 billion to $14 billion a year in cash. Expectations were that cash flow was going to go even higher than that. Today, Boeing is just now back to generating a little bit of cash.

The biggest uncertainty around the trajectory for the stock from here is around FAA 777X certification and the ramp-up of that program. Today, Boeing is using somewhere between $4 billion and $5 billion a year developing that airplane and building early units. They can't deliver those today because the airplane's not certified. So, certification of that program is far and away, in our view, the key to unlocking the stock. If that program can stay on the current trajectory for certification, which is expected to be late this year or early 2027, that unlocks upside in the stock to at least around $300 versus today's price, which is around $210. That's what gets the company back on its trajectory to about $10 billion of free cash flow by either 2028 or 2029.

What are your price targets for Boeing and Hexcel?

Strauss: Our Boeing price target is $250, reflecting a 20 times our 2028 free cash flow multiple. Our Hexcel price target is $120, or 18 times our 2028 Ebitda forecast.

Those are some great ideas everyone. Thanks.