Loading summary
Transcript70 lines
- [00:00]
A
Gina, I'm so glad we're here today. I want to get right into the shift in stock and bond correlation. I'm a little confused what's happening because the last few times we've seen it, 20, 22, 2015, 2007, each time led to sort of a regime change. What's going on here?
- [00:16]
B
Yeah. So this is really interesting because when you look over the long term time period, you find that stock prices and bond yields tend to trade together in regimes. And by regimes, I mean either they're moving together by positively or they're persistently moving in opposite directions. And each time, and These regimes last 20 years on average, you sort of stay together, you're moving together. It's a symbiotic relationship. I think it's an impression of inflation or an interpretation of inflation risk that drives that relationship. But at certain points in time, the correlation breaks down. You named a couple of those other dates that the correlation has broken down where stock prices and bond yields are no longer moving in the same direction, or a negative correlation, they suddenly start moving in the same direction. Those are historically very disruptive periods for equities. We actually entered a regime shift as of April of this year. Stocks and bonds were sort of bond yields rise, stock prices rise, everyone was happy moving together. But as of April of this year, that correlation broke down. It is a potential suggestion that we are entering a bit of rockier period for stocks. Not coincidentally, April's signal occurred toward the end of April. May has been a little bit rockier, certainly still positive for equities, but a little bit rockier than April was, at least as a month. Whether or not it continues will probably depend on a lot of other factors. But nonetheless, that correlation signal does suggest pump the brakes a little bit. We've had a really nice ride. We may be in for a slightly more volatile condition to emerge as we enter the summer months.
- [02:00]
A
So from my understanding, you're more cautious on equities now. Is it because of this decorrelating relationship here?
- [02:09]
B
Well, so we've been, over the course of this year, actually, one of the things that started January off when we were putting together kind of our annual outlook is we look at 13 different indicators. This is one of those indicators. This indicator was actually positive back in January. It's only recently become negative. But that group of indicators as a, as a whole, which includes several different models as well as several different single factor indicators, said we should expect slightly slower returns in 2026 relative to the last three years of returns. A more normalized Equity in market, equity market is what the model had anticipated. Things like valuations at that time were relatively high by comparison to what our model said is fair. Also, it's likely that 2026 is peak earnings growth year. It may be very difficult for us to sustain sustain accelerations in earnings growth into 2027, even though earnings are probably going to remain pretty positive. The economy is at a point in time that would imply single digit returns as opposed to double digit returns, for example. And so when we look at the composite of all 13 of those indicators, it said we probably should lower our expectations for equities a little bit. We're still constructive certainly, but are we going to get 2025, 30% or any equity price growth this year seems unlikely in the large cap index anyway.
- [03:35]
A
I might push back on that actually, because at this point we're up almost 10% and we're not even really at the halfway point.
- [03:42]
B
Right.
- [03:42]
A
So I don't see why 20% couldn't happen, especially since earnings have been pretty ridiculous. Is there any room to change your call here?
- [03:52]
B
Oh, sure. If the composite of indicators shifts, certainly you can get more optimistic. I think what you would need to see in order to get more optimistic than a high single digit return is not just that earnings are strong, but they're getting stronger. And that's going to be really tough for companies after the first quarter earnings season, which looks to be peak earnings. We probably will see decelerating earnings growth going forward. We also probably will see the Fed tighten interest rates in the second half of this year or into early 2027. That characteristically usually slows down the rate of price appreciation. We also have seen our signal from correlations just emerge. So we were set up this year for relatively slow returns. Doesn't mean that we'll get them, but the models are telling us just hold our expectations relatively low, although keep them positive.
- [04:49]
A
I think that's totally fair. The last two years now AI has pretty much been the main and only driver of equity returns. And increasingly we're seeing semiconductors play a huge, huge role in this rally. I think semiconductors from your research here went from 5 to 18% of the S&P 500 in the last few years. I don't think it's a bubble because earnings, I think justify the price increases. What do you think?
- [05:18]
B
I think it's questionable. The fact. I don't think it's a long term bubble. Let me just put it that way. I don't think it's a bubble. Just like the tech bubble of 2000. I think when investors say bubble, they think it's 2000 again. I think it is something of a short term bubble in that semiconductor stocks went absolutely parabolic over the last six weeks. We saw a 50% price advance in semiconductors in six weeks only that has only happened three other times in history, all of which were right around the tech bubble period. However, you do have a very strong earnings case that has underpinned some of the optimism. But when you have parabolic moves like that, it's very difficult to sustain that pace for long. And so we probably will have some version of a pullback or rationalization of price trend. I think if you continue to see earnings accelerating at a very rapid pace, semiconductors can do just fine. But will they go 50% every six weeks into perpetuity is not going to happen. We will certainly see a more rational market emerge. We've been in a somewhat less rational market in the last six weeks and I think that that's important to acknowledge. Doesn't mean the bull market is over in semiconductors by any stretch of the imagination. But it does mean that investors probably got a little overly optimistic in a very short period of time. And that can create short term volatility in and of itself.
- [06:53]
A
Do you think it's fair to say that the parabolic price action was just trying to catch up to the earnings strength?
- [07:00]
B
I think there was some of that argued, certainly. However, if you look at the long term and you look at sort of a five year time period and you say has price moved in line with earnings? You actually find that price has well overestimated earnings growth at this point. So we've detached somewhat from our earnings sort of anchor, if you will. I do think that last night was a really good example. Nvidia REPORTS earnings. The stock's down today. Even though earnings were fantastic, there's not a lot to complain about. Expectations were just enormous. It's very difficult to substantiate such extraordinary price move in such a short period of time is the lesson. There's doesn't mean that, you know, all is lost and there is nothing underpinning this price move. It just means that expectations probably got a little too robust. And when expectations are extreme, it's difficult for prices to continuously justify those expectations. It ultimately will see rationalization emerge. Now what does that mean in the grand scheme of things? It probably means prices rise at a slower pace longer term, and they rise at a pace more in line with earnings as opposed to this enormous advance that we, that we've Had.
- [08:18]
A
So this would fall back to your maybe high single digit forecast from the
- [08:23]
B
start of the year for the broader index. Potentially, yeah. Because most of the index gain was also made on the heels of the semiconductors advance. As you correctly identify, semiconductors is now 17, 18% of the market cap of the S&P 500. It drove roughly 40% of the advance in the S&P 500 in that six week period of time. So. So if we see sort of expectations as an impediment to future price growth and prices grow at a slower pace, inevitably that will slow down the pace of growth in price for the S&P 500. Unless something else comes up. Unless something else emerges as another huge driver of optimism. There's always a potential for that something else to emerge. It just seems it's not likely to be this repeat performance of semiconductors.
- [09:15]
A
Once again, I think that's fair. One of the drivers, I think that will continue fueling the optimism is hyperscaler spending. We have probably a trillion bucks going to hit the market in some way from these hyperscalers over the next year or two. But I thought it was interesting in one of your recent notes you essentially posited that the hyperscaler spending is one of the main drivers of potential inflation in the coming months.
- [09:39]
B
Yes.
- [09:40]
A
Can you explain that?
- [09:41]
B
Yeah. This is really interesting because we're at a point in time where hyperscalers themselves through the $700 billion that they're set to spend this year and maybe another trillion dollars next year. At least that's what the market is anticipating is another trillion dollars next year. Though that enormous amount of spending is so much that it's actually creating inflation, demand based inflation in certain prices. Electricity prices are something that households feel every day. Electricity prices are rising because we're using. So in part because of data centers that are absorbing a lot of power in the United States. Copper prices are accelerating very rapidly. Silver prices are accelerating through the moon. All of these things are in some ways related to the construction of data centers and the investment in infrastructure to support the AI buildout. So we're seeing this enormous amount of spending fueling some demand for products that sell, naturally increasing the price of those products, which is creating all time new highs in commodity prices outside of the energy complex. I think this is really interesting because the market right now is trying to look through inflation as quote, unquote, transitory or temporary, really focused on the Straits of Hormuz closure as the source of all the inflation that's in the market today. And certainly that closure is creating supply based inflation pressures, in particular for the energy complex as well as the food complex. Some materials costs are certainly feeling the pressure as a result of that closure, but there is this additional pressure coming from hyperscalers that's less recognized. So I would argue that we have a budding inflation problem broadly that probably creates higher interest rates and slightly more volatility than many market participants are anticipating into the second half of this year.
- [11:40]
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 put option on Spy. Or if my cash balance goes above 20,000, move the excess into my direct index Publix. 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 inside your portfolio, visit public.com openingbell that's public.com openingbell now let's get back to the show. One of the things that Kevin Warsh has been saying for some time now is that AI will drive a productivity boom, which will actually be deflationary. It sounds like this is the opposite side. Hyperscalers will help drive inflation higher.
- [13:03]
B
Yep.
- [13:04]
A
Is it possible that both things are true?
- [13:07]
B
It's possible that one is a hope and one is an actual reality. So far.
- [13:16]
A
Just to clarify, the inflationary pressure.
- [13:19]
B
Inflation is happening.
- [13:20]
A
Okay.
- [13:21]
B
Right. We know that from the data.
- [13:23]
A
So you don't believe in the.
- [13:24]
B
We think productivity will accelerate into the second half. We think productivity. The market thinks productivity will accelerate markedly this year and into next year to offset that inflation pressure.
- [13:35]
A
That's pretty good.
- [13:35]
B
We don't have it yet. Right. So that's why I'm saying one is we think that. Yeah. Of course, innovation cycles usually result in productivity booms. How they result in productivity booms is also important to understand. Will it be a productivity boom through reduced labor cost or accelerated output? Or a Combination of both. That's what productivity is. So we're waiting to sort of see what is the productivity boom, how big will it be? Right now what we are seeing is accelerated spending, which is driving prices higher. So what you might actually see is for the next year, two years, maybe even three years, the spending drives inflation that is only partially offset by the productivity enhancements of AI as it gets deployed and utilized, which net net still results in some degree of inflation pressure. I think that's the environment that we're in right now. I mean, let's just look at the statistics. Producer Prices are rising 6% year over year. Consumer prices are rising almost 4% year over year. We're see commodity prices broadly as well as even excluding energy, hitting new highs, higher highs than they hit in 2022. That's the inflation that we have right now. AI is not offsetting that inflation. It's not creating enough disinflation to offset that price inflation. Will it eventually? Maybe we're all hoping for it. Certainly the market is hoping for it. I too am hoping for it because I don't want to live in a hyperinflationary world either. And I think companies are really pushing for it. Will it occur? We don't know. We're all thinking it will and we're all hoping that it will.
- [15:30]
A
So let me ask you this then. If inflation is structurally driven by, let's say, CapEx spending, how does the Fed navigate something like that? Because it's fairly unprecedented.
- [15:42]
B
So if inflation is demand driven and supply driven, the Fed probably does have to tighten interest rates. If they believe that it is purely supply driven and short term in nature, they do not necessarily have to increase interest rates. But if they start to recognize that it is a combination of both demand and supply and it is resulting in somewhat untethered inflationary pressure, then they may have to increase interest rates to slow it down. This is what the market is trying to get kind of grapple with at this point in time. Right now the broader financial markets are pricing for a hike in the Fed funds rate by the end of this year. That's really different than we were the place that we were in three months ago when the market was saying maybe the Fed actually can ease interest rates. So there is some of this coming into the marketplace already through the bond market, predominantly saying, you know what, the Fed may actually have to hike here because we do have strong growth, we do have strong demand driven growth. It's not resulting in any kind of stable or disinflationary pressure. Because of a productivity gain. The reality is we're seeing inflation accelerate much faster. So they may have to slow the rate of inflation through hikes in interest rates. We'll see. It certainly was not in the market language even just a couple of months ago.
- [17:05]
A
I think Warsh really can have a busy few months.
- [17:08]
B
He's got his work cut out for him.
- [17:10]
A
Without a doubt, that's a tough job. I want to go back to the big tech hyperscalers here. Their free cash flow has been falling pretty dramatically over the last few quarters. And my question, because I know a lot of people, including myself, holds a lot of these Mag 7 companies, right? If free cash flow continues to decline, what does that mean for shareholders and investors?
- [17:34]
B
Yeah. So what we've really seen in the hyperscaler space is a pretty strong distinction between the winners and the losers. If you look at MAG7 at large, half the MAG7 stocks are above their former peaks reached in October of last year. Half of them are below. You're sort of sitting at kind of neutral. Mag7 is basically testing that former October high. This is quite unlike the broader S&P 500, which is making new highs. And that's because the market is starting to distinguish between what's working and what's not. Which are currently the winners in this AI race and which are not, which are seeing free cash flow growth continue, which are not. And there's a number of questions like that that the market's grappling with. With respect to the Mag 7. I do think that when you're thinking about the Mag 7 and the hyperscalers as a subcomposite of that Mag 7, you do want to focus on free cash flow pretty carefully. Free cash flow yields for the vast majority of this group have been falling for the last couple of years. So you really want to think about what that means in terms of how much do I want to pay for these stocks? What is the appropriate multiple that I should be putting on these stocks? As opposed to three years ago when free cash flow was just flying higher, they were minting money. They weren't having to spend so much to sustain operations. It was a very different investing landscape than it is today. The market is onto this, which is the point of the note that we put out there. I do think it's incredibly important to think about the efficiency of spending. At the start. Spending on AI was generally single handedly considered to be a positive factor. If you were spending, you were doing the right thing, you were going to win. Now the market is starting to rationalize and say, well, how much are you spending and are you actually going to get a return on that investment that is worth the expenditure upfront? How are you funding that spending? Is it debt driven, debt funded spending and what is the cost of that debt over time and how is that ultimately going to impact your bottom line? So we're starting to just question these themes and question the viability of the spending spending as it goes. There's also an underlying sort of who's winning component that has come up lately. It's very clearly Google and Amazon are the winners in the Mag 7 group. That was certainly not the case two years ago when obviously other winners were out front. So I do think that we're just seeing more of a rationalization of this trade, frankly. This is one of the things that I think is most healthy in this environment. The last thing we need is all of our eggs in one basket of all stocks thinking that this is going to be an idyllic situation. Instead we want to see the market rationalize and do a better job of picking winners and losers because that is the reality of the game. Not everybody wins. This is not a situation where every company gets a trophy for participation. Right. There will be winners and losers in AI and we're starting to see that happen in the marketplace in terms of price.
- [20:42]
A
I mean already this year I think Google's up about 20 to 24% and Microsoft is down about 12%. So to me that tells the two sides of the AI trade. Right. You have more of a hardware play and a software play. Yeah, I guess Google kind of does everything. But historically we've seen the Nifty 50, we've seen.com stocks, we've seen FANG, all those groups essentially segmented out into their own winners and losers. And I think we're in that right now with the Mag 7. The last time all these groups broke up, usually something broke in the broader market.
- [21:18]
B
Yeah.
- [21:19]
A
Are we close to that point because the Mag 7 are breaking up?
- [21:22]
B
It's possible. It's a lot of this just is a discussion of how much it breaks.
- [21:28]
A
What does that mean?
- [21:29]
B
We've. Because I think that investors naturally anchor on a break that is catastrophic. Right. The issues that you brought up are viscerally difficult for investors to contend with. The natural presumption is if a break happens it means a 50% drop in stocks. As an example. I think you can have a break happen in this group and it just means a loss of leadership for this group. I think that is a real possibility, is a break happens in this group because other opportunities also potentially arise. And you can see just a migration of return prospects inside the market itself. But that break has slowed down the rate of appreciation in the S and P 500. We know this. They're too big. This group is a giant share of the market cap of the S and P. We were talking about semiconductors earlier. This group is roughly 30% of the S&P 500 by itself. So if it is not leading, it's fine. The market can still perform reasonably well. But if this entire group falls off, then we have a really big problem. Instead we just have disintermediation. Right? We have a breakup that has immersion. I think that that's fine. I think that's actually healthy. If all of these stocks were falling at once, it would be incredibly difficult for the market to overcome that.
- [22:56]
A
If the Mag 7 were to give up their leadership, what do you think is the most likely group or sector to pick up from there?
- [23:05]
B
Depends on the conditions in which they totally give up their leadership. I actually think we've already started to see a little bit of this where the market is trying to determine if new leadership is more defensive in nature and value oriented or more aggressive in nature and growth oriented. And we still don't know that answer. It could be anything. Early this year the consensus call was the financials was going to be a great performer. This year it's been the worst. One of the worst performers in the market. Right. We've lost a lot of growth potential for the marketplace out of just that financials laggard status that has emerged so far this year. Energy has turned out to be the biggest winner. Energy stocks are up. I think it's close to 30% so far this year, far outpacing the broad market and is very clearly the market's winner on an inflation call. So if you're worried about inflation and you're thinking that we might have a little bit of breakup of the MAG7 trade, it looks like an Energy is the current winner, but I think it's tbd. The market is still in a state of confusion for the most part. First quarter earnings season definitely brought back the tech phenomenon in the form of semiconductors in particular. Performing very, very well. Also helped some of the Mag 7 perform well again. Will that continue into the second half? I think a lot of this is going to depend upon what happens with interest rates and inflation. Those key benchmarks that we've forgotten about in the last month and a half.
- [24:39]
A
I like it when I'm talking to People and people I know that know, I read and write about markets every day.
- [24:49]
B
Yeah.
- [24:49]
A
Increasingly people are asking me about Micron stock. People that are not investors. Not in markets.
- [24:55]
B
Yeah.
- [24:55]
A
And to me I'm starting to get a little worried because when you have non markets, people asking about a single name stock.
- [25:01]
B
Yeah.
- [25:02]
A
Then it's usually some, some type of froth is building because they have no business knowing about Micron, frankly. But that's the most common thing that's been coming up for me. When you look at the broader market here, do you think that there's a. What do you see as the most underpriced or underappreciated risk right now?
- [25:24]
B
We talked a lot about inflation. I do think that inflation is really important to consider inside a portfolio landscape. Typically when you have inflation at the current levels that we have, we pay a lot less for stocks. So that is a risk. If inflation is not as transitory as market participants would like to believe it is, then it could erode valuations for equities. I would say the other big wildcard this year is this IPO wave that is potentially building and forming. We started with Cerebras last week. We've got SpaceX and OpenAI coming to market along with a whole host of other potential IPOs emerging into the second half of this year. Is this the start of another wave and a big wave of supply is suddenly coming into the equity market is a huge question mark because we've been now for 20 years riding along with very, very limited supply of equities, ever increasing amounts of demand in equities. And we know what happens when supply is constrained and demand rises, prices rise. So are we getting suddenly this influx of a tremendous amount of supply of new equities? It seems like it's going to be greeted very, very kindly. But will demand be able to meet that? Supply is a critical question for the sustainability of the bull market Trend. Watch the IPOs really carefully. Not necessarily just their first day reception, but how they do in the next 33 to 6 months after their first day reception. Whether or not they'll be part of the indices is a critical question as well because that is a natural source of demand through the passive products in the marketplace. How investors respond to the IPO wave, I think it's going to be really fascinating to watch. And will it continue into 2027? Is this just the stock start of a healthier supply based, supply driven market? We'll see.
- [27:19]
A
So I need help understanding this. Why would a highly anticipated IPO potentially be A negative risk for the market.
- [27:28]
B
It is both a positive and a negative risk. So it could be very, very positive if received well. And it drives demand for public equities. It's a very big positive. But if it's not perceived well, and we have so much new supply of IPOs coming into the market, that demand cannot possibly satisfy that new supply, prices go down. We see this in every IPO cycle of the past. Right. Peak IPO years are years like 20, 21, 1999. Right. Those are big, big IPO years where supply of new IPOs got so strong demand was not able to come to meet supply. I'm hoping that's not the case because we're just at the very beginnings of this. But the IPOs are so big and so potentially consequential. I think it's definitely something to watch.
- [28:23]
A
You know, I have this one buddy who always tells me either SpaceX or Anthropic's IPO will be the top of this bull market. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I think hearing you explain why it's a risk, I'm starting to see where my buddy's coming from. When you, you know, you speak to a lot of investors, a lot of clients, what do you think people should be asking themselves before they buy into this AI driven market right now?
- [28:54]
B
Why are you buying?
- [28:57]
A
Tell me more.
- [28:57]
B
Are you buying simply on a fear of missing out or because you believe this is going to add value to your portfolio? Are you gambling or are you investing? Is a really, really critical question. Because what you find is investors love to chase. Love to chase trends. And they chase trends because they're afraid of missing out on the trend they're gambling. If you're investing as an investor, you're appropriately right. Sizing your investment in equities, in a broader asset allocation, you're appropriately right. Sizing your return expectations per unit of risk that you're taking on. You're an investor and you have a rational set of expectations. I think that's the most important question for people to ask themselves is why am I putting money to work in this asset class? And how am I putting money to work in this asset class? And is that appropriate for my personal asset allocation framework that is designed by my risk and return expectations over a long period of time? We know that stocks go up and down, and overall, long term, they go higher. They should be a portion of your asset allocation. Without a doubt, always a portion of your asset allocation. How much of your asset allocation is dedicated to equities? And what kind of equities you have in that asset allocation is extremely important to consider.
- [30:24]
A
That's a very diplomatic answer, I must say. And my guess is that the more people who tell you these days I'm buying to chase a price, we're getting pretty frothy sentiment wise. And again I say that also believing that the fundamental story is extremely strong right now. That's where I'm coming from. When you look back over the last, let's say three years since I really entered the market with ChatGPT launching, what's a market call that you have made that you were wrong on?
- [30:55]
B
Oh God, just in the last three years, how much time do you have? Let's see. So what we do at HB is very different than what I did in my former role. But what we do at HB is more about asset allocation, more about thinking about equities as a portion of the portfolio, bonds as a portion of the portfolio, commodities, et cetera, et cetera. So things that I'm super proud of coming into this year. We did increase our inflation expectation before it was popular to be concerned about inflation. So at least we were well prepared for that. We also have been talking a lot about how to right size exposure to tech that we've got some wrong and some right. Right. Tech has been a really interesting space. I think a lot of it depends upon how you classify tech certainly migrated more toward quality in a way toward growth. And that's where we've probably been the most wrong so far is the growth Trade really took off with the semiconductors acceleration that left quality behind. But we still see that as a longer term opportunity and a much a source of support for the portfolio allocation and equities. So those are some of the things that we've been thinking about. Energy's been a wildly volatile group but has done really well among sectors. Small caps and EM are still doing pretty well, but have lost a lot of small caps in particular have lost a lot of their momentum recently. And we're pretty optimistic about small caps at the very start of this year. So we've got to really think about that.
- [32:24]
A
So two follow ups to that. One, what do you see in value right now that you like? I assume you still like long term. Right. And two, same thing with small caps
- [32:35]
B
inside value or like value in general.
- [32:38]
A
Like why, why bet on value?
- [32:40]
B
Well, so our approach is actually multidisciplined. It's not value centric, but value is a component of a multi factor strategy. I actually think the the most rational way to think about stocks is through a combination of factors where you're looking at quality value, you're also looking at momentum as a key indicator of support. So you think cross factor when you're selecting stocks or investing in equity markets. I wouldn't lean too heavily into one factor or another with the exception of quality where I think as long as you've got a quality perspective that is nimble enough to shed deteriorating quality companies and lean into accelerating quality companies, you're generally going to perform really well. I don't would not recommend that you lean into specifically value as a factor by itself. I think you consider value as long as it also has momentum and quality characteristics.
- [33:44]
A
And small caps right now, what do you think?
- [33:45]
B
Yeah, small caps are mixed for. For me I think small caps have a potentially very strong tailwind, but they've had a rough couple of weeks and small caps could struggle with the balance sheet and Fed policy changes later this year. So I'm pretty neutral towards small caps at this point. Little less optimistic than maybe I would have been at the start of the year when we were getting really robust manufacturing industry grows. We were getting some signs that small caps should do very, very well. I think you've got to take a slightly less optimistic tone given the degree of inflation that we're experiencing and the potential for Fed increase might actually be a buying opportunity long term. But tbd, fair enough.
- [34:29]
A
Gina, where can people find your work online?
- [34:31]
B
Yeah, you can find all of our work@hbwealth.com we publish under the Insights of Market Sense is the name of our newsletter and you can always follow us also on the social channels on LinkedIn as well as X.
- [34:45]
A
You are very prolific on LinkedIn so everyone should definitely go check out your work there. Thank you so much for your time and come back anytime you want.
- [34:53]
B
My pleasure. Thank you very much for having me.