Lionheart III Corp (LION): PESTLE Analysis [Nov-2025 Updated]

You're trying to figure out if Lionheart III Corp (LION) can defintely land a valuable target in this market, and honestly, the clock is ticking on their merger deadline. The reality for LION, like most Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) in late 2025, is a perfect storm of regulatory pressure and economic pain. With the Federal Funds Rate near 5.50% hiking debt costs and average SPAC redemption rates often exceeding 80%, the cash available for a deal is shrinking fast. We need to map these Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental headwinds to see what LION's next move has to be.

Lionheart III Corp (LION) - PESTLE Analysis: Political factors

You're looking at the M&A landscape for a new deal, and honestly, the political risk today is a defintely a heavier lift than it was even two years ago. The rules of the game for Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) have fundamentally changed, and global political friction is squeezing the pool of viable targets. We need to map these risks to the de-SPAC process itself, because political uncertainty directly hits your valuation and investor appetite.

Increased SEC scrutiny on SPAC disclosures and projections

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has made it clear: the days of SPACs operating under a lighter regulatory touch are over. In 2024, the SEC adopted new rules, codified in Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K, aimed at aligning de-SPAC transactions with traditional Initial Public Offerings (IPOs). This is a massive shift, increasing the legal risk for sponsors and directors.

The biggest change is the treatment of financial projections. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) safe harbor for forward-looking statements is now unavailable for projections made in de-SPAC transactions. That means the aggressive growth forecasts often used to sell a deal to investors now carry a much higher liability risk. Here's the quick math on the compliance burden:

• Mandatory disclosure of sponsor compensation and conflicts of interest.
• Requirement to disclose the material bases and underlying assumptions for all projections.
• Requirement for both the SPAC and the target company to be co-registrants on the registration statement, increasing target company liability.

This scrutiny is why the SPAC IPO market has cooled dramatically; only 31 SPAC IPOs raised just $3.8 billion in 2023, down from the peak. The new rules force a level of due diligence and transparency that simply didn't exist before, making it harder to find a target willing to take on that co-registrant liability.

Potential US-China trade tensions impacting viability of global target companies

The intensifying trade relationship between the US and China creates a major headwind for any SPAC targeting a global company with significant ties to Asia. New US tariffs, such as the 20% tariff on products from China imposed in early 2025, and China's retaliatory measures, are causing a near-embargo level of uncertainty. This directly impacts your potential target's financial viability and supply chain stability.

The uncertainty has led to a deal freeze in cross-border M&A. Global transactions announced so far in the 2025 fiscal year totaled just over $470 billion, a decline of 17% from the same period last year. For a SPAC like Lionheart III Corp (LION), this means:

• Valuations of Asia-linked companies are extremely difficult to pin down.
• Target companies are actively pursuing a 'China +1' strategy, relocating supply chains to countries like India, Malaysia, and Vietnam.
• Increased risk of Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) scrutiny on technology and critical infrastructure targets.

If your target company has a manufacturing footprint in China, the tariff risk alone can wipe out a significant portion of its projected profit margin, making the de-SPAC valuation model instantly obsolete.

Tax policy uncertainty around capital gains affecting investor interest in de-SPAC returns

The looming expiration of key provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) at the end of 2025 is creating a cloud of tax policy uncertainty that directly affects investor returns in de-SPACs. Investors are focused on the net proceeds they receive, and potential tax hikes could dampen enthusiasm for high-risk, high-reward SPAC investments.

Specifically, a key proposal being discussed is an increase in the federal long-term capital gains tax rate from the current 20% to as high as 28% for high-income taxpayers earning over $1 million annually. This is a massive potential hit to the after-tax return for the institutional and high-net-worth investors who fund SPACs. The uncertainty is already forcing changes to deal structures and timing.

A higher capital gains tax rate makes a successful de-SPAC less profitable for the seller and less attractive for the investor, which can lead to higher redemption rates (investors pulling their cash) and lower post-merger stock prices.

Geopolitical instability in Eastern Europe and the Middle East dampening investor risk appetite

Ongoing conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East continue to elevate global risk, which is the enemy of M&A activity. The Russia-Ukraine conflict and the escalation of the Israeli-Iranian conflict in June 2025 have created regional instability that impacts global financial stability.

This instability translates into tangible financial risks for a global SPAC:

• Energy Market Volatility: Disruptions in the Middle East, including threats to shipping routes, keep energy prices volatile, increasing operational costs for nearly every business sector.
• Supply Chain Disruption: The war in Ukraine still strains European supply chains, and the Red Sea shipping issues have increased global freight costs and delivery times.
• Flight to Safety: Investors shift capital to perceived safe-haven assets, reducing the pool of risk capital available for speculative vehicles like SPACs.

When the world is this volatile, investors demand a higher risk premium for any deal, especially one involving a complex, newly public entity. This dampens overall investor risk appetite and makes it harder to secure the private investment in public equity (PIPE) financing often critical to closing a de-SPAC transaction.

Lionheart III Corp (LION) - PESTLE Analysis: Economic factors

High Interest Rates and Cost of Capital

You need to understand that the era of near-zero interest rates that fueled the 2021 SPAC boom is over, fundamentally changing the economics for Lionheart III Corp (LION). The Federal Reserve has been easing, but the cost of debt is still materially higher than in the pre-2022 environment. After two cuts in 2025, the Federal Funds Rate target range currently sits at 3.75% to 4.00% as of the October 2025 meeting. This is a massive headwind for any potential de-SPAC target that relies on debt financing for growth or operations.

Higher interest rates increase the interest expense for the merged entity, directly reducing its net income and, consequently, its valuation. This forces LION's management to target companies with stronger free cash flow (FCF) and less reliance on leveraged buyouts (LBOs). Honestly, the high cost of capital is forcing a return to valuation defintely grounded in fundamentals, not just growth projections.

Elevated SPAC Redemption Rates

The single biggest threat to LION's deal-making power is the elevated rate of shareholder redemptions, which are shrinking the available cash pool for the business combination. Investors are exercising their right to redeem shares for the cash held in the trust account, typically around $10 per share, instead of holding the stock of the newly merged company (de-SPAC). In Q1 2025, the average quarterly redemption rate reached a staggering 97%, with the median redemption rate at 91.7%.

This means that for every $100 million LION raised in its initial public offering (IPO), the actual cash available to the target company at closing is often less than $10 million. This forces LION to secure a large Private Investment in Public Equity (PIPE) or alternative financing, which is challenging and dilutive, just to meet the minimum cash condition of the merger agreement. That's a tough environment for any sponsor team.

Weak Capital Markets for De-SPACed Companies

The post-merger performance of de-SPACed companies in 2025 remains exceptionally poor, creating a weak capital market that makes new deals less attractive to institutional investors. This is the core reason for the high redemption rates: investors simply don't trust the long-term value creation. The average de-SPAC return in Q1 2025 was a dismal -55.68%, with the median return at -56.63%. Many de-SPACs are trading well below the initial $10 trust value, which is the baseline for LION shareholders.

This market reality means LION must find a truly exceptional target with robust financials to convince investors not to redeem. Here's a quick look at the performance of companies that completed their de-SPAC transaction in Q1 2025, illustrating the poor market sentiment seven days after closing:

What this table hides is the systemic risk: a single poor-performing de-SPAC can sour the market for all others, including LION.

Inflationary Pressures on Transaction Costs

Persistent inflationary pressures, with annual consumer price inflation still hovering around 3% in November 2025, are impacting the non-deal costs of the merger. While high inflation has moderated from its peak, the residual effect is higher operational costs for all parties involved.

• Due diligence costs are rising due to increased labor costs for legal, accounting, and financial advisory services.
• Working capital requirements for the target company are higher because of rising prices for inventory and longer collection periods, which complicate valuation models.
• Transaction execution costs, including Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing fees and printing expenses for proxy materials, have been subject to general price increases.

These elevated costs, while not deal-breakers, erode the total value proposition for the target company and the SPAC sponsor, making it harder to justify a premium valuation in the current climate.

Lionheart III Corp (LION) - PESTLE Analysis: Social factors

Investor fatigue and skepticism toward the SPAC structure after poor post-merger performance

You need to know that the market's patience for the Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) structure is defintely gone, and that skepticism directly impacts your ability to close a deal and raise capital. The main problem is the consistently poor performance of de-SPACed companies-the private firms that merge with a SPAC to go public.

In the second quarter of 2025, the median return seven days post-close for the 13 completed business combinations was a brutal -66.26%, with the average return sitting at -38.21%. That is a massive value destruction, and investors are acting on it. This skepticism translates into sky-high redemption rates, where investors pull their money out of the SPAC trust before the merger closes.

For Lionheart III Corp, this is a critical risk. The median redemption rate in Q2 2025 hit an unprecedented 99.6%, compared to a trailing three-year average of 96.6%. This means you can't rely on the full trust value of the SPAC, forcing you to secure substantial Private Investment in Public Equity (PIPE) funding or accept a much smaller cash-for-close amount. Your target company must have a clear value proposition to overcome this redemption hurdle.

Growing demand from institutional investors for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) compliant targets

The shift to Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing is no longer a niche trend; it's a dominant force that dictates capital allocation. Institutional investors, including major asset managers like BlackRock, are using ESG compliance as a core filter for M&A targets, and you need to bring them a company that passes this test.

Here's the quick math: global ESG-focused assets are projected to reach a staggering $50 trillion by 2025, which represents one-third of all total assets under management worldwide. This pool of capital is actively seeking compliant companies, and they are willing to pay a premium for them. A November 2025 Morgan Stanley survey showed that 86% of asset owners expect to increase their allocation to sustainable funds over the next two years.

A strong ESG profile in your target company translates directly to a higher valuation and better deal terms. Corporate buyers are getting better at measuring this, too: 57% of organizations in a 2024 Deloitte survey measured the impact of an acquisition on their own ESG profile using defined metrics, a significant jump from 39% in 2022. You must conduct rigorous ESG due diligence to unlock this value and mitigate the risk of an ESG-related deal-breaker.

Labor market shifts (e.g., remote work) altering valuation models for potential technology or service targets

The permanent shift to remote and hybrid work models has fundamentally changed the cost structure and scalability of potential technology and service targets, which is a key consideration for your valuation models. As of August 2025, approximately 22.1% of all U.S. workers reported working from home, confirming this is a structural change.

This shift creates a clear valuation opportunity. Companies that consistently embrace a distributed workforce can achieve significant cost efficiencies, with some reducing rental costs by 50% to 80%. These savings flow straight to EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization), which boosts company value. For a software company, having a consistently remote team can even result in valuation multiples 20% to 30% above the industry average.

The valuation focus is now on intangible assets, not just physical plant. Targets with mature remote structures-meaning established digital processes and a strong virtual culture-can command a valuation premium of 15% to 25%. You need to look for targets that have already mastered this shift.

Focus on corporate governance and board diversity for any acquired operating company

While the regulatory landscape for board diversity has seen some turbulence, the social and investor pressure remains intense. You must prioritize strong corporate governance and board diversity in your target, even without a direct exchange mandate.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the Nasdaq Board Diversity Rules in December 2024, and the SEC approved Nasdaq's proposal to remove them in January 2025. This means the mandatory disclosure and 'diversify or disclose' requirements are gone. However, the market still demands this information.

Here's what you need to focus on:

• Many public companies are voluntarily maintaining board diversity disclosures in their proxy statements because their shareholder base values it.
• The SEC's Regulation S-K still requires companies to disclose whether, and how, their nominating committee considers diversity in identifying nominees for director.
• Major institutional investors still have their own internal voting policies that pressure for diversity, even if proxy advisory firms like Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) suspended their specific diversity factors in February 2025.

A lack of board diversity in your de-SPAC target will still trigger negative votes and scrutiny from key institutional shareholders, making it harder to secure long-term capital and support. You need to ensure the target's board is diverse, not just to meet a rule that was vacated, but to meet the expectations of the capital you're trying to attract.

Lionheart III Corp (LION) - PESTLE Analysis: Technological factors

Rapid advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) creating both high-growth targets and rapid obsolescence risks for legacy businesses.

You need to see Artificial Intelligence (AI) not just as a tool, but as a market-redefining force that creates both immense opportunity and immediate risk for your portfolio. The global AI market is a massive target, valued between $391 billion and $757.58 billion in 2025, and it's expanding at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of up to 35.9%. That's faster than the cloud computing boom of the last decade. The sheer velocity of this growth means any non-AI-native technology you acquire has a shorter shelf life than ever before. Generative AI alone is a $63 billion market, and startups in that space captured $33.9 billion in private capital in 2025, up nearly 19% from 2023. That's where the money is flowing.

For a business focused on supply chain authentication like the one Lionheart III Corp acquired, AI is a double-edged sword. It can drastically improve data analytics from the blockchain-marked products, but it also means a competitor could launch an AI-driven predictive logistics or authentication platform that renders a purely chemical-marker system obsolete in a year. Here's the quick math: with a 30%+ CAGR, the technology you buy today must deliver a 50%+ internal rate of return (IRR) to justify the obsolescence risk. You must prioritize targets that either use AI or are AI-proof.

Increased reliance on digital platforms for due diligence and investor communication.

The M&A process itself is now a technology play. The old way of sifting through paper in a physical room is dead; everything is digital, and the reliance on Virtual Data Rooms (VDRs) and AI-powered due diligence tools is non-negotiable. Dealmakers cited the technology review as the most costly and onerous facet of M&A due diligence, with 45% of respondents in a recent study calling it out. This is a critical cost center and a risk mitigation step.

The new reality is that AI analysis tools can now generate detailed reports for large-scale research and competitive analysis in a single day, dramatically accelerating the deal timeline. But this speed comes with a cost-literally. The expense of a VDR, which is essential for secure and efficient information management, is a clear line item in any transaction budget.

You defintely need to budget for the best VDRs, but more importantly, you need the in-house expertise to use the AI tools that analyze the data room, not just manage the files.

Cybersecurity risks for high-growth tech targets requiring extensive pre-merger audits.

The threat landscape is no longer theoretical; it's a $10.5 trillion annual cost to organizations from cybercrime in 2025. This is why pre-merger cybersecurity audits are not a formality-they are the single most important risk check you can make before closing a deal. Global cybersecurity spending is set to hit $213 billion in 2025, reflecting the severity of the threat. The average global cost of a data breach in 2024 was already $4.88 million, a 10% jump from 2023, and that number only rises for high-growth tech targets with valuable intellectual property (IP) and customer data.

For any tech target, especially one with proprietary supply chain technology, you must mandate a comprehensive audit. The costs are substantial but necessary:

• General IT Security Audits: $3,000 to $50,000, based on scope and assets.
• SOC 2 Audits (for compliance): $20,000 to $50,000 for small to medium businesses.
• Readiness Assessments: $10,000 to $17,000 to prepare for the audit itself.

What this estimate hides is the remediation cost, which can run from $10,000 to $100,000+ depending on the severity of the gaps found. You need to bake this contingency into your deal valuation. A clean audit is a massive value-add; a dirty one is a deal-breaker or a significant discount lever.

Blockchain and Web3 technologies offering new, albeit volatile, areas for potential acquisition.

The core business of the combined entity already uses blockchain for supply chain authentication, so this is a growth opportunity, not just a speculative area. The global Web3 and Blockchain Technology Market is expected to grow at a staggering CAGR of 44.90% between 2025 and 2032. This explosive growth confirms that the underlying technology is a major trend, not a fad.

Institutional capital is validating this space, driving the volatility but also the opportunity. Total investment by institutional investors in the Web3 sector reached $78 billion in the second quarter of 2025 alone, representing a year-on-year increase of 215%. The total market capitalization of Web3-related projects hit $1.2 trillion in 2025, demonstrating significant scale. This is where you find the next generation of targets, but you must be prepared for the price swings.

• Total Web3 Market Cap (2025): $1.2 trillion.
• Q2 2025 Institutional Investment: $78 billion (up 215% YoY).
• Market Growth Driver: Rising demand for decentralized applications (dApps) and secure, transparent data transactions.

The volatility is high, but the growth potential for a blockchain-based supply chain company that can acquire complementary Web3 infrastructure or decentralized finance (DeFi) applications is immense. You should be looking for targets that can integrate AI with their blockchain solutions to enhance data transparency and predictive capabilities.

Lionheart III Corp (LION) - PESTLE Analysis: Legal factors

The legal landscape for the entity formerly known as Lionheart III Corp (LION) is now defined by the post-merger environment of SMX (Security Matters) Public Limited Company, which closed its de-SPAC transaction in March 2023. The key legal risks in 2025 stem from new US regulatory scrutiny on SPACs, the ongoing threat of shareholder litigation, and the complexities inherited from the cross-border merger structure.

New SEC Rules Increasing Liability for Directors and Underwriters

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finalized new rules in January 2024, effective July 2024, that fundamentally shift liability for de-SPAC transactions, mirroring the standards of a traditional Initial Public Offering (IPO). This is a major change for the combined entity, SMX, and its leadership.

The most impactful change is the extension of liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act to the target company and its directors and officers. The target company (SMX, formerly Security Matters Limited) is now deemed a co-registrant on the Form F-4 filed for the business combination. This means the directors and officers of both the original SPAC and the target company are now subject to potential heightened liability for material misstatements or omissions in the registration statement.

Also, the new rules eliminate the statutory safe harbor under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) for forward-looking statements in de-SPAC transactions. This significantly increases the risk associated with financial projections and other forward-looking information that was included in the original merger proxy statement. Simply put, projections are now much easier to sue over.

Risk of Shareholder Litigation Related to Merger Disclosures

The post-merger entity, SMX, faces a persistent risk of shareholder litigation, a trend that has seen significant financial consequences across the SPAC market in the 2025 fiscal year. These lawsuits typically allege that the proxy statement contained materially false or misleading statements about the target company's business or financial prospects.

In early 2025, two major SPAC-related securities class action settlements were filed, setting a high-water mark for litigation risk:

• One settlement stemming from a de-SPAC transaction reached $80 million in January 2025.
• Another securities class action settlement filed in January 2025 was for $126.3 million.

These large settlements underscore the financial exposure for SMX's directors and officers, even years after the merger closed. The elimination of the PSLRA safe harbor makes it easier for plaintiffs to pursue claims based on the pre-merger financial projections of Security Matters Limited.

Lock-Up Expiration and Share Dilution Risk

While the original SPAC extension deadline is irrelevant, a critical near-term legal risk in 2025 is the expiration of lock-up agreements. The original Lock-Up Agreements for certain directors and officers of both Lionheart III Corp and Security Matters Limited were set to terminate upon the earlier of (a) fourteen months after the Closing Date or (b) a subsequent liquidation or similar transaction. Since the closing date was in March 2023, the 14-month lock-up period expired in May 2024, meaning most of the initial lock-up risk has passed.

However, the combined company completed a reverse stock split in 2025, with one split approved by shareholders on April 15, 2025, and another effective in October 2025, which adjusted the number of outstanding ordinary shares from approximately 15.5 million to approximately 1 million. This action, combined with the convertible note financing of up to $20 million secured in 2025, creates a continuous risk of dilution and market volatility as shares from various agreements, including convertible notes, are released or converted throughout 2025 and 2026. This is a perpetual risk that requires careful legal and financial management.

Complex International Regulatory Hurdles from the Merger Structure

The structure of the Lionheart III Corp business combination created a uniquely complex set of international regulatory compliance obligations that persist in 2025. The transaction involved a US-listed SPAC (Lionheart III Corp, a Delaware corporation) merging with an Australian-listed company (Security Matters Limited, ASX:SMX), with the resulting public entity (SMX Public Limited Company) incorporated in Ireland.

This multi-jurisdictional structure required navigating simultaneous regulatory processes, including:

• US SEC and Nasdaq compliance.
• A take-private via a cancellation Scheme of Arrangement in Australia.
• Irish corporate law and listing requirements for the ultimate Parent company.

This complexity increases the ongoing legal overhead and compliance costs for the combined entity in 2025, particularly concerning financial reporting and corporate governance, which must satisfy US, Irish, and Australian legal standards. Coordinating a transaction involving a simultaneous scheme in Australia and de-SPAC in the US, plus tax considerations in four jurisdictions, increases the degree of difficulty exponentially. That's a lot of legal risk to manage.

Lionheart III Corp (LION) - PESTLE Analysis: Environmental factors

Mandatory climate-related financial disclosures (e.g., SEC's proposed rules) for any substantial target company.

You might think the environmental disclosure risk is off the table, but honestly, it's not. While the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) climate-related disclosure rules, adopted in March 2024, are currently subject to a voluntary stay and litigation as of September 2025, the underlying pressure hasn't gone away. The SEC has withdrawn its defense of the rules, making the federal path uncertain, but the risk is still real for any substantial target Lionheart III Corp considers.

Even without the full federal mandate, any target company with significant global operations or a footprint in California must already comply with other stringent rules. California's SB 253 and SB 261, for example, mandate emissions and climate-related financial risk reporting. Plus, the global shift is definitive: as of June 2025, 36 jurisdictions are adopting or finalizing steps toward using the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) standards. You need to assume disclosure is coming, one way or another.

This means your due diligence must model the financial impact of these disclosures. Here's the quick math on what the original SEC rule would have required for financial statement footnotes, which gives you a great benchmark for materiality:

Increased focus on carbon footprint and sustainability in due diligence for industrial or energy targets.

The days of a quick environmental site assessment (Phase I ESA) are long gone, especially for industrial or energy targets. Due diligence in 2025 is now a deep dive into an asset's entire carbon footprint, including its value chain. The biggest challenge for most companies is reporting on Scope 3 emissions-the indirect emissions from a company's supply chain and product use-which often make up the majority of the total carbon footprint.

Investors aren't just looking at what a company emits today; they want a credible, actionable climate transition plan. This is where the risk of a high-emission target company is magnified. If a target can't provide reliable, granular data on its Scope 3, the valuation will suffer a significant discount. To address this, organizations are getting serious about supply chain decarbonization.

• Standardize data collection for product carbon footprints (PCF).
• Prioritize decarbonization with supplier-specific roadmaps.
• Integrate low-carbon credentials into procurement strategies.

You defintely need to see evidence of an ESG data platform, not just spreadsheets, to trust the numbers.

Regulatory pressure on fossil fuel and high-emission sectors making them less attractive SPAC targets.

Here's where the US market presents a near-term paradox. While global pressure is intense, the current US regulatory environment is actively rolling back restrictions on the fossil fuel industry. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed repealing all greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants in June 2025. This deregulatory action is estimated to save the industry up to $19 billion in regulatory costs over two decades starting in 2026, or about $1.2 billion a year.

So, near-term operational costs for a US-based fossil fuel target might look better. But don't let that fool you into thinking the long-term risk has vanished. The global market is still moving toward decarbonization. In the most pessimistic scenario for US decarbonization, annual average GHG reductions from 2025 through 2040 are projected to be just 0.4%, compared to 1.1% from 2005 through 2024. This slow pace creates a massive long-term risk of stranded assets, higher cost of capital, and reputational damage that can crush a public company's valuation.

Opportunity to acquire companies in the rapidly expanding renewable energy and cleantech sectors.

The opportunity is clear: cleantech is officially the new energy dominant. For the first time ever, global investments in cleantech are projected to outpace upstream oil and gas spending in 2025, hitting an estimated $670 billion. This is where Lionheart III Corp should be focusing its capital.

The growth is concentrated in a few key areas that offer high-multiple targets:

• Solar PV: Accounts for half of all cleantech investments and two-thirds of new installed capacity.
• Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS): US operating storage capacity reached 37.4 GW by October 2025, a 32% year-to-date increase.
• Corporate Procurement: Data center demand for clean energy is a massive, high-margin driver, projected to rise from 200 TWh to 300 TWh annually by 2030.

The US solar sector, specifically, demonstrated resilience with a notable 25% increase in corporate M&A activity in the first half of 2025. That's a clear signal for a SPAC like yours. The next step is to drill down on targets with proprietary BESS or solar-plus-storage solutions, as that's where the high-demand corporate buyers are focused.