Loading summary
Transcript56 lines
- [00:00]
A
Liz Ann, I want to start by reading you something from your mid year outlook. Okay.
- [00:04]
B
Uh oh.
- [00:06]
A
This is the AI earnings circular financing problem wearing a second half outfit. The very companies that need continued hyperscaler capex to justify their earnings trajectories are the same companies whose results underpin the index. What is going on here?
- [00:22]
B
Well, you know the circularity of financing is not a brand new story. Obviously that's been an embedded concern as it relates to the AI buildout for quite some time. And I the heightened attention to it is because there's a lot of people making comparisons between the AI boom and the Internet boom and the dot com. What became a bubble in the late 1990s then it was called vendor financing. I think the important difference and why maybe it shouldn't be as grave a concern as many believe it to be is that in the late 1990s the telecom buildout had a bit of a buy it and they will come kind of mentality around it. The demand wasn't there, but the companies building the infrastructure were making assumptions about future demand. The difference this time is that the spend so far from a capex perspective is justified by the demand. Now that doesn't necessarily mean it continues in perpetuity, but I think the other concern is because in the early days of this build out when we were really just at the phase of the creation of AI as we know it right now, and the dominance of the hyperscalers is they were financing it out of cash flow and increasingly there's more debt based financing that in and of itself doesn't signal some imminent problem. Financing is pretty readily available, spreads haven't blown out. But given that there's more debt oriented financing right now, I think there's rightly so more attention on the sort of stability and quality of that financing and maybe less of a monolithic move higher where there'll be a little bit more of a company. To company analysis by analysts as to how they're financing that continued build out,
- [02:15]
A
I think that makes sense. The circular financing, a lot of people point to that as their biggest concern with the AI boom right now. But what's interesting is that it's happening in parallel with pretty ridiculously strong earnings. So to me that kind of, I don't know, deflates the circular financing concerns. Is that the right way to think about it?
- [02:36]
B
Yeah, we've definitely seen improvement from a valuation standpoint. Everybody's favorite cohort to use as a proxy is the magnificent seven. And on the eve essentially of the 2022 bear market the mag seven forward pe was 40 and right now it's about 24. And that's because the pace of the denominator, the E, has been exceeding the pace of the numerator, the price. So that has actually allowed multiples to come down a bit. That doesn't mean the AI whole sphere are a bunch of cheap stocks. But when you have such strong earnings growth, it helps obviously to improve the valuation backdrop. The one thing I would say though about valuation, well, two things I'd say about valuations of anything of a sector of the market overall, it doesn't tell you anything about what the market's going to do. Valuation is a terrible market timing tool. So we could sit here for an hour and talk about the market being richly valued or on the upper end of some sort of historic range, but that says nothing about whether the market is going to do poorly or not. We've done scattergram analysis of every variety of valuation indicator, every forward pe, trailing pe, Shiller, cyclically adjusted pe, price to book price to sales, equity risk premiums, Tobin's Q Fed model, Buffett model, and subsequent one year return relative to starting point valuation essentially rounds to zero. If you have a 10 year forward look, then you start to connect between valuations and what market returns are. But a one year time horizon or less, it doesn't tell you really anything. The one thing that does broadly come into play is inflation, because if you look at average valuations, but break the environment historically into CPI zones, the sweet spot for valuations when valuations have been highest is when you're in about the 2 to 3% inflation zone, maybe not coincidentally around the Fed's target. Serious deflation, you tend to have lower multiples. Serious inflation, you also tend to have lower multiples.
- [04:57]
A
So if we look at the picture right now where inflation is, it's kind of ticking up. We got this Iran backdrop happening. Do you read into that as anything that we should be concerned about as far as forward returns for stocks?
- [05:14]
B
I think that the, the inflation story is broader than a lot of people think. So we often talk about the latest trends in inflation in the context of the war, in the context of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, in the context of oil prices. But this inflation story is broader than just via the energy channel. You've had an increase in money supply that's kind of that classic driver of inflation. Too much money chasing too few. But then you also have the AI story, which is increasingly embedded in inflation. If you look particular at areas like software that has started to have an increasing impact on measurements like CPI and even more importantly pce, which is the Fed's preferred measure.
- [06:01]
A
Inflation Software spending, like spending on software.
- [06:05]
B
The price of.
- [06:06]
A
The price of software.
- [06:07]
B
Yeah. So that's another less discussed aspect to what's going on with AI. We talk about the capsbacks, we talk about the build out and data centers and how that's broadened and allowed for leadership in areas like industrials and materials, the energy needed for these data centers, but in combination due to just the massive growth in the buildout but also supply constraints, some of which are actually tied to the Strait of Hormuz, but some of it is tied to. There's so much demand, the ability to get what's needed to feed that demand in this ongoing AI buildout is running behind sort of schedule, to use a very simplistic way of, of thinking about it. So I think that that's still an undertold story is the potential for supply problems to hit alongside higher prices. So the cost of the build out is going up because prices are going up.
- [07:13]
A
So this also runs counter to the narrative that AI can be a deflationary force. Kevin Warsh has talked about this quite a bit. Do you see this as overpowering the potential deflationary technology?
- [07:27]
B
I think the deflationary aspect to AI is probably the longer term story. I think the inflation piece of it is the shorter term story and I think right now we're living in the inflation piece of it.
- [07:39]
A
I think that's fair. When you look across the AI ecosystem, do you think it's a mistake right now for investors to be looking at some of these AI stocks and still expecting positive returns given how much they're spending on capex.
- [07:56]
B
Well, I should caveat an answer to a question like that with I'm not an analyst, I don't cover groups of stocks or individual stocks. But I'll answer it broadly. I do think that with all the talk, Is this a bubble? I get questions about this all the time from our clients and they're often fairly broad, almost vague questions. Is AI a bubble? I think there may be. I don't know that there's a bubble in the spend associated with AI. And I'm not even sure there's a bubble in the stocks in terms of the appreciation. But there may be a bit of a bubble in how high the expectations bar has been set for earnings. And I think what we saw very recently at the end of last week when Broadcom had a somewhat negative announcement, how quickly that leads to some Profit taking in these stocks. Because even though in level terms, in absolute terms, things still look fantastic, the market, the stock market tends to price itself more on the margin. I'm very fond of saying better or worse often matters more than good or bad. And I think it's human nature for people to think, well, the earnings growth is still very strong, but if you've notched a few percentage point off the earnings growth rate, that then comes into forward valuation and it's that, okay, still good, but getting worse. And it works in the other direction, too. Still bad, but getting better. And that is, I think, one of the key aspects to how markets behave that sometimes gets missed by investors sort of trying to connect the dots between economic data or earnings data and what the market does. Understanding that better or worse tends to matter more than good or bad. Just inflection points, rate of change. And that sometimes gets missed because again, it's human nature to think, oh, well, it's still strong, but if it's deteriorating, then the market has a tendency to say, okay, was that the peak? And as you come down off the peak, in level terms, the data might still look good, but the market's pricing in the trajectory.
- [10:21]
A
Today's episode is sponsored by Public, and they just launched a new product called Agents. And it's honestly one of the most compelling uses of AI in investing I've ever seen. The idea is simple. A lot of investing is repetitive. Monitoring markets, moving cash, managing risk, rebalancing positions. It's the kind of stuff investors constantly have to stay on top of. Public's new Agents product lets you automate those workflows using plain English. So instead of manually watching charts all day, you can create an agent by typing something like, if the Vix hits 25, buy a weekly page, put option on Spy. Or if my cash balance goes above 20,000, move the excess into my direct index. Public's AI then turns that into an automated workflow that you can customize, review, and activate directly in your portfolio. Public is essentially building what they call an agentic brokerage, a platform where AI can help automate the operational side of investing. Based on rules and strategies you define yourself. If you want to start automating ideas and inside your portfolio, visit public.com openingbell that's public.com openingbell now let's get back to the show. That is such a smart way to think about the absurd earnings we've been seeing. Because even myself, I find myself writing about this and talking about it, how the earnings look so good. How could you possibly not like the stock. And I think you're pointing out the. The flawed thinking in my own statements here is expectations. Then the thing you would look for as, let's say, what turns first when, let's say the AI trade stops losing momentum.
- [11:57]
B
Yeah. So I think we've already seen it to some degree because we touched on the Mag 7 as everybody's favorite cohort, but they're not the best performers anymore by a long shot. Alphabet is the best performer among the Mag 7, but as of yesterday's close, it was ranked 131st in the S&P 500. From a price performance standpoint, it's still a top 10 contributor to S and P returns, but that's by virtue of the multiplier of its cap size. That's another thing that investors sometimes misunderstand. Those stocks can still be large contributors, but not necessarily the best price performers. And I think one of the reasons why the Mag 7 lost some leadership relative to the Microns and Sandisks and Western digitals of the world is because of a deceleration in the earnings growth rate. So a couple of Years ago, the Mag 7 had, I think, aggregate earnings growth as a cohort of more than 65%. And that's now back down into kind of the 20ish range. So still stronger earnings growth, still strong earnings growth, but weaker than it was. And I think that's why leadership shifted to other faster growing segments within the broader large cap tech sphere.
- [13:24]
A
That has also gone hand in hand with all these mag 7s ramping up their spend as well. And you had this data in your outlook here. Goldman Sachs estimates that the largest hyperscalers will spend nearly 800 billion on CapEx this year, a more than 80% increase from last year. And then that goes to 900 billion in 2027. So I think what we're seeing if expectations start to turn, part of that will be investors will stop looking at spend as a bullish thing and start to be concerned that this is way too much we're putting into this.
- [13:57]
B
I think one of the things that is happening, and I think will continue to happen tied into that is investors are not looking at the AI world monolithically. In the early days around the launch of ChatGPT and the creation of large language models, you could be a cohort investor, you could invest monolithically. Now I think there's much more precision happening here, differentiation, more dispersion under the umbrella of AI. And I think the investor class is just a little pickier. It is not just Sort of saying, if I throw a dart and it lands anywhere in the AI space, I'm going to do well. The other thing that I think is really important to think about from a somewhat secular standpoint is really in the post World War II environment. What drove the macro backdrop was sort of this relationship between labor and capital. What share of GDP was capital, what share of GDP was labor, and the interrelationship between the two. I think we're now in an environment where the two forces we need to be more mindful of are compute and energy. That's really defining how our economy can grow and how sustainable that growth is, because that's what's driving the economy is the AI buildout. And that has to do with compute power and the ability to source the energy that is needed to continue to build this infrastructure out. And I think there may be some complacency on how quickly available the supply is of compute, power and energy.
- [15:57]
A
Can you explain the labor statistic? Again? You said labor and capital.
- [16:04]
B
And one way to think about this is comparing the labor share of GDP with the profits share of GDP. Around the 2021 period when we came out of COVID and that was, if you remember the backdrop, where the job market improved quite dramatically and there was a shortage of skilled labor and there were way more job openings than there were people to fill them. We really went off the charts on a lot of that statistics. And you started to see labor's share of GDP turn higher and profits share of GDP turn lower. Unfortunately, that has now reversed again where as the job market has gotten a bit looser, you've seen labor share of GDP start to come down again and profit share of GDP start to move up again. So that's always been an interesting way to think about the macro backdrop. You know, is it the profit engine that is a driver or is it the labor engine that is a driver? Those don't go away. But again, now I think we have to think about, given how much capex is driven by AI, there's pretty much no capex other than AI related capex. Capex has become a huge economic driver. The growth rate of capex within a statistic like GDP is going up where I think we'll continue to see a notching down in the consumer spending portion of GDP. Consumer spending still represents about 2/3 of GDP, but I think that's going to be decelerating. And I think business capital investment with that AI angle to it is going to pick up as a driver of gdp. And that brings in the Needs associated with the AI boom. And those needs are around compute power and energy and power.
- [18:16]
A
Wow. Everything you're saying, I don't see how if we continue down the same path we're on with the AI buildout, those things will only accelerate, I think, unless
- [18:29]
B
we're going to face more significant supply constraints. There's only so fast that memory can be added to chip production can kick in. And that to me is an undertold story of supply disruptions or supply lags. Whether we have growth in supply at a sufficient pace relative to the growth in demand. And a disconnect, a growing disconnect between those two, I think represents a possible risk factor for the market.
- [19:01]
A
Wow. I guess on the labor side, I don't see how labor would ever come back up the chart. Right. If we keep leaning more and more into technology, automation, things like that. That seems fairly secular.
- [19:15]
B
Except I actually, I'm an optimist as it relates to AI and what it means for the labor market from a secular standpoint. I've been around long enough and I've studied a lot of cycles and most major innovations. Everything from the major. When we went from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy, industrial economy to an innovation economy, and now AI as a component of that innovation economy, you do go through disruption inclusive of within the labor market. You get that creative destruction and there's dislocations that happen. And I think we're in the midst of some of that right now. But ultimately when you, when you get to the other side of that disruption phase, brand new industries are created with job opportunities that you wouldn't even necessarily have thought of, say 10 years prior. So I'm not a long term pessimist on AI's impact on the labor market. Quite the opposite, frankly. I think at this point, given when we look at the labor market statistics, they're still pretty decent and there's still pretty decent breadth other than maybe, and this is an important. But the two industries or sectors I should say that have seen the weakest payroll numbers have been tech and finance. And those are the industries arguably most impacted by AI. But I still think from a broader perspective, it's the marriage between AI and humans. It's things like hallucination rates and slop and context, the human emotion side of things. I think AI at this stage leans a little bit more toward being a replacement of tasks than a replacement of full occupations.
- [21:10]
A
I think that is the optimist view and I'm optimistic as well. I think that the narrative about AI taking everyone's jobs. I think that's a little so totally overblown. So let me take us back to the market here for a moment. The earnings that have been so good, a lot of that is built on this optimism and we're seeing the unusual move of a lot of analysts raising their expectations for earnings around this time of year, which usually the opposite happens, I believe.
- [21:41]
B
Right? Yes.
- [21:43]
A
Does that concern you that we've run up so much earnings have run up so much that we're still seeing analysts get more optimistic from here?
- [21:51]
B
It doesn't concern me to a significant degree at the aggregate level, but it's part of the view of more differentiation and analysts and investors not looking with a monolithic lens at the tech space or communication services space more broadly or anything AI related more specifically. But I think that there is, there's less tolerance for Mrs. At the individual stock level and at times like we have seen, it'll pull the sort of sub industry level down and other stocks in it. But I think that's where the risk is more significant is at the individual stock level. I don't view there to be, you know, just universal pie in the sky assumptions and a bar that's been set absurdly too high like was the case in late 99, 2000. But I think that there's greater sensitivity at the individual stock level. That's part of the reason why in the most recent earnings season for first quarter, the stocks of companies that missed were disproportionately hurt relative to the gain accrued to the stocks of companies that beat.
- [23:06]
A
So barely missing to the negative was way more severe than barely beating. Right? Okay. I think you and I both agree that AI today is not a bubble. If you were to look for the thing that would make it a bubble, where would you start?
- [23:27]
B
I think it would be a collection of companies in a narrow window of time that had to start guiding down not just maybe by a few cents a share for their own earnings outlook, but more commentary collectively like the assumptions are just too high for this spend or the supply disruptions are such that we've got to ratchet down even our own spending assumptions. So I think it would have to be a collection of companies that started to sing the same tune in terms of concerns about the expectations bar being set too high. The other though would be a more macro related concern that right now I would argue we're in an inflationary boom. What we're hoping we can avoid is the inflationary bust where you lose the growth side but you don't benefit from a loss on the inflation side. So the classic stagflation backdrop, ideally if you get the economic slowdown part that that brings inflation down with it. Worst case scenario from an equity market is either the inflation side doesn't come down or it's very delayed in moving down relative to any kind of contraction we see in the economy. It's not my base case, but that's undoubtedly a risk.
- [24:54]
A
What is your base case for the rest of this year?
- [24:58]
B
I think the economy should be fine. I worry about a straight of hormones closure that goes on significantly longer than this. I think it was last week senior folks from both Exxon and Chevron came out and said inventories have been drawn down to such a significant degree that we're at the point where moves up in oil prices could become a bit more parabolic than a lot of these few dollar swings we're seeing on a day to day basis. I don't think that's priced into assumptions either broadly for the economy or maybe for corporate earnings, particularly in industries and companies that have energy as a high feed cost. So I do think that that represents a risk that we see that compression in demand.
- [25:42]
A
Yeah, that's the whole Iran conflict has been, I would say it's been a black swan event. And yet markets continue to run up and up and up. And I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why that's happening because there's a lot of things that the President can't necessarily undo with a pen, like tariffs. These things are structural and global and geopolitical. What do you make of that disconnect there?
- [26:07]
B
I think that there is complacency embedded in the market, but I think it has to do not necessarily with the market sort of whistling past the potential graveyard of say a backdrop of $150 oil. But there's so much short term attention span money in the market. And it's not just cohorts like the retail trader. In fact, they haven't participated as much in this move up off the late March lows as they have in the post pandemic period of time. But then you've got the more institutionally oriented sort of fast money crowd, the systematic funds, the long short hedge funds, the commodity trading advisors. And it's not that they have blinders on to things like the war in Iran, but they're more focused on the very short term, playing off each other's positioning, playing off short term technicals, overbought oversold conditions. So I think that that has sent this sort of impression that the market doesn't seem to care about the long term. I just think that's the nature of the beast in terms of the mechanics of the market and really who is driving the day to day and intraday behav year.
- [27:24]
A
It's almost like Wall Street's just competing with each other internally rather than looking at the macro or the fundamentals.
- [27:32]
B
100%. And we also have a market backdrop that does look a little more casino like.
- [27:40]
A
Okay, tell me more.
- [27:41]
B
We talked about this before the camera rolled and we just wrote a piece a couple of months ago. I would highly encourage people read it because I think it's a very important topic. And it's the blurring of the lines between investing and gambling. And that blurring comes in part because of how the marketing gets done for sports betting and other betting platforms and prediction markets. But also the younger generation that doesn't have a lot of confidence in their ability to sort of fund their futures. They don't believe that things like Social Security going to be there for them. The bells and whistles associated with the marketing sends the message that hey, this is maybe an alternative way to make some money. But I think the important distinction is that investing is about owning. You're a participant in wealth creation. You're a participant in future earnings and cash flows of real companies and real businesses. You're a participant in capitalism itself. And when you're gambling, you're just hoping and you're just a spectator. And also the odds aren't with you as an investor. The odds are with you. Doesn't guarantee no loss, but the odds are more in your favor, especially if you take a long term, more disciplined approach. And I think the distinction has never been more important to make than now because there are so many young folks that are looking at this as an alternative to more traditional investing.
- [29:23]
A
I think part of the issue too is that in traditional Wall street finance, we get zero day options, we get leveraged single stock ETFs, we get triple leverage funds that pretty much anyone can get exposure to with one click, right?
- [29:40]
B
And many don't quite know what they're doing buying.
- [29:43]
A
Yes, I think if you're giving investors the option to buy triple Micron, for example, there's going to be very heavy demand for it. And a lot of people just get wiped out from buying an asset like that.
- [29:57]
B
It works until it doesn't. And it's incredible how quickly we lose some of the lessons. One of the popular leveraged plays in the market in 2017 was shortfall that was based on the assumption that the market was making and investors in these vehicles that volatility would stay as low as it had in a year like 2017. And then you went into 2018 and all volatility had to do was double. Which I think in that case we're Talking about the Vix going from 10 to 20, not to the stratosphere, but when you're talking about leveraged inverse and you have 100% jump in the underlying index, you lose everything. So there was that shortfall implosion and I think valuable lessons taught through that. But that was a thousand years ago. That was nine years ago or eight years ago. And memories tend to be short.
- [30:58]
A
I just finished this book called When Genius Failed about long term capital management. I'm very late to reading this because it came out a couple decades ago, but that was a hedge fund that was run by a bunch of Nobel laureates, PhDs, geniuses. And what did them in was that they were betting on equity volume in various directions. They had all these derivative plays and everyone thought they were so clever. But all that cleverness, they exposed themselves too much to leverage and they blew up. We see pockets of that today. And that is a very old lesson and we're going to have to continue to relearn this. Let me ask you about the disconnect right now we're seeing between sentiment data and the hard data, even just the record high stock market. What do you make of that?
- [31:47]
B
In itself, it is quite extraordinary. And so there's consumer sentiment. That's the metric that gets put out by University of Michigan. And then you have kind of a competing measure which is consumer confidence, that's put out by the conference board. Consumer sentiment in particular is the one that is at all time record lows in the many decades that they have been doing that survey. And that's obviously in stark contrast to what the stock market is doing. I think there's a couple of reasons for this one and also, by the way, a reason why consumer confidence put out by the conference board is not showing that kind of extreme. So that's been another sub conundrum, not just the difference between what we're seeing in the hard economic data or certainly what we're seeing in the stock market versus record low consumer sentiment. But a lot of people who are looking at both measures are saying, well, why hasn't consumer confidence dropped as much? The nature of the questions that Umich asks in their survey tends to bias the view more toward what's going on with inflation. Consumer Confidence put out by the conference board tends to be more biased by what's going on in the labor market. So you have this environment where inflation is high and very, very troubling. So respondents to that survey, based on the questions that are asked, that's what they're responding based on. Whereas consumer confidence is more about the labor market, much more resilience there, a little bit better. It's also there's political sort of party lines that come into play. So those on the left leaning side of the spectrum within consumer sentiment have just been ranking it. This is as bad as it's ever been. But maybe most important as it relates to the inflation piece of it that I think is so relevant in an environment where we all and the Fed and economists and market watchers talk about inflation, rightly so, as a rate of change, when CPI gets reported, we look at headline cpi, core cpi, month over month, year over year, and that's fine, that's how inflation is measured. But the average consumer thinks about inflation in level terms stuff is more expensive now than it was before. So this idea that, hey, we got a better inflation reading, you know, it went up by only 310 and it was supposed to be up by 5 10, that's great. The bottom line is not only do consumers think of it in level terms, they think of it in cumulative terms. If inflation is still growing at 0.3% month over month, it's still growing, it's growing maybe at a lesser pace, but you're still adding up the cumulative impact on prices. And that has really gotten to consumers. They are extremely pessimistic about their cost of living because of inflation. And that's just disconnected from what the market is doing because the market is focused on profits. And inflation isn't necessarily negative for profits because profits are nominal. So this is kind of the in the weeds stuff that I don't think consumers think about that much. But it's important to explain it because it helps people understand why what the consumer is actually feeling and living every day might not be matched by the hard numbers.
- [35:35]
A
Well, I can ask my investor friends or even my financial reporter friends. And generally people say things are going really well. And when I ask anyone outside of markets, they take the opposite view. And they say things are expensive, I can't afford, rent, housing, all this stuff which I think is super reasonable. And it's like, yes, I'm an investor, I'm a markets person, but I also exist as a human in the economy. So I feel all those pressures too. When you think about the resilience of the economy over the last year, even two years. I think it surprised a lot of people. But how much of that do you think is genuinely AI related versus just typical business cycle?
- [36:16]
B
So I think the capital spending story is, is almost all AI because if you look at the the investment parts of gdp. So there's two stated categories of investment. There's residential investment and non residential investment. That's how it's worded inside GDP lingo. And residential investment is basically housing. Non residential is business capital spending. It kind of rounds to all of the capex story. The business capital spending story is AI related, but that hasn't been the only driver of gdp. Consumer spending has been a relatively healthy contributor to gdp. I think that's what we need to keep a close eye on because number one, it's the largest component of GDP. It's still about 68% of GDP is consumer spending. And what has kept consumer spending in relatively healthy territory has been resilience in the labor market and confidence about the labor market, excess savings that came from the stimulus part of the pandemic. And then your traditional savings rate. The traditional savings rate now has a two handle on it. That's historically on the low end. A lot of the excess savings has been drawn down. The labor market is still supportive of consumer spending, but I think we have to temper our expectations for the pace of improvement to be maintained as it has in the past, because that savings cushion has brought down. In addition, the latest wage growth data. The growth rate is lower than the growth rate in inflation. So that means we're in real negative territory.
- [38:11]
A
How common is that?
- [38:13]
B
Well, it's very common in high inflation eras and it's relatively common in the lead in or during recession because it's the actual wage growth piece that tends to decline, not the inflation piece going up. So it's the inflation piece going up now that is wage growth in nominal terms is still in decent shape. The problem is when you subtract inflation out of it, you get real rage growth that's now in negative territory.
- [38:40]
A
Yeah, it's not a good sign, certainly. Liz Ann, if we were to get together a year from now and talk about what we talked about today, what do you think we're most likely to have gone wrong about the AI story?
- [38:55]
B
Well, I think I touched on it already, which is I think there's not enough discussion about how can the supply keep up with this demand. So it wouldn't surprise me if a year from now we found out that if there were big problems that erupted, it may not necessarily have been because of a decline in demand, but an inability to have supply, whether it's memory or chips or power. I think that will be an increasingly told story, but it's being under told right now.
- [39:34]
A
Wow. I've been following your work for so long. It is so good to be able to chat with you like this. And yeah, I really appreciate your time. So anytime you want, you're welcome back on the show.
- [39:47]
B
My pleasure.
- [39:47]
A
Thank you so much for your time.
- [39:48]
B
Thanks for having me.