Triumph Financial, Inc. (TFIN) 2026 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Good morning. It's 9.30 in Dallas. Thanks for joining us this morning and for the interest in our first-quarter results. We're glad you're here. We've all had our coffee, so let's get to business.

早安。達拉斯現在是 9 點 30 分。感謝各位今早加入我們，並關注我們第一季的業績。很高興各位在場。我們都已經喝過咖啡了，那就開始談正事吧。

Aaron's letter last evening outlined a quarter of real progress on the things that matter most. During the slowest quarter of the trucking calendar, we grew factoring customers and outgrew the general market's seasonal decline.

Aaron 昨晚的信函概述了本季在最重要事項上取得的實質進展。在卡車運輸業年度中最淡的一季，我們的保理客戶仍然成長，並且在整體市場季節性下滑的情況下表現優於大盤。

Payments demonstrated the revenue growth and continued margin expansion we've been alluding to, and Load Pay now exceeds more accounts than we have factoring clients. The positive momentum is palpable, and you can see the results in Aaron's comments in the letter.

Payments 業務展現了我們先前提到的營收成長與持續的利潤率擴張，而 Load Pay 現在覆蓋的帳戶數已超過我們的保理客戶數。正向動能十分明顯，從 Aaron 在信中的評論也能看出成果。

That quarterly shareholder letter published last evening and our quarterly results will form the basis of our call today. However, before we get started, I would like to remind you that this call may include forward-looking statements. Those statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual and anticipated results to differ. The company undertakes no obligation to publicly revise any forward-looking statement. For details, please see the Safe Harbor statement in our shareholder letter published last evening. All comments made during today's call are subject to that Safe Harbor statement.

昨晚發布的季度股東信以及我們的季度業績，將構成今天電話會議的基礎。不過，在開始之前，我想提醒各位，本次電話會議可能包含前瞻性陳述。這些陳述受到風險與不確定性影響，可能導致實際結果與預期結果出現差異。公司不承擔公開修訂任何前瞻性陳述的義務。詳情請參閱昨晚發布之股東信中的「安全港」聲明。今天電話會議中的所有評論均受該安全港聲明約束。

With that, I'd like to turn the call over to Aaron for a welcome and to kick off our Q&A, Aaron.

接下來，我想把電話交給 Aaron，請他致歡迎詞並開始我們的問答環節。Aaron。

Thank you, Luke.

謝謝你，Luke。

Good morning, and thank you all for joining us.

早安，也感謝各位加入我們。

For those of you who read the letter before the call, I hope you appreciated the shift in tones.

對於在會議前讀過信函的各位，我希望你們有感受到語氣上的轉變。

It was intentional because Triumph is now in a different place.

這是刻意為之，因為 Triumph 現在已經處於不同的階段。

We have moved from talking about logos and density and product development pipelines to talking more about revenue and margin. And that shift has shown up in our numbers even with the seasonality Luke talked about.

我們已從談論客戶標誌（logos）、密度（density）以及產品開發管線，轉而更多談論營收與利潤率。即使有 Luke 提到的季節性因素，這樣的轉變也已反映在我們的數字上。

Now, the shift in tone does not mean we are done innovating or investing for the future. For example, load pay and intelligence are not yet profitable, and we still continue to invest in them because we see the growth and the opportunity to create long-term value.

現在，語氣的轉變並不代表我們已停止創新或不再為未來投資。例如，Load Pay 與 intelligence 目前仍未獲利，但我們仍持續投資，因為我們看見其成長性與創造長期價值的機會。

It's the same vision we had years ago for factoring and for the payments network, both of which have paid off.

這與我們多年前對保理以及支付網路的願景相同，而這兩者都已證明是值得的。

Speaking of those two lines of business, our operating margin in factoring is 80% better than it was a year ago.

談到這兩條業務線，我們保理業務的營業利潤率比一年前提升了 80%。

And the core payments network is growing rapidly and is on its way to achieving a 50% EBITDA margin.

而核心支付網路正在快速成長，並正朝著達成 50% EBITDA 利潤率的方向前進。

I believe those are industry-leading numbers.

我相信這些都是業界領先的數字。

The cascading requirements for being a successful technology company are, first, can you build it? Second, Can you distribute it? And third, can you be profitable at scale?

要成為一家成功的科技公司，其層層遞進的要求是：第一，你能不能把它做出來？第二，你能不能把它推廣出去（分發）？第三，你能不能在規模化之後仍然獲利？

We are at the third step of that analysis for a large part of our transportation business, and I believe the results speak for themselves.

就我們運輸業務的很大一部分而言，我們已經來到這個分析的第三步，我相信結果已不言自明。

We grew transportation revenue over the last year by 23%, and that was done in a freight environment that was very difficult.

過去一年，我們的運輸營收成長了 23%，而這是在一個非常艱困的貨運環境中達成的。

We expect to grow at least 20% again this year. There is a lot of good to celebrate after what has been a very long winter in freight.

我們預期今年仍將至少再成長 20%。在貨運經歷了漫長寒冬之後，確實有許多值得慶祝的成果。

Speaking of a long winter in freight, I'm not sure outsiders have appreciated how much the freight recession of the last four years has tried to throw sand in the gear of what Triumph has been building. It's been a tough slog, but we stayed committed to our vision. And if we get a more normal market from here, we are very well positioned to benefit from it.

說到貨運的漫長寒冬，我不確定外界是否充分理解，過去四年的貨運衰退在多大程度上試圖阻礙 Triumph 正在打造的事業。這一路走來非常艱辛，但我們始終堅持我們的願景。如果從現在開始市場回到較正常的狀態，我們將處於非常有利的位置來受惠。

With that, I'll turn the call over for questions.

接下來我把時間交回去，開始提問。

We will now move to our question-and-answer session. If you have joined via the webinar, please use the raise hand icon, which can be found at the bottom of your webinar application. When you are called on, please unmute your line and ask your question. We will now pause a moment to assemble the queue.

我們現在進入問答環節。如果您是透過網路研討會加入，請使用位於研討會應用程式底部的「舉手」圖示。輪到您發言時，請解除靜音並提出您的問題。我們將稍作停頓，以整理提問順序。

Our first question will come from Gary Tenner with DA Davidson. You may now unmute and ask your question.

我們的第一個問題來自 DA Davidson 的 Gary Tenner。您現在可以解除靜音並提問。

Thanks. Good morning, everybody. I had a couple of questions. First, in your shareholder letter, Aaron, you have a lot of kind of updated thoughts around profitability margins, KPIs, etcetera. where it leads off with the -- sorry, looking for my question here.

謝謝。各位早安。我有幾個問題。首先，在你的股東信中，Aaron，你對獲利能力利潤率、KPI 等提出了不少更新的想法。信的開頭提到——抱歉，我在找我的問題。

Where it leads off with the North Star commentary below that first table and talking about if you achieve the revenue growth and margin targets, all is equal, you should generate roughly $1 of incremental earnings annually. What is that relative to?

在第一個表格下方的「北極星（North Star）」評論中，你提到如果達成營收成長與利潤率目標，在其他條件相同下，每年應可產生約 1 美元的增量盈餘。這是相對於什麼而言？

I'm not quite clear in terms of my understanding of kind of what that is relative to kind of what the base is and what you're comparing?

我不太清楚我理解中的「相對於」是指什麼基準，以及你是在跟什麼做比較？

Sure. What I meant by that is our target was 15% greater transportation revenue growth annually. If you can do that at the margins at which we currently operate, which are not yet to those final North Star metrics, but at the margins we currently operate at. You're going to generate about a dollar per share of earnings if operating income in the bank stays relatively flat, the corporate expense, the corporate segment stays relatively flat. So that was what we were trying to show. Does that make sense?

當然。我的意思是，我們的目標是運輸營收每年成長 15%。如果你能以我們目前的利潤率水準做到這點——雖然目前還沒達到最終的北極星指標，但以我們現在的利潤率水準——在銀行端的營業利益維持相對持平、公司費用（公司部門）也維持相對持平的情況下，你將能產生約每股 1 美元的盈餘。這就是我們想要呈現的內容。這樣說清楚嗎？

I think so. If I have a follow-up to that, I'll do so.

我想是的。如果我還有追問，我再提出。

I'm curious, and I've had some inbound questions about kind of the yields this quarter. It looks like the yields really in all three segments came down, the bank segment particularly. I'm just curious about noise there, what the drivers were. And frankly, beyond the bank segment, I mean, in the factory and payments segment, I know that obviously there's an element of timing of collections that impact the yields, but just curious what the moving parts were there?

我很好奇，我也收到一些外部提問，關於本季的收益率（yields）。看起來三個部門的收益率都下降了，尤其是銀行部門。我想了解這裡是否有雜訊、主要驅動因素是什麼。坦白說，除了銀行部門之外，在保理與支付部門，我知道收款時點會對收益率造成影響，但也想了解其中有哪些變動因素？

Yeah, I'll take the bank segment part of that question. There are really two main drivers, one of which impacts our bottom line and one of which actually doesn't impact our bottom line. The one that impacts our bottom line, of course, is the rate environment. So the declining rate environment certainly contributed to lower yields, and that was a significant part of the overall decline you saw.

好的，我來回答銀行部門的部分。主要有兩個驅動因素，其中一個會影響我們的最終損益，另一個其實不會影響我們的最終損益。會影響最終損益的，當然是利率環境。因此，利率下行的環境確實導致收益率下降，這是你看到整體下滑中的重要部分。

The one that doesn't is related to the additional mortgage warehouse deposits that we brought in in the quarter. And the fact that the way that those are compensated is through the form through loan rebates. So rebates on the yield of the mortgage warehouse loans. Net that benefits us as an enterprise, but it does compress the yields as they're reported.

另一個不影響最終損益的因素，與我們本季新增的按揭倉儲（mortgage warehouse）存款有關。而這些存款的補償方式，是透過貸款回饋（loan rebates）的形式。也就是對按揭倉儲貸款收益率的回饋。從企業整體來看這對我們是有利的，但在報表呈現上會壓縮所報告的收益率。

And Gary, in the in the other segments, I would assume you're also referencing the factoring segment, which Kim and I can speak to. But I would just say that is always going to be driven by mix shift, right, or the mix of large enterprise factoring clients versus smaller clients, which we wrote about in this letter, the difference between having a single fleet with 500 trucks versus 500 owner operators.

而且 Gary，在其他部分，我想你也在指保理（factoring）業務板塊，Kim 和我都可以說明。但我想說，這永遠會由組合轉移所驅動，對吧？也就是大型企業保理客戶與較小客戶的組合，而我們在這封信裡也寫到了：擁有一個 500 輛卡車的單一車隊，與 500 位自營車主（owner operators）之間的差異。

And then secondly, I just think the industry technology, a lot of things are working together to make the industry more efficient. And so that yield profile reflects, I mean, while Triumph's getting better, we would be foolish to think we're the only people getting better at being efficient.

其次，我認為產業科技方面，很多事情正在共同作用，讓這個產業更有效率。因此那個收益率（yield）曲線/特徵所反映的是——我的意思是，雖然 Triumph 在變得更好，但如果我們以為只有我們在提升效率，那就太天真了。

So I think those would be the two largest contributing factors there.

所以我認為這會是那裡最大的兩個貢獻因素。

I appreciate it. I'll step back.

感謝。我先退到後面。

Your next question will come from Timothy Switzer with KBW.

下一個問題來自 KBW 的 Timothy Switzer。

Hey, good morning, guys. Thanks for taking my questions.

嘿，各位早安。謝謝你們回答我的問題。

I was looking for a little bit more color on the freight environment. Aaron, I really appreciate your comments in the letter.

我想更深入了解一下貨運環境的情況。Aaron，我非常感謝你在信中的評論。

But do you guys believe we can continue to see truckload freight pricing move higher, even if this Delilah Law is not passed, rather than just, pricing stay where it is? And I mean, do you guys have a sense at all for.

但你們是否認為，即使 Delilah Law 沒有通過，我們仍能看到整車（truckload）運價繼續走高，而不是只是維持在目前水準？我的意思是，你們對此是否有任何判斷。

This law passing and the timeline for it, given, it's a midterm year with war going on, all that can kind of distract Congress a bit.

這項法案通過的可能性以及時間表如何？考量到今年是期中選舉年，又有戰事等因素，這些都可能讓國會分心。

Yeah, well, obviously, this is the question that a lot of people have.

是的，嗯，顯然這是很多人都在問的問題。

And I'm going to start and then I'd love for Kim to follow-up on because, I think our factoring business, it tells part of the story and just what we've seen there.

我先說一下，然後我也希望 Kim 能補充，因為我認為我們的保理業務能反映部分故事，以及我們在那裡看到的情況。

We're like, there's a whole lot getting written about this in our industry. We agree with the overall sentiment that this is supply side driven. We are seeing a structural change in trucking capacity as a result of multiple regulatory initiatives, some of which are new and some of which are just enforcing laws that are on the books. And we started seeing that last year.

我們這個產業對此有大量文章在討論。我們同意整體觀點：這主要是供給端驅動。我們看到卡車運能正在發生結構性變化，原因是多項監管措施的影響，其中一些是新的，另一些則是對既有法規的加強執行。而我們從去年就開始看到這種情況。

The question is, will we see that continue? And I think the answer is yes, because I don't even know that you need Delilah's Law to pass to see what's already been in flight from the Department of Transportation and FMCSA.

問題是，這種情況會不會持續？我認為答案是會，因為即使 Delilah’s Law 不通過，你也不一定需要它，因為交通部（Department of Transportation）與 FMCSA 已經在推進中的措施就足以產生影響。

The second big question is, what happens if supply stays structurally changed, as it now appears to be, and you see demand increase throughout the rest of the year? Well, that would create a very tight market.

第二個大問題是：如果供給如目前看起來那樣已經發生結構性改變，而你又在今年剩餘時間看到需求上升，會怎麼樣？那將會造成市場非常緊俏。

So, we think it holds on the supply side. But Kim, I think it would be great to speak about what we're seeing with 8,000 clients in our factoring business.

所以，我們認為供給端會維持這種狀態。但 Kim，我覺得你談談我們在保理業務中、面對 8,000 位客戶所看到的情況會很有幫助。

Yeah. So right now, we're seeing a pretty solid, healthier pipeline than we saw the previous year. And exiting 2025, we started to see an increase of capacity oh sorry, a decrease in capacity of carriers leaving the market just with the English proficiency that was coming out, the non-domicile conversations that we're hearing. And so, I think that we're seeing the movement in the spot rate continue to improve.

好的。目前我們看到的案源管道（pipeline）相當穩健、也比前一年更健康。而在 2025 年底時，我們開始看到運能增加——喔抱歉，是運能下降，因為承運人退出市場的情況，主要與英語能力要求的政策動向、以及我們聽到的非本土（non-domicile）相關討論有關。因此，我認為我們看到現貨運價（spot rate）的走勢持續改善。

Yeah. Could you, I think like specifically, like, let's talk about what we're, what we've seen a year ago now and what we've seen even quarter to date?

是的。你能不能更具體一點？例如，談談我們一年前看到的情況，以及到目前為止本季（quarter to date）看到的情況？

Yeah, so our average invoice price a year ago was about 1,769 and ending the quarter was 1,897. And today, quarter to date, we're saying $2,011.

可以。所以我們一年前的平均發票金額大約是 1,769，而在本季結束時是 1,897。而今天，以本季迄今來看，我們看到的是 2,011 美元。

Wow, interesting. Okay.

哇，有意思。好。

And, on the other side of the outlook here.

另外，從展望的另一面來看。

At what point do higher oil prices begin to offset the higher pricing and the factoring business, higher invoice levels? Is there, an oil price level or length of time where the costs remain elevated that is, that it just fully offsets the benefit from higher invoice prices?

油價上漲到什麼程度會開始抵消運價上升與保理業務中較高發票金額所帶來的好處？是否存在某個油價水準，或成本維持在高檔的時間長度，會讓它完全抵消較高發票價格帶來的利益？

Well, I mean, you're asking a question there. If you're just talking about the math of an average invoice.

嗯，我的意思是，你問的是一個問題。如果你只是談平均發票的數學關係。

Then higher diesel prices, improves margins, right? Because it's going to drive up, especially in the spot market, average invoice prices. But the increase in the spot market has started before oil prices move materially in March. It really started in December, continued in January, and then it has picked up since March. So really, the test, Tim, is at what price of oil do we start to slow down the overall economy? Because if we slow down the overall economy, then we see demand degradation.

那柴油價格更高，反而會改善利潤率，對吧？因為它會推升平均發票金額，尤其是在現貨市場。但現貨市場的上漲其實早在 3 月油價明顯上行之前就開始了。它其實從 12 月開始，1 月延續，然後自 3 月以來又加速。所以真正的考驗，Tim，是油價到什麼水準會開始拖慢整體經濟？因為如果整體經濟放緩，我們就會看到需求走弱。

What we have seen so far in what should have been our slowest quarter, and I presume will be, is that we have not seen demand fall off. We haven't seen it pick up other than in flatbed. But it's been relatively flat. And so, you've seen a structural change from capacity leaving the market. And then since March, which doesn't really show up in a lot of our numbers, but will probably show up in Q2, you're seeing the impact of the spot market adjust and the contract market will follow and adjust for higher diesel prices, which is, as Kim alluded to, you're seeing average invoice prices month to date in April over $2,000. We're not back to. quarter-one or quarter-four of 2021, quarter-one of 2022, which was $2,500 invoice prices. That was a very different market.

到目前為止，在本應是我們最淡的一季——我也推測仍會是——我們並沒有看到需求下滑。除了平板車（flatbed）之外，我們也沒有看到需求回升。但整體相對持平。因此，你看到的是運能退出市場所造成的結構性變化。而自 3 月以來——這在我們許多數據中還不太顯現，但可能會在第二季反映出來——你正在看到現貨市場的調整影響，而合約市場也會跟進，針對更高的柴油價格進行調整；正如 Kim 提到的，你看到 4 月截至目前的平均發票金額已超過 2,000 美元。我們還沒有回到 2021 年第四季或 2021 年第一季、以及 2022 年第一季那種 2,500 美元的發票金額水準。那是完全不同的市場。

But you are seeing strengthening despite the supply leaving the system like demands hung in there. And so it's just a question of when do higher oil prices hurt demand? And we're not economists. We were not able to answer that question.

但你確實看到在供給退出系統的情況下仍在走強，需求也撐住了。所以問題只是：油價上升到什麼程度會傷害需求？而我們不是經濟學家。我們無法回答那個問題。

Gotcha. Totally understand. I'll jump back in the queue, but I mean, I know you guys have always been hesitant to kind of call the bottom of the freight recession, which I think you've been proved right on. But it seems like this is maybe the most optimistic scenario you guys have had in front of you in terms of the factoring business over the last, I don't know, three or four years.

了解。完全理解。我會回到隊列後面，不過我的意思是，我知道你們一直以來都很謹慎，不太願意去判斷貨運衰退的底部，我想事後也證明你們是對的。但看起來，就保理業務而言，這可能是你們在過去三、四年裡所面對過最樂觀的情境。

I mean, I used the term long winter in the opening and there was a reason that we use that term. And I think, look, our job is to create value for customers, which translates into value for investors.

我在開場用了「漫長的冬天」這個詞，這麼用是有原因的。而且我認為，坦白說，我們的工作是為客戶創造價值，而這會轉化為投資人的價值。

The test, in my view, isn't what it does for Triumph. The real test is, can a law-abiding carrier earn their cost of capital?

在我看來，考驗不在於這對 Triumph 有什麼好處。真正的考驗是：一個守法的承運人能否賺到其資本成本？

And I would submit to you that since the middle part of 2022 through now, through the present, or let's call it the end of last year, a significant portion of law-abiding carriers struggled to earn their cost of capital because of a market that was soft for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was capacity operating within it that was not following all of the laws, rules, and regulations. And so we as a society have passed those laws because we want safe roadways.

我想向各位提出的是，自2022年年中一直到現在、到目前為止，或者說到去年年底，由於市場因多種原因走弱，其中一個重要原因是市場內有部分運能並未遵守所有法律、規則與法規運作，導致相當大一部分守法的承運人難以賺取其資本成本。因此，我們作為社會制定了那些法律，因為我們希望道路更安全。

And we as an industry should want a marketplace were shippers, brokers, carriers, factors, everyone can earn their cost of capital. And what we are seeing right now is dawn may be breaking for what's been a long time. Who knows what will happen? We're in the midst of a war. There's geopolitical risks, there's all sorts of risks. But as we look at it right now, I'm as optimistic as I've been in a very long time.

而我們作為產業，也應該希望有一個市場，讓託運人、經紀商、承運人、保理商（factors）、每個人都能賺取其資本成本。而我們現在看到的是，曙光可能正在出現，這已經是很長一段時間了。誰知道會發生什麼？我們正處於戰爭之中。有地緣政治風險，還有各式各樣的風險。但就目前來看，我的樂觀程度是很長一段時間以來最高的。

Love to hear that.

很高興聽到這樣。

Thanks, Aaron.

謝謝你，Aaron。

Sure.

不客氣。

Your next question will come from Joanne Junis with Raymond James.

下一個問題來自Raymond James的Joanne Junis。

Good morning.

早安。

Morning, Joe.

早安，Joe。

It sounds like the groundhog didn't see a shadow.

聽起來土撥鼠沒有看到影子。

We hope not.

我們希望如此。

So, I was hoping to start with the Supreme Court case, over broker liability and the potential impacts to Triumph, should the industry lose that case?

所以，我想先從最高法院的案件談起，關於經紀商責任，以及如果產業在該案中敗訴，對Triumph可能造成的影響？

So, I would assume, it would be a headwind for your payments and factoring segments, but could potentially be beneficial to your intelligence segment and insurance division. But I mean, I could be wrong there.

我推測，這會對你們的支付與保理（factoring）部門形成逆風，但可能對你們的智慧（intelligence）部門與保險事業部有利。不過我的判斷也可能不對。

Any thoughts on this would be helpful.

對此有任何看法都會很有幫助。

Yeah, well, business.

是的，嗯，企業。

All businesses desire certainty, right? And that's what we've had for many years with understanding that the responsibility for licensing of carriers is a governmental responsibility. I think I can speak for all of Triumph that we would take the position of the industry or of the brokerage industry of where we would land on that Supreme Court case. We don't know how it will play out. I mean, here's what we do know.

所有企業都渴望確定性，對吧？而多年來我們一直有這樣的理解：承運人的牌照核發責任是政府的責任。我想我可以代表所有Triumph同仁表達，我們會採取產業、或經紀業界在那起最高法院案件上的立場，也就是我們會站在經紀業界的立場。我們不知道結果會如何發展。我的意思是，以下是我們確定知道的。

That, number one, the government appears to have woken up to its responsibility with licensing regulation and enforcement. And that is most welcome. We really appreciate that. We don't think it is effective for the industry, for industry providers to be tasked with that. That feels like a governmental responsibility.

第一，政府似乎已經意識到自己在牌照監管與執法上的責任。這非常受歡迎。我們非常感謝。我們不認為把這件事交給產業、交給產業服務提供者來做是有效的。那感覺應該是政府的責任。

If that Supreme Court case goes the other way, and so, there's no longer federal pre-emption of all the state law, tort, negligent entrustment claims, what does it mean? Well, number one, freight's still going to move, and brokers are still going to be very important in freight moving because the industry is built that way. It's going to change what role insurance would play.

如果最高法院案件走向相反的結果，也就是不再有聯邦優先（federal pre-emption）來排除各州法律下的侵權、過失委託（negligent entrustment）等主張，會意味著什麼？嗯，第一，貨物仍然會運輸，經紀商在貨運流通中仍然會非常重要，因為這個產業就是這樣建構的。這將改變保險所扮演的角色。

For sure, and it will likely change how brokers think about tendering freight to certain carriers. I mean, brokers pay attention to that already, but of course, you're going to now be thinking through what will it mean in this state? What is precedent in this state? So it's going to create a lot of friction around the business.

毫無疑問，而且它很可能會改變經紀商如何思考把貨載交付（tendering）給某些承運人。我的意思是，經紀商本來就已經在注意這些，但當然，接下來你會開始思考：在這個州會意味著什麼？這個州的判例是什麼？因此，這會在業務周邊造成很多摩擦。

We need safe roadways.

我們需要安全的道路。

We need a clear operating parameters because we deal with a marketplace where there can't be prolonged negotiations over the movement of freight. It has to move quickly. We need a repeatable transactional process. So I don't know that if where the Supreme Court lands is really going to have an effect on Triumph's business. I think it'll inject volatility and we generally are in a position that we can weather that or even in some cases benefit from it.

我們需要清楚的營運參數，因為我們面對的是一個市場，在貨物運輸上不可能進行長時間的協商。它必須快速移動。我們需要可重複的交易流程。所以我不確定最高法院最後的落點是否真的會影響Triumph的業務。我認為它會注入波動性，而我們通常處於可以承受、甚至在某些情況下從中受益的位置。

But in our hope for the good of the industry, we think federal pre-emption is the right answer, coupled with, so long as it's coupled with proper enforcement of the regulations that are on the books to keep our roadways safe.

但就產業的整體利益而言，我們認為聯邦優先（federal pre-emption）是正確答案，前提是要搭配對現行法規的適當執法，以確保道路安全。

Okay, I appreciate that.

好的，我很感謝這些說明。

All right, so shifting to the outlook.

好，那我們轉到展望。

Yeah, that calls for 20% or at least 20% transportation-related revenue growth in 2026, which has a 4Q assumed a flat freight environment.

你們的展望提到，2026年運輸相關營收成長20%或至少20%，其中第四季的假設是貨運環境持平。

Well, the freight market, seems to be on fire right now, red hot.

但目前貨運市場看起來非常火熱、熱到發燙。

CH Robinson's in the market calling for spot rate growth of 17% ex-fuel. In your shareholder letter, you reiterated that factoring segment revenue growth would be in the low [10s].

CH Robinson在市場上預期現貨運價（不含燃油）成長17%。在你們的股東信中，你們重申保理部門營收成長會在低[10%區間]。

How do we square that with what we're currently seeing in the market?

我們要如何把這與目前市場看到的情況對起來？

The recent, I think you noted that average invoices were over $2,000, recent market share gains. I mean, what type of invoice volume growth and what average invoice size are implied in this low 10s growth outlook for factoring?

最近，我想你們提到平均發票金額超過2,000美元，以及近期市占率提升。我的意思是，在這個保理低10%區間的成長展望下，隱含的是什麼樣的發票量成長、以及什麼樣的平均發票金額？

Rod, do you want to take that one? Sure.

Rod，你要回答這題嗎？好。

Yeah. So, Joe, as we look at the factoring portfolio specifically, just look at what has happened over the last year.

是的。所以，Joe，當我們特別看保理投組時，只要看看過去一年發生了什麼。

Our number of invoices purchased in the first quarter of this year was about 12% higher than it was in the first quarter of last year. So that low-teens growth, we were approaching that in the year that we just followed. I think that we should be able to continue that. Anything that we get on top of that from invoice price growth would certainly be welcome. We're not counting on it, but we would certainly appreciate the tailwind.

我們今年第一季買入的發票數量，大約比去年第一季高出12%。所以那個低十幾%的成長，我們在剛結束的那一年其實已經接近了。我認為我們應該能夠延續。如果在此之上還能從發票價格成長得到額外助力，當然會很受歡迎。我們沒有把它算進去，但如果有這個順風，我們會非常感激。

And we're not going to recast.

而且我們不會重新調整（recast）。

I mean, when we gave you those projections, and even in the North Star metrics, the metrics that matter most, those are not forecasts. They were guidelines. And I can appreciate that investors will, is that a distinction? Without a difference.

我的意思是，當我們給出那些推估時，甚至在North Star指標、也就是最重要的那些指標裡，那些都不是預測。它們是指引。我理解投資人會覺得：這種區分是否有意義？看起來像是沒有差別。

If you run the business, it's a very important distinction. We weren't trying to forecast what was going to happen in the market. What we were trying to do is for Kim and Todd and Don and David and the people who lead our businesses, what do we need to do to position ourselves to grow revenue? And we will not make any assumptions about what the market might do.

但如果你是在經營企業，這是非常重要的區分。我們不是想預測市場會發生什麼。我們想做的是：對Kim、Todd、Don、David以及帶領我們各項業務的人來說，我們需要做什麼，才能讓自己處於能夠成長營收的位置？而我們不會對市場可能怎麼走做任何假設。

Because, and that's. That's not our job as operators. I mean, of course we pay attention to it.

因為，這就是。那不是我們作為經營者的工作。當然，我們會關注市場。

And when I look at, take factoring, for example, I mean, and what Kim and the team have done there to be positioned to organically grow, which we have not done in several years, and to do that while improving back office efficiency, I'm thrilled with that. If we, in addition to that, catch a tailwind, then maybe those mid-teen numbers change, but we're going to stick to the guidelines we gave.

而當我以保理為例來看，Kim和團隊在那裡所做的，讓我們能夠在多年未能做到的情況下，重新具備有機成長（organic growth）的定位，同時還提升後台效率，我對此非常振奮。如果除此之外我們又遇到順風，那麼那些十幾%的數字也許會改變，但我們會維持我們所提供的指引。

Because that's how we were, that's how we're running the business.

因為我們一直以來就是這樣做的，這也是我們經營業務的方式。

But we acknowledge we operate in a business where the environment changes every day. And right now it's been very positive changes. What it will be a quarter from now, we have no idea, but we certainly are appreciative of where things are now.

但我們也承認，我們所處的業務環境每天都在變化。而且目前這些變化非常正面。至於一季之後會是什麼樣子，我們無從得知，但我們確實很感謝當下的狀況。

Got it. So, it sounds like it could potentially be conservative outlook for '26 if trends currently stay. And I was going to save this for a follow-up question, but because you touched on it, I'm going to hop in here if you don't mind. So kind of with that AI theme and improved efficiency, by my math in 1Q, you purchased roughly 7,200 invoices per FTE and factoring, which was a massive increase from the 5,600 in the prior year, underscoring that narrative. I know AI can be a moving target given its rapid improvement, but by your estimation, what inning are we in for the use of AI and automation for improving fraud detection and providing analytics to some of your payments clients?

了解。所以聽起來，如果目前的趨勢持續下去，對於 2026 年的展望可能會偏保守。我本來打算把這留到追問，但既然你提到了，如果你不介意，我就先插問一下。就 AI 主題與效率提升而言，按我的計算，在第一季你們每位全職員工（FTE）在保理業務中大約購買了 7,200 張發票，較前一年 5,600 張大幅增加，這也呼應了你們的敘事。我知道 AI 進步很快、目標也會變動，但依你們估計，在運用 AI 與自動化來提升詐欺偵測、並為部分支付客戶提供分析這件事上，我們現在大概進行到第幾局（inning）？

We have a lot on our roadmap right now to improve automation through AI and large language models. And so I think we're just in the beginning innings, to be H1st, operationally. So I think you're going to see an improvement with volume of invoices versus our full-time headcount.

我們目前在路線圖上有很多項目，會透過 AI 與大型語言模型來提升自動化。所以我認為我們才剛進入前幾局，坦白說，就營運面而言。因此我想你會看到，在發票量相對於我們全職人力配置方面會有所改善。

And within the payments business, our application of AI is actually aimed more at delivering a better client experience. So as we use AI to improve our audit product, for example, that means that we're having to refer fewer invoices back to the brokers for adjudication. We're handling them ourselves. That's real value for the client. It's not just creating cost efficiencies. There are other opportunities for us to apply AI for the purpose of cost efficiencies, but right now, our focus is primarily on a better client experience.

而在支付業務方面，我們對 AI 的應用其實更著重於提供更好的客戶體驗。例如，當我們用 AI 來改善我們的稽核產品時，就代表我們需要回送給經紀商裁決的發票會更少。我們會自行處理。這對客戶來說是真正的價值。不只是創造成本效率而已。我們也有其他機會把 AI 用在成本效率上，但目前我們的重點主要是更好的客戶體驗。

Well, I appreciate it, and I will hop back in the queue.

好的，謝謝，我會回到排隊等候。

Your next question will come from Matt Olney with Stephens.

下一個問題來自 Stephens 的 Matt Olney。

Hey, thanks. Good morning.

嗨，謝謝。早安。

We talked in the past about the invoice pricing, how the exposure had predominantly been on the spot rates, but also now has some exposure to the contract market. And Aaron, as you said, the contract market could lag. The spot market. So just remind us of the exposure of the company within factory and payments and how much currently is spot versus contract and how that could change?

我們過去談過發票定價，當時曝險主要在即期（spot）運價，但現在也有部分曝險在合約市場。而且 Aaron，如你所說，合約市場可能會落後於即期市場。所以請再提醒我們，公司在保理與支付業務中各自的曝險情況，目前即期與合約各占多少，以及未來可能如何變化？

Yeah, it's difficult to put an actual number on the amount of contract.

是的，要把合約的占比用一個確切數字表達其實很困難。

We see a higher average invoice price on the factoring portfolio because of the diverse commodities that our carriers are hauling and the different size that we see. And I know we've said in the past, we have about 30% of our portfolio that's directly to shipper. So you see more contract and dedicated lanes through that. So that's probably the closest I can give you as far as a potential contract and dedicated lane number.

我們在保理投資組合上看到較高的平均發票價格，因為我們的承運商運載的商品種類多元，而且我們看到的規模也不同。而且我知道我們過去提過，我們大約有 30% 的投資組合是直接面向貨主（shipper）。因此在那部分你會看到更多合約與專線（dedicated lanes）。所以就潛在的合約與專線占比而言，這大概是我能提供的最接近的數字。

Okay, that's helpful. And I know it seems like we're a lot more focused on the transportation growth on this call, but it looks like the challenge in the first quarter was within that banking segment that still half the company revenue. And I think Todd addressed the question around the loan yields, but it sounds like the bank loan balances will be down this year. So help us think about the drag that we could see on banking revenue in '26. If I just look at year over year, quarter one 26 versus quarter one 25, it looked like core banking revenue was down 12%. So is that level of drag likely to continue throughout the year? You want to take that, Brad, or do you want to?

好的，這很有幫助。我知道這通電話看起來我們更聚焦在運輸業務的成長，但第一季的挑戰似乎是在銀行業務板塊，而那仍占公司營收的一半。我想 Todd 已經回答了關於放款收益率的問題，但聽起來今年銀行放款餘額會下降。所以請幫我們思考一下，2026 年銀行業務營收可能會面臨多大的拖累。如果我只看年對年，2026 年第一季相較 2025 年第一季，核心銀行營收似乎下滑了 12%。那這種程度的拖累今年是否可能持續？Brad 你要回答，還是你要我來？

Yeah, Matt, I don't think that you're going to see a lot of degradation from here. I think our intent is to hold things flat. I would remind you, though, that we are a bit asset sensitive. So as rates have declined in the overall economy.

好的，Matt，我不認為你會從這裡開始看到很多進一步的惡化。我想我們的意圖是把它維持在持平。不過我也提醒你，我們對資產端利率變動是有點敏感的。所以當整體經濟的利率已經下行時。

That would account for a good portion of what you saw relative to the first quarter of last year, in addition to things like our ABL and liquid credit portfolios running to a smaller level, which you'll likely continue over the course of this year. But our mandate to those teams is to keep it in the fairway, keep credit quality clean, and keep the balance sheet pretty stable.

這可以解釋你看到的、相較去年第一季的相當一部分變化；此外還有像我們的 ABL 與流動信用（liquid credit）投資組合規模變小，這種情況很可能會在今年剩餘期間持續。但我們對那些團隊的要求是：把事情控制在球道內、維持乾淨的信用品質，並讓資產負債表相當穩定。

As a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, feel free to use the raise hand feature, which can be found at the black bar at the bottom of your screen.

提醒一下，如果你想提問，歡迎使用舉手功能，可在螢幕底部的黑色工具列找到。

And our next question will come from Eric Bedell with Bloomberg Intelligence.

下一個問題來自 Bloomberg Intelligence 的 Eric Bedell。

Thanks for taking my question.

謝謝讓我提問。

I'm curious a bit on the factoring invoice purchase volume.

我想稍微了解一下保理發票的購買量。

What should we expect in terms of. How much you're going to pick up over the next few quarters. I know we touched on it a bit, but just curious to see if we're going to see similar levels to quarter-two 25.

就以下方面我們應該預期什麼。接下來幾季你們會增加多少。我知道我們稍微提到過，但我只是想確認一下，我們是否會看到與 2025 年第二季相近的水準。

Yeah, in Q1, you'll normally see a seasonality drop, although because we saw some additional client count in the first-quarter, we only dropped by about a little over 3%. So, I think quarter over quarter, you'll see that increase, especially when we see such a solid pipeline coming in.

是的，第一季通常會看到季節性下滑，不過因為我們在第一季新增了一些客戶數，所以我們只下滑了大約 3% 多一點。因此我認為就季對季而言，你會看到回升，尤其是我們有這麼強勁的案源管線進來。

Yeah, the we've answered this, Eric, in the past is if it's hard to, it's not a perfect comparison, because what you have is client growth, right? And when we start growing clients, which we're now doing, and then that the, you can't compare period to period factoring numbers and say, well, that's what the industry did. And that's why we encourage you in the letter to look at what the payments business spoke to, although frankly, it's growing as well. So you have to interpret our organic growth. But the three things we've always thought about, number one, client growth, which we've talked about, we're growing, the pipeline is really interesting. Number two is utilization, per carrier, which Kim can speak to, but that's going to be tied to seasonal factors like are these carriers, what percentage utilization are they at? And then number three, what's the average invoice price? And I would just point out that Triumph Factoring's average invoice price at over $2,000 currently is materially higher than probably what you're going to see with any other factoring business.

是的，我們過去也回答過這點，Eric：這很難——它不是一個完美的比較，因為你看到的是客戶成長，對吧？當我們開始成長客戶（我們現在正在做）時，你就不能拿不同时期的保理數字去比較，然後說「這就是產業做的事」。這也是為什麼我們在股東信中鼓勵你去看支付業務所反映的數據，雖然坦白說它也在成長。所以你必須用有機成長的角度來解讀我們的表現。但我們一直思考的三件事是：第一，客戶成長，我們已經談過了，我們在成長，管線也很有意思。第二，每家承運商的使用率（utilization），Kim 可以補充，但這會與季節性因素相關，例如這些承運商目前的產能使用率是多少。第三，平均發票價格是多少。我也想指出，Triumph Factoring 目前平均發票價格超過 2,000 美元，明顯高於你在其他任何保理業務可能看到的水準。

If you want to see where the average invoice price for all freight, which I don't know that the average tells you a lot because there's such a variability, but you should look at our payments numbers, which is going to be more like 12 or $1,300. And that's because a significant portion of our factoring portfolio is with larger carriers who are doing things for shippers that generate either longer length of haul or a different type of freight.

如果你想看所有貨運的平均發票價格——我不確定平均值能告訴你多少，因為差異性很大——你應該看我們的支付數據，那會更接近 1,200 或 1,300 美元。這是因為我們保理投資組合中有相當大一部分來自較大型的承運商，他們為貨主提供的服務會帶來更長的運距，或不同類型的貨物。

I think that there are directional signals for what you're looking for in our factoring business and in our payments business, but don't overlook the fact that we're organically growing it. And so it never gives you a perfect period over period comparison.

我認為在我們的保理業務與支付業務中，對於你所關注的方向性趨勢是有訊號可循的，但也別忽略我們正在以有機方式成長。因此，這永遠無法提供一個完美的逐期比較。

That's helpful. Thanks. And I was wondering if we could just shift to the payment side. Appreciate seeing the revenue per invoice and the increases there. Is there a target level that you have for dollars per invoice into the end of the year?

這很有幫助。謝謝。我想我們可以把話題轉到支付端。很高興看到每張發票的收入以及其增幅。你們對於到今年年底每張發票的美元金額，有沒有一個目標水準？

We don't have an aggregate target for dollars per invoice. We've shared in the past that our price on a per customer basis should be $1.25 for the core payment service. And then audit on top of that generally adds about $1 per invoice. So, you could put those together and say $2.25 would be the target on a customer level. We won't achieve that for the entire portfolio, but that would be an aspiration for every client.

我們沒有針對每張發票美元金額的整體目標。我們過去分享過，以每位客戶為基礎，我們核心支付服務的定價應該是 1.25 美元。然後在此之上，加上稽核通常每張發票約再增加 1 美元。所以你可以把兩者加總，說在客戶層級的目標是 2.25 美元。我們不會在整個投資組合上都達到這個水準，但這會是對每一位客戶的努力方向。

And just the repricings on those, how long does that take to come through? Should we expect that on a 12-month basis?

那這些重新定價大概需要多久才會反映出來？我們是否應該以 12 個月為期來看？

The pricing ramps for clients that are beginning to pay us now are generally about a three to four quarter ramp period. And so what you'll see in the second-quarter is a lot of brokers that began paying us just a little bit. On January 1, are now going to be paying us significantly more. And we're bringing a whole new slug of clients on board to begin paying us. So those two things will have a nice additive effect to our overall pricing.

對於現在開始付費給我們的客戶，定價提升的爬坡期通常約為三到四個季度。因此你在第二季會看到，許多在 1 月 1 日開始只付一點點費用的經紀商，現在將會付得顯著更多。同時我們也會導入一整批新客戶，開始付費給我們。所以這兩件事會對我們整體定價帶來不錯的加成效果。

I would just say, Eric, on that the migration from where the payments network was to where the payments network is today, we have, I think over the last four or five years, we've had a lot of investors ask about. Why aren't you pricing faster or, and our belief, and we wrote it in the letter, and our belief for the whole world to see our customers to see his value based pricing. And so we want to make sure we are delivering more value than we are asking for our customers, that's the only way to make this sustainable. So, we've we've given you in the letter, like the pricing ramps that are coming, that's only because they're tied to value ramps that came before.

Eric，我想補充一下，關於支付網路從過去到今天的遷移，我想在過去四、五年裡，我們有很多投資人問過。為什麼你們不更快調升價格，或是……我們的信念是——我們也在信中寫了——而且我們希望全世界、包括我們的客戶都能看到——那就是價值導向定價。因此我們要確保我們交付給客戶的價值高於我們向客戶收取的費用，這是讓模式可持續的唯一方式。所以，我們在信中提供了即將到來的定價爬坡，那之所以會發生，只是因為它們是與先前已發生的價值爬坡相連結的。

And we take that very seriously. So I just know that I'm sure others could go faster in pushing pricing, but Triumph's focus is can we go to our customers and show them the value of the network, not just audit and payment in isolation, but the value of the network, which is becoming more real every day.

而且我們非常重視這一點。所以我知道，確實可能有其他人能更快地推動漲價，但 Triumph 的重點是：我們能否走到客戶面前，向他們展示網路的價值——不只是把稽核與支付各自孤立來看，而是網路的價值——而這個價值每天都變得更真實。

And I think there's a lot of exciting things to come from the value it creates and distributes back to not just the people making the payments, but the people receiving the payments. And that's what we try to do with networks.

我認為，這個網路所創造的價值，以及把價值回饋分配給不只是付款方、也包括收款方，未來會有很多令人興奮的事情。這就是我們透過網路想要做到的。

That's helpful. Thanks. And I just had one last one on load pay account growth.

這很有幫助。謝謝。我最後還有一個關於 Load Pay 帳戶成長的問題。

What are you doing to kind of convert those new accounts into the active accounts? And what's that relationship like? Is there any churn yet? Just curious to hear some more color.

你們在做些什麼來把這些新帳戶轉換成活躍帳戶？兩者之間的關係大概是怎樣？目前有任何流失（churn）了嗎？只是想聽你們多分享一些細節。

Yeah, so we are we're really excited about the growth that we saw in the first quarter, right? It shows the amount of demand that's out there. And one of the features at Triumph is our ability to have wide distribution to the carrier network from the work that we've done historically within factoring and across our payments business. As Aaron just mentioned, right, we're about creating additional value in some of the. Feature sets that we enriched in the first quarter, it started to show an uptick in those number of active accounts. And we'll have another set of material upgrades in the second quarter, and we'll see that level of active accounts grow. And what we're already seeing is more and more of a carrier's total workflow is now being done within the LoadPay application. And so, someone who had logged in on December 1 versus logging in on April 1 is getting a much richer experience in order to successfully run their business and be. And be a profitable carrier.

是的，所以我們對第一季看到的成長感到非常興奮，對吧？這顯示了市場上存在的需求量。而 Triumph 的一個特色，是我們能夠廣泛觸達承運商網路，這得益於我們過去在保理以及支付業務中所做的工作。如 Aaron 剛才提到的，對吧，我們著重於創造額外價值。第一季我們強化的一些功能組合，已開始帶動活躍帳戶數的上升。第二季我們還會有另一批重要升級，屆時我們會看到活躍帳戶水準進一步成長。而我們已經看到的是，越來越多承運商的整體工作流程，現在是在 LoadPay 應用程式內完成。因此，12 月 1 日登入的人，相較於 4 月 1 日登入時，將會獲得更豐富的體驗，以便成功經營其業務並且——並且成為一家獲利的承運商。

Great.

很好。

Thank you. I'll step back in.

謝謝。我先回到隊列裡。

As a reminder, you may use the raise hand feature if you'd like to ask a question or another follow-up.

提醒一下，如果你想提問或進一步追問，可以使用舉手功能。

And we'll return to Joe Yanchunas with Raymond James.

接下來我們回到 Raymond James 的 Joe Yanchunas。

Hey, thanks for bringing me back on here.

嗨，謝謝讓我再回到線上。

So, I was hoping we could talk a little more about, expenses. So how much of the 2Q $97 million guide is, fixed first variable?

我希望我們可以再多談一點費用方面。所以第二季 9,700 萬美元的指引中，有多少是固定、多少是變動？

How much should professional fees and salaries spread from here? And then if you could provide some more color on your tech spend over the past couple of years, and, when we could expect to see that start to moderate, which, would materially impact your operating leverage going forward.

從現在開始，專業費用與薪資應該會如何變動？另外，如果你能就過去幾年你們的科技支出提供更多說明，以及我們何時可以預期它開始趨緩——這將會對你們未來的營運槓桿產生實質影響。

I'm just trying to ask, what needs to happen for you to get your quarterly expenses back to say the $80 million range?

我想問的是，要發生什麼情況，你們才能把單季費用拉回到例如 8,000 萬美元左右的區間？

Well, I think $80 million a quarter is very aspirational given our growth plans in our transportation businesses. That's not what we're trying to do. We're trying to keep our expenses really from growing in a material way. We're happy to do things like pay commissions and bonuses when we're able to grow our business. But the tech spend that we've had over the last few years, specifically to that question.

嗯，我認為以我們在運輸相關業務的成長計畫來看，單季 8,000 萬美元是非常理想化的目標。那不是我們想做的事。我們想做的是讓費用不要以顯著的幅度成長。當我們能夠成長業務時，我們也樂於支付像是佣金與獎金這類費用。但就你提到的過去幾年的科技支出而言，特別針對這個問題——

Most of what we need is in place. You shouldn't see a huge amount of growth there. We're always looking for ways to become more efficient. We're looking for ways to become more efficient in our operating businesses as well. So if you look over the next couple of years, what I would expect is the corporate expenses, the fixed overhead type of expenses, to be, grow at inflation at the most. And hopefully decline a little bit. And in our operating businesses, you should see our expenses grow materially slower than revenue. And that's what we're trying to do.

我們需要的大部分都已到位。你不應該會看到那方面有很大幅度的成長。我們一直在尋找提升效率的方法。我們也在營運業務中尋找提升效率的方法。所以如果你看未來幾年，我預期公司費用、也就是固定管理費用這類支出，最多只會以通膨的速度成長。並且希望能略為下降一些。而在我們的營運業務中，你應該會看到費用的成長速度明顯低於營收。這就是我們努力的方向。

Yeah, Joe, I appreciate the question. But it's, I don't think it's conceivable for us to grow transportation revenue 15% or 20% out into the future and cut expenses 20%. At the same time, I mean, I just,

是的，Joe，我很感謝這個問題。但我認為，如果我們要把運輸營收在未來持續成長 15% 或 20%，同時又把費用削減 20%，這是不太可能的。同一時間，我的意思是，我只是——

I think we've pulled $30 million of expense out of the business. There's a churn underneath that. There's probably more expense coming out. We told you we'd finish at $96.5 million.

我認為我們已經從業務中削減了 3,000 萬美元的費用。在這之下仍有一些人員/成本的流動與更替。可能還會有更多費用被移除。我們告訴過你們，我們會以 9,650 萬美元作結。

And I just returned to the North Star metrics because I get it. There are investors who look at us that come at it from a bank lens. Some of them come at it from a payments lens. Some of them come at it from a fintech lens.

我剛才又回到北極星指標，因為我理解。有些投資人看我們是從銀行的角度切入。有些人是從支付的角度切入。有些人是從金融科技的角度切入。

And that's why we wrote the metrics the way they are. Number one, revenue growth over 20%. We've already told you, I don't call it a North Star metric, but we've already told you that we're going to hold expenses relatively flat. So if you get 20% transportation revenue growth, the bank stays flat and expenses stay flat, you're creating operating leverage. Number two, inside of that revenue, we're telling you that the operating margin in our factoring business is going to exit the year around 40% operating margin, which is materially higher than any sort of commercial finance business that I'm aware of.

這也是為什麼我們用現在這種方式來撰寫這些指標。第一，營收成長超過20%。我們已經告訴過各位，我不把它稱為北極星指標，但我們已經說過，我們會讓費用相對持平。所以如果你做到運輸營收成長20%，銀行端維持持平、費用也維持持平，你就在創造營運槓桿。第二，在這些營收之中，我們告訴各位，我們保理業務的營業利益率將在年底時約為40%的營業利益率，這顯著高於我所知道的任何商業金融業務。

We're telling you that the EBITDA margin in our payments network is growing towards 50%. Where do we finish this year? I don't know. I mean, I think we're progressing towards 40%. And then we're telling you that the intelligence gross margin, which already lives where it lives, will stay there while we're growing revenue materially. So if investors are looking for us, I just want to be frank.

我們也告訴各位，我們支付網路的EBITDA利潤率正朝50%成長。今年會落在哪裡？我不知道。我的意思是，我認為我們正朝40%推進。然後我們也告訴各位，智慧（intelligence）業務的毛利率——它目前已經在既有水準——在我們大幅成長營收的同時，會維持在那個水準。所以如果投資人是在找我們，我只想坦白說。

If your investors are looking for us to reduce quarterly expenses to $80 million, you're looking in the wrong place.

如果投資人期待我們把單季費用降到8,000萬美元，那你找錯地方了。

We're telling you is we're going to grow transportation revenue 20% off the expense base we largely have in place now.

我們要告訴各位的是：我們會在目前大致既有的費用基礎上，把運輸營收成長20%。

And doing so, going back to the opening of what we wrote in the letter and what Gary asked about doing so, if I told you we're exiting last year at roughly $1 of earnings run rate, right, in Q4, which is generally one of our better quarters from market, you.

而要做到這點，回到我們在信函開頭寫的內容，以及Gary問到的——如果我告訴你，我們去年年底大約以每股1美元的獲利運行率（run rate）收尾，對吧，在第四季，而第四季通常從市場角度來看是我們表現較好的季度之一，你。

Where the market is, and then we come into Q1, and we stayed at roughly $1 a share, right, you can make whatever adjustments you want to make. It means we grew through the seasonality we should have expected.

在目前市場狀況下，然後我們進入第一季，我們仍大致維持在每股約1美元，對吧，你可以做任何你想做的調整。這代表我們在原本應該預期的季節性之中仍然成長。

And I want to emphasize this, like, normally, we would see a 7% to 9% falloff in transportation revenue, we stayed flat, which I think is a material win from Q4 to Q1.

我想強調這點：通常我們會看到運輸營收下滑7%到9%，但我們維持持平；我認為這是從第四季到第一季一個重大的勝利。

If you go and repeat what we did last year and we hit those margin targets we're giving you, you're going to double earnings, right? If you just use one and we told you we would add a dollar and maybe we do worse than that, maybe we do better, but we're trying to call our shot there. But I need everyone to understand because I don't want to disappoint anyone and I want to be truthful with everyone.

如果你重複我們去年做的事，並且達到我們給你的那些利潤率目標，你的獲利會翻倍，對吧？如果你只用1（美元）而我們告訴你我們會再增加1美元——也許我們做得比那差，也許更好——但我們試著在那裡先把目標講清楚。但我需要每個人都理解，因為我不想讓任何人失望，也想對大家誠實。

Cutting it back to $80 million a quarter is not the play. Play is holding it where it is and growing revenue from here.

把它砍回到每季8,000萬美元不是策略。策略是把它維持在目前水準，並從這裡開始成長營收。

That was crystal clear.

這非常清楚。

So a couple more from me here, shifting over to your intelligence product, how would you characterize, current demand for that offering? And, similar to your payments division, do you expect you'll try to build density before increasing pricing?

那我這邊再問兩個，轉到你們的智慧產品：你會如何描述目前對這項產品的需求？另外，類似你們的支付部門，你們是否預期會先建立密度（density）再提高定價？

Yeah, in the intelligence business, the demand is strong.

是的，在智慧業務方面，需求很強。

We've actually, in the past two quarters, we've brought on about 50 net new logos, right? Demand is very strong, the top of the funnel pipeline is very strong.

事實上，在過去兩個季度，我們新增了約50個淨新增客戶標誌（net new logos），對吧？需求非常強，漏斗頂端的管線也非常強。

Deals are taking a little bit longer to materialize in the P&L, just because of, to Aaron's point, showing customer value through proofs of concept.

交易在損益表（P&L）上實現的時間稍微拉長了一些，主要是因為如Aaron所說，需要透過概念驗證（proofs of concept）來向客戶展示價值。

It's been a year, right? It's been a year since Triumph acquired Green Screens and ISO to form intelligence. We have now integrated three teams, two products, and the data of the Triumph network. And Triumph made that acquisition to really monetize the data. We are now there.

已經一年了，對吧？自Triumph收購Green Screens和ISO並組成智慧（intelligence）業務以來，已經一年了。我們現在已整合三個團隊、兩個產品，以及Triumph網路的資料。而Triumph進行那次收購，真正目的就是要把資料變現。我們現在已經到位了。

And working, through the market, voice the customer to find the best fit products for each segment of the market. And again, pipeline is strong, net new bookings have been really strong for the past two consecutive quarters. So we're really happy with where we are right now.

並且在市場中運作，透過客戶之聲（voice of the customer）來為市場各個區隔找到最適配的產品。而且再說一次，管線很強，過去連續兩個季度的淨新增訂單（net new bookings）也非常強。所以我們對目前的狀況非常滿意。

Appreciate that. And then last one for me here.

謝謝，這很有幫助。然後我最後一個問題。

So how quickly will you be able to wind down your ABL and liquid credit portfolios? And assuming they're all completely gone, what impact would that have on your provision?

你們能多快縮減你們的ABL與流動性信用投資組合？假設它們都完全退出，這對你們的提存（provision）會有什麼影響？

In response to your question about how long it will take, we will have the ABL credits that we're exiting off the books probably within the next two to three quarters. We may choose to keep one on through the next renewal, which could take a bit longer, but you're going to see that by and large wound down by the end of this year.

回應你關於需要多久的問題，我們正在退出的ABL授信，可能在接下來兩到三個季度內就會從帳上移除。我們可能會選擇保留其中一筆直到下一次續約，這可能會花更久一些，但你會看到到今年年底為止，基本上會完成縮減。

And I'm sorry, what was the second part of your question?

不好意思，你問題的第二部分是什麼？

Yeah, the impact of this provision from, reducing balances here. I mean, I would think that the provision could kind of grind lower. Is that accurate?

是的，關於因為這裡的餘額下降，對提存的影響。我的意思是，我會認為提存可能會逐步走低。這樣理解正確嗎？

Yes, the way the math works, provision will grind lower.

是的，按數學關係來看，提存會逐步走低。

Yeah, Joe, I think that you could.

是的，Joe，我認為你可以。

Anticipate looking at the provision on those two lines of business, just as a percentage of loan balances, is going to be higher than our overall average.

預期來看，那兩條業務線的提存——以貸款餘額的百分比來看——會高於我們整體平均水準。

All right. Well, that was very helpful.

好的。嗯，這非常有幫助。

Thank you for taking my questions.

謝謝你回答我的問題。

For sure.

當然。

There are no more raised hands at this time. I'd now like to turn the call over to management for closing remarks.

目前沒有更多人舉手提問。我現在想把電話會議交回管理層作結語。

Thank you all for joining us. Have a great day.

謝謝各位參與。祝各位有美好的一天。