Dr. Peter Linneman, Leading Economist, Professor Emeritus, The Wharton School of Business Part 23

Summary

---

The Walker Webcast: Dr. Peter Linneman – Economic Outlook, Wealth, and Real Estate (Part 23)

Date: October 9, 2025
Host: Willy Walker (A)
Guest: Dr. Peter Linneman (B), Leading Economist, Professor Emeritus, The Wharton School
Theme: Dissecting today’s economic signals, interest rates, the U.S. wealth trajectory, and the realities and risks in commercial real estate and housing.

---

Episode Purpose & Overview

This episode delivers a candid quarterly conversation between Willy Walker and economist Dr. Peter Linneman. Together, they unpack conflicting signals in today’s economy, the Federal Reserve’s posture, the state of U.S. wealth and national debt, and ongoing challenges in the housing and real estate markets. Peppered with Linneman’s data-driven insights and memorable analogies, the discussion helps listeners decipher what’s really happening beneath the headlines.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Mixed Economic Signals: Caution Ahead

• Conflicting Data:
  • Linneman voices rare uncertainty about the economic outlook:

    “When somebody who's usually pretty clear about what they see tells you they're not clear about what they're seeing, that's the noteworthy point.” (02:51)

  • Contradictions abound: robust GDP revisions upward, but notable revisions downward in job growth and labor statistics. Private data on employment lacks clarity.
• Advice:
  • Linneman suggests a cautious “wait and see”:

    “Only do what you have to do in the next three weeks, four weeks, and let a little more data come out.” (07:11)

• Movie Analogy:
  • “Let’s let the movie play out five, ten more minutes... That’ll help. Won’t define, but it’ll help.” (07:11)

2. Stock Market: AI Bets & Potential Bubbles

• Stock Market Drivers:
  • The surge is concentrated in ~7–20 “AI-linked” companies, reminiscent of past bubbles.

    “There's a giant bet going on about some number like seven to 20 companies that the bet is AI... They’re undervalued if productivity jumps, but... I think it’s going to have a low ROI.” (11:24)

  • Broader markets (Russell 3000, real estate, gold) do not share the same exuberance.
• Historical Parallels:
  • If an “AI productivity miracle” transpires, valuations are justified, but “time will tell.” Otherwise, risk of a bubble bursting remains.

3. Interest Rates, Fed Policy, and Trump’s Influence

• Inflation & Unemployment:
  • Stripping out certain rent measures, Linneman sees inflation below 2%, with warning signs on unemployment.
• Fed Decision-making:
  • Linneman speculates that Trump’s political pressure has delayed Fed rate cuts:

    “Trump has delayed the interest rate cuts by all the bluster and the activities... They do not want to look like they're influenced by Trump.” (15:53)

• Rate Cut Expectations:
  • He expects two more cuts in 2025, possibly spilling into early 2026, returning rates toward a 2.75-3% “sweet spot,” well above zero.

4. U.S. Treasury Demand: Relative Global Confidence

• Foreign Investment in U.S. Debt:
  • Record-breaking foreign purchases aren’t a sign of great U.S. faith:

    “They don't have great confidence in us. They just have even less confidence in France, Canada, England, Germany...” (20:25)

  • U.S. still the “least dirty shirt,” benefitting from relative stability.
• Aging Parent/Teenager Analogy:
  • “They complain... and what a terrible place it is... they show up for dinner all the time because it's the best place for them to eat... That's the United States.” (22:51)

5. U.S. Wealth, Debt, & Generational Prosperity

• Historical Net Wealth Growth:
  • U.S. net household wealth has surged from ~$0.5T in 1951 to ~$150T today, outpacing debt growth by orders of magnitude.

    “Through my entire life... everybody says we can't keep running the deficits. We can't keep. And you know what? We keep running the deficits and we keep growing.” (24:07)

• Wealth Transfer & Inheritance:
  • Upcoming generation will see a major wealth transfer, but most baby boomers’ wealth won’t be inherited for 10+ years:

    “The bulk of that wealth is in the baby boom generation... you're still probably 10 years away from the real beginning of that wave.” (33:32)

• Down Payments as the Bottleneck:
  • Increasing home prices and changing savings behaviors among young adults have made it harder to amass down payments, not necessarily the desire to own:

    “What determines if you buy is down payment...” (44:19)

6. Debt Service, Confidence, and Treasury Revenues

• Debt Sustainability:
  • As long as wealth generation outpaces debt growth—and confidence holds—borrowing remains viable.

    “How long could you do that? Forever. Forever.” (26:19)

• Importance of Confidence:
  • Walker underscores:

    “Our entire system is based off of confidence. And so... the moment that... we would default on our own federal debt, we have a run on the banking system.” (38:40)

7. Housing Supply, Demand, and Market Dynamics

• Supply Shortfalls & Builders’ Constraints:

  • Linneman stands by his estimate of a 3.5 million unit U.S. housing shortage, but acknowledges that public builders aren’t ramping up, citing regulatory burdens and economics:

    “It’s not wrong, it's accurate. But there are other issues happening. The other issues are... regulatory cost, regulatory burdens, regulatory...” (43:05)

• Demand, Down Payments & Lifestyle Tradeoffs:

  • Many young adults delay homeownership, prioritizing experiences and lifestyle spending over savings.

• Multifamily Dynamics:

  • Soaring supply has suppressed rent growth even in strong job markets.

    “What you've had happen in multifamily is pretty good demand... Because supply spurted... If supply had come online at half the rate, you would see rents spiking all over the place.” (47:42)

• Supply-Demand Nuances:

  • MSAs like Dallas and Austin show huge job growth but rent decreases due to massive supply. Conversely, slow-growth cities see rising rents due to lack of new building.

8. Investment Strategies: Growth Markets vs. Slow Markets

• Unknown Risks in High-Growth Cities:
  • High-growth markets (e.g., Houston, Dallas) attract constant new supply, meaning today’s best assets quickly become yesterday’s news.

    “High growth markets have a hidden risk... developers get a lot of development fees... The demand is outstripped by supply in those markets.” (51:17)

  • Slow-growth markets can offer safe, stable returns for owners due to lack of new competition—even if they’re less lucrative for developers.

9. Oil & Long-Term Data Relevance

• Impact of U.S. Energy Revolution:
  • Fracking and new oil discoveries have fundamentally changed global energy markets, making old inflation-adjusted price comparisons harder to rely on.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Data Uncertainty:

  “We're at that odd moment, and normally I don't think we're there. And so caution would be what I'm saying.” (05:44)

• On Wealth Transfer Timeline:

  “You're still probably 10 years away from the real beginning of that [inheritance] wave. And then it picks up steam...” (33:32)

• On U.S. Debt & Future Generations:

  “We're not reducing the bequest. We're just growing the bequest at a slower rate. And by the way, I don't have a hard time slowing... I'm still leaving them with staggering sums.” (26:19)

• Classic Linneman Humor:

  “One, screw the little snots. They can earn it on their own.” (30:14)

• On Real Estate Investing:

  “If you can figure out... a market where there’s any growth and no building, it becomes interesting for a [long-term] holder, not for a developer.” (57:47)

---

Timestamps for Core Segments

• Economic Data Uncertainty:
  • 02:51–09:51
• Stock Market and AI Bets:
  • 11:21–14:10
• Fed Policy & Interest Rates:
  • 15:53–18:49
• Foreign Demand for Treasuries:
  • 18:49–23:17
• U.S. Wealth and Debt Dynamics:
  • 23:17–31:39
• Implications of Wealth Transfer:
  • 31:39–35:18
• Housing Market Factors:
  • 41:19–47:42
• Markets, Development, and Hidden Risks:
  • 48:47–57:47
• Oil Market Realities:
  • 59:12–62:08
• Episode Wrap & Philadelphia’s Historic Role:
  • 62:59–65:28

---

Tone & Final Reflection

Willy and Peter balance deep economic insight with accessible analogies, humor, and practical advice. The discussion is data-rich but grounded, expressing a cautious optimism about the U.S.’s unique strengths and ongoing challenges, particularly in housing and confidence-driven markets.

---

For listeners:
This episode is essential for understanding the balance between caution and opportunity in today’s uncertain economy, and how historic context, consumer behavior, regulation, and global dynamics shape wealth, housing, and investment in America.

---

Transcript

[A]

Join Willie Walker, Walker and Dunlop's chairman and CEO as we bring you fresh perspectives about leadership, business, the economy and commercial real estate. Willie hosts a diverse network of leaders as they share wisdom that cuts across industry lines. His guests are experts in their fields, from leading economists and CEOs to Harvard and Yale professors and everything in between. Our one goal is simple, providing you with unique insights, unparalleled data and real time market analyses. And another Walker webcast with my great friend, Peter Linneman. Hi, Peter.

[B]

Hi. How are we doing, Willie?

[A]

Doing great. You mentioned me before we came on air. Someone asked you whether the two of us had done our, our prep call for our quarterly update. And you and I both laughed at that in the sense that the two of us like walked through what we actually talked about. I will say I was, I was.

[B]

On the we don't need no rehearsal. Right.

[A]

I was doing my final prep this morning on the exercise bike and I had my printed out copy of the Lunarman letter and it looks like it went through the paper shredder because I sweat all over the thing and I'm writing notes in the margin and all this good stuff. But I, I do now after having read it very closely for five years and I've written, read it prior to the two of us starting to do this, but obviously I take it with a lot more focus than I used to prior to starting to do this. And I have to say that there are certain pieces to it that I can now just digest pretty quickly of saying, has his view changed on this piece or is it not changing that piece?

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

I can move through it pretty quickly. But with that, Peter, let me, let's start here. You know, I woke up this morning and looked at the, if you will, major indices, the, the leading indicators where the markets are today. And you've got, you know, the Dow at 46,627. I use the Dow rather than the S and P purposefully because at least it's not quite as hyped by the tech stocks as the S and P is. And it's still way up there, 10 year at 411, oil at 6240. And I sit there and look at things like gold and gold went over 4,000 bucks today for the first time ever. So that's the one sort of kind of flashing red light to some degree. But you're more pessimistic today than you have been in quite some time. Why?

[B]

Yeah, I said yesterday to a friend that normally I'm pretty clear about What I think I see, forget whether I'm right or wrong, that's a separate issue. But I'm pretty clear about what I see. When somebody who's usually pretty clear about what they see tells you they're not clear about what they're seeing, that's the noteworthy point. And what they're. There's just a lot of conflicting signals. You can, if I sent you out and if I had a research assistant, I say go find 10 really great things about the economy, they wouldn't have a hard time. If I said go find 10 things that are really disturbing, they wouldn't have a hard time. If I said find data that's being adjusted all over the place, they wouldn't have a hard time. And you add to that all the adjustments in the data, the response rates being lower, yes, you can use private data, but the private data has a lot of noise in it, which is why we tended to use government data in the first place. And I'm not knocking adp, but we always knew ADP data unemployment was much more volatile, much less representative. They try. And then of course the BLS doesn't report and the BLS doesn't report after three months of a lot of revisions saying that we basically had almost no job growth for the last three months, like 65,000 jobs total over the last three months. On the other hand, unemployment insurance claims came out two weeks ago and were terrific, very low. And you go, but then they didn't come out last Thursday. And you go, I don't know if that was a one week thing or it's a more. So you take. And then of course all the uncertain we've talked about before, that's always in an economy, it's a politicized economy. On top of that. I'm not very worried about the shutdown. That's theater. It's political rather than economic theater. But it's just harder. So whereas I would normally say I think things are looking good, what I'd say now is this looks like a pattern, not just of employment, a generic pattern that could either say you're going to look back five years from now and see it's a bump in the road. You put on two pounds over a three week period and you look back and you say you've done that right, you're in terrific shape. There are periods where you put on two pounds over a three week period and it was a bump in the road, no big deal. There are other people who put on two pounds in three weeks and five years later, they weigh a hundred pounds more. It's unclear whether this is a bump in a growth, which I think it is, or is this beginning of losing like 1.6 million jobs in the next 18 months. And it's. They both look the same in that regard. And I said to somebody this morning, imagine you're watching a movie. Movie comes on, guy comes in, you see an old guy laying in his bed. Pillow goes over his face. They suffocating, walk out, and that's the last thing. And then they stop the movie. Is it a comedy? Is it a drama? Is it a whodunit? You don't know because you've seen a comedy start like that. Think of Amell Brooks, right? You've seen drama start like that. You've seen whodunit start like that. We're at that odd moment, and normally I don't think we're there. And so caution would be what I'm saying.

[A]

And when you say caution, are you saying dig deeper for data? Are you saying put pencils down on investing new capital? Are you saying sell assets and hoard cash? Let's define caution.

[B]

Okay, so the reason you want caution. Let me continue the movie analogy. Let's let the movie play out five, ten more minutes because we'll see if the next thing we see is a joke, right? Or the next thing we see is a detective, or the next thing we see is a distraught spouse or something. That'll help. Won't define, but it'll help. So what's it mean? Only do what you have to do in the next three weeks, four weeks, and let a little more data come out.

[A]

But what's going to change? I mean, why is this any different than. I mean, let's go back to when the president unveiled his tariff policy. I, you know, we all looked at that and said, whoa, this is going to be a big hit to the economy. I sat with developers in Dallas yesterday and said, have you all seen tariffs show up in your cost of building? No, we haven't. Have you seen ICE policies impact the people who are showing up to the job site to build buildings? No. So two things that pack up six months.

[B]

What they forgot to tell you is they're not building any buildings because the interest rate's too high. But that's a separate discussion.

[A]

But that's actually. But in this case, with the two companies I went with yesterday, no, they, they both have shovels in the ground, and they're keeping shovels in the ground. But, but, but to that, all I'm trying to say Here is what changes in the next four weeks. The, the baby Bureau of Labor Statistics isn't all of a sudden going to have, you know, relevant data. After revising the last 12 months by 950,000 jobs, what will be clearer?

[B]

Let me just take for example, one thing. They revised up second quarter GDP quite substantially. Was already a strong growth and then it got revised up a lot at the same time. They're revising down employment now. There's not a complete overlap. You're going, I just need a little more clarity about what's going on there. Those are very contradictory. Vegas is off, right? We know Vegas is off. And you could argue about by how much. Orlando is not off by much. So you see one where you'd say, well, discretionary spending is being hampered, but you see the other and you go, not really. So all three weeks is not magic. I'm never an advocate of doing nothing for a long time. It's much better to do something and adjust as you go. If you don't have to do something in the next three weeks, month, don't. If you have to do it. I'm not saying stop life. I'm flying to, I'm flying to Europe, right? I'm not stopping life.

[A]

Well, okay, I guess we'll get a little bit more on all this as you and I continue to dive into the data during this, this conversation because I'm, I'm surprised at this sort of like pause for three weeks with no seminal moment or event whether it would be, you know, does the Fed continue on their trajectory of cutting rates? Do we have a stock market bubble? And we will know whether we have a stock market bubble because of X, Y or Z. By the way, do you think that we have a stock market bubble today?

[B]

Let's go back. We will have, hopefully the BLS comes back up and we would have two months of data. The one that they didn't give us last week and the month that hopefully they give us.

[A]

And just trust that. And would you trust that given the revisions we've seen. And by the way, that's not, that's not a comment about the Trump administration BLS versus the Biden administration bls. That's just the government numbers and the way they're taking that data and giving it to us with the revisions we've seen?

[B]

No, I totally agree with that. It would be two more months of data that I know how to deal with as opposed to two months of data that I don't have. I would have four more weeks of unemployment insurance claims and they are fairly robust and they are fairly real time. So it won't. By the way, hopefully we will get another interest rate cut from the Fed during that window. But you can't pause forever. I totally agree. I forgot your other question about are.

[A]

We in a stock market bubble due to AI in data centers?

[B]

You know, I have this view that the interest rate, short rate, interest rate is too high and it's driving people to safe investing. Right. And non taking risk. And somebody said, well, how do you explain the stock market? And I explained, I said, look, it's pretty simple. I think there's a giant bet going on about some number like seven to 20 companies that the bet is AI. And the rush of money into AI is going to take productivity growth from let's say a percent and a half a year to let's say 3% a year. Now if that occurred and you had an extra 1.5% of GDP being created and the profit from that being captured by 7 to 20 firms, they're undervalued. They're undervalued. Now I only take 3% as an example of a big change. But I think Those companies, those seven to 20 are being valued as if productivity is going to jump. Everything else, look at the Russell 3000, nothing special. Look at real estate, nothing special. So if you go to other assets, gold is an exception. If you look at other assets, their pricing's not unusual. What's unusual is if you're seeing this huge rush of money into AI. I think, by the way, what's going to happen is it's going to have an R in the ROI sense. I think it's going to have a low roi. And the reason is that if I gave you that much more money beyond what you've ever had, there's no way you can efficiently invest. It doesn't mean you're going to. It's going to be wasted. So it can generate an R, but it's not going to generate a spectacular ROI because you just cannot invest that much money wisely quickly compared to what you were geared up to as an industry. And that's a real challenge. So I think that's why the stock market broadly is where it's at. Is it overvalued? It's overvalued. If AI is like electricity, computers, internal combustion, that is, they're the source of the one and a half percent a year, they're not overvalued. If in addition to the normal 1 1/2 percent, it generates an additional 1 to 2%. Time will tell.

[A]

Yeah, okay, but so think about this. If you're one of those people who does believe that it's overvalued, that we're headed towards a dot com bubble like we did it back in 2000, 2001, you'll see the equity market sell off significantly, but there are always winners in that. One of the things that I think a lot of people forget is that the Federal Reserve between 2000 and end of 2001 and obviously we had 9, 11 in September of 2001, but they cut from 625 down to 150 during that 18 month period of time. As the dot com bubble took tons out of the equity market, rates came crashing down, which then set up for very strong performance for from industries like financial services, housing, commercial real estate, others after that step down in rates, obviously all tied to what the Federal Reserve did. Let's park the stock market on the side for a moment and go to where you are on what the Fed does given their dual mandate. You right now are saying that inflation is sitting between 2 and 3%. If you strip out the rent increases that nobody's really seeing and if you strip out owner equivalent rent that nobody's ever paid, that you're actually below the 2% percent run rate, you're in the high ones. So if you think that their mandate on that, with or without data? With or without data, says that they'll cut on that side, you also have increasing unemployment at a rate that you see as being, if not cautionary, almost alarming. Yeah, right. Do they get to the three cuts that you and I made our bet on?

[B]

Yeah, I still believe it. I believe they would have cut. I'll never be able to prove what I'm about to say. I think they'd have cut 50 bips last meeting, except for Trump. And they're basically giving Trump the finger saying you're not going to tell us what to do. I think they would have cut in the summer 25 bips if it had not been for Trump, because they do not want to look like they're influenced by Trump. They do not want to look like they're bowing to that pressure. So you can imagine you're sitting there, put aside your political views. You do not want to bow to that political pressure. And now somebody shows up the morning of your meeting and says we need to cut 50 basis points. I was just appointed to do it. What are you going to do? You're going to say, it sounds like 25 to me. Sounds like 20 and by the way, that person is going to say, yes, everything you just said, employment's weakening, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And they're going to say, 25 cent U.S. let's see, where to go. So I think actually Trump has delayed the interest rate cuts by all the bluster and the activities and so forth. Put aside whether the activities should occur or shouldn't occur, whether they're legal, illegal. He's actually hurting his case right now because they're behaving to protect their territory. It's almost like once I tell somebody they can't go into my yard, they really want in my yard, Right? It's that kind of exercise.

[A]

So with that, if you think that you've got two more cuts coming in 25, what do we get in 26?

[B]

If you don't get 75 bips in 25, you get 50 in 25. And very early in 26, January, February, you get another 25. By the way, that will still leave it pretty high because inflation is for real, around 2%. And if you add 75 to 100 bips on top of that, you end up around 275 to three is where it should be. And it's still at four and a quarter, four to four and a quarter. So there's still plenty of room for them to do. And I always point out to people, I'm not saying they should cut it to zero. That is not. In fact, you can go back and look at Lindemann letters all through the 2010s. I was saying keeping the rate at zero was slowing the economy. It's like having you can't have a rent of a million dollars a month and you can't have a rent of zero. You're trying to find the sweet spot in between. And they were too low through the 2010s, and it hurt growth and it, they're too high now and it's hurting.

[A]

You mentioned that you're heading over to Europe tonight. You start this letter talking about the perception that foreigners don't want to come to the United States anymore and tourism being down in the late spring, early summer, which is the most recent data we have. And then you turn to that perception of people shunning the United States into our foreign investors shunning U.S. treasuries. And, and you give some exceedingly compelling data as it relates to foreign purchases of treasury bonds as well as agency paper, which to, to put it briefly on a monthly basis. Up until the pandemic, that number had been about $1.5 trillion on a monthly basis. It then from the pandemic until the beginning of the Trump administration had moved up to 2 and a half trillion on average on a monthly basis. And for the first five months of the year, for the first four months it was averag about three and a half trillion. And in April of this year it hit an all time high of close to $4 trillion of foreign purchases of treasury and agency paper. So that completely debunks the fear that foreign investors were going to shun the U.S. treasury because of our fiscal position. Is that a false positive, Peter, or is that actually the fact that they have great confidence in the U.S. they don't mind our budget deficits and as long as we're making money, they're going to continue to invest.

[B]

They don't have great confidence in us. They just have even less confidence in France, Canada, England, Germany. Go through the list and you know, you know the headlines on France. You just had the Prime Minister step down. England has a revolving door. If Starmer makes it through the year, it'll be kind of surprising. I'm not political opinioning, I'm just saying whatever our problems are. So Willie, you should have seen me when I was 21. I was really strong. I wasn't the strongest among 21 year olds though. I really wasn't. There were a lot of 21 year olds that could leave me in the dust in terms of strength at 74, I'm nowhere near as strong as I was when I was 21. But relative to 74 year olds, I'm one of the strongest guys on the block. Not the strongest, but one. It's not that I got better, is that everybody got worse faster. That's the situation they face and that's the reality. Do you want to go to. Let's go back verses 2015. 2015, you might have found somebody who said, yeah, I'll go to Russia. 2015 you could have found a lot of people saying I'm going to go to Brazil. 2015, a lot of people say I'm going to China. A lot of people saying England, Canada, all of those places have shown massively lower economic growth than we have. Massively lower what stability politically than us. Even though our political stability could be a lot better. That's. And I just take 10 years ago when I say, you know, 2015 and there's nothing magic about it. Would you go to Russia today with your money? No. Would you go to China today with your money? No. Would you go to Brazil today with your money? I'm not picking. By the way, remember 2015, you couldn't go to JFK without 19 private equity people filling the first class of every plane going to Sao Paulo. Right. I'm just taking that. And by the way, in what, 2012. Same 2012 to 2018. Same thing was true for planes going to Shanghai and Beijing. There are not a lot of private equity guys going to Shanghai and Beijing. If anything, they're coming from there, not going there. So that's kind of what's going on. And I make the point. I thought it was a clever point. It reminds me a lot of teenagers. They complain and they complain about how awful their parents are and what a terrible place it is on there. They show up for dinner all the time because it's the best place for them to eat. And it's. That's the United States.

[A]

All right, so you and I have talked about the US Government debt extensively, and you have taken a position over quite some time that we can afford it. You put in the Linneman letter that net wealth in America is at about $175 trillion. Go back and tell us where U.S. national net wealth was in 1952. I think it was 52 that you 1.

[B]

I did when I was 1.

[A]

51. Where was U.S. national net wealth when you were 51? Take out the net debt and tell us why you feel that we can continue to spend trillions of dollars on the US credit card.

[B]

So the backdrop of this is I'm 74 years old and through my entire life, and I'm sure through your entire life, you're a young guy. Everybody says we can't keep running the deficits. We can't keep. And you know what? We keep running the deficits and we keep growing. So you have to question the narrative that says we can't do it if you've done it for 74 years. Okay? You have to look for some reason. You look at the reason. I happen to take 1951 for the writer sense of. It's when I was born. That's the only reason I picked it. We were by far the richest country in the world. And 25% of the population did not have access to an indoor flush toilet. That was the richest country in the world in 1951. And in real terms, inflation adjusted, I was born into a United States that had the same income capacity per person of Bulgaria or Chile today. Okay? Adjusting for inflation, this is no, by the way. And you know that they're better in Chile and Bulgaria today because they all have flush toilets and they all have polio vaccines and they all have iPhones and they all have. Okay, so you. So to take your point, let's look at wealth. And the data is reasonably good. And it would say that we had about 800 billion in net household wealth when I'm born and about 200 billion in federal debt. So if you net off we had 600 billion. I'm doing these numbers from memory. We had 600 billion. Okay, let's flash forward half a trade. Half a trillion. Yeah, half a trade. Let's flash forward to quote today. By the way, these numbers do not include the value of all the assets owned by the federal government. Mineral rights, forests, highways, et cetera. We're not valuing any of those.

[A]

Interior Secretary Burgum estimates is about $100 trillion. But let's park that to the side and not go there.

[B]

And I'm not taking off all the unbooked liabilities. Right. That are out there. So I'm just saying let's say those two wash and I'm just focusing on something I can cleanly made. So we've gone from, as you say, half trillion. And that same number, that Same calculation is 150 trillion today. Okay, 100. That's a 9, I think 9.6% CAGR. I then broke it down the other day between the first half of my life and the second half of my life to make sure it wasn't all done in the 50s. And the CAGR over the second half of my life is like 6.8%. So it's still pretty, pretty amazing. So we went from a half a trillion to 150 trillion net worth. Do the following very, very simple math. Remember the CAGR I told you is like 9.6. It's been 6.8 over the last 37 years. What if it's only 3%? What if the wealth only grows 3% a year? Okay, on 500, what that. On a 1.5, that's 4.5 trillion next year. And of course it'll be volatile, but that's 4.5 trillion. The federal deficit is 2 trillion. So if you say we create 4.5 trillion and we indebted ourselves through the federal deficit by 2, we net half 2.5 trillion more. Even though we ran a deficit of 2 trillion, by the way. How long could you do that? Forever. Forever. Now let's push it one step forward further. Suppose that wealth stays flat, just doesn't grow. That is to say, the next generation generates no. Nothing. Nothing. Well, what are the odds of that, zero. But let's assume it generates nothing. It stays at 150 trillion the rest of history. How long can you do that with a $2 trillion deficit? 150 divided by two. 75 years. You could do another. My lifetime. Go on forever. And that's how we've been able to do it. So here's what we've done, Willie. I'm not saying we should do this or shouldn't. I'm saying can we decided collectively, this is the stuff we want to have the government buy for us or give to us. You may like it, you may not like it, but we have decided that collectively. We then say, ah, let's raise taxes now and do it. People look and say, no, don't want to do that. Okay. And then they say, well, where else can we get the money? And they say, let's reduce the huge bequest we're going to give to future generations. But we're not reducing the bequest. We're just growing the bequest at a slower rate. And by the way, I don't have a hard time slowing the bequest at a growing the request at a slower rate. I'm still leaving them with staggering sums.

[A]

Let me underscore that because I think that somebody might have just slipped through in what you just said. What you're basically saying is don't tax inheritance higher because that's not what the proposal is. The proposal is continue to borrow and that continued borrowing is what reduces the inheritance that goes to the next generation because they're burdened with paying that. Not that you're going to diminish what actually gets transferred.

[B]

Exactly. And they're going to get the net net. So when I'm born, my generation had a half a trillion herd wood, basically zero. And now you say today they got 150 trillion. Give me a break. So people say we're robbing our children and grandchildren. I have two reactions. One, screw the little snots. They can earn it on their own.

[A]

You know, I told you to revise that. I don't think you. I know you have great emphasis on that, but there are not many people on this call who are listening in, who want to think about their kids or their grandkids as little snots.

[B]

So. But here's how I convince them that I'm right. If your child or grandchild says to you, stop living because when you fly to Europe tonight, you're going to reduce my inheritance or stop living because as you live, you're reducing my inheritance, anybody Listening is going to disinherit them. Right? Because you say, I don't want my kids to be thinking that as I live my life, when I go to the ball game tomorrow, I'm reducing my kids inheritance in some mechanical sense. But not really, not really. I'm leaving them a staggering sum that is still growing. It's a staggering sum that's still growing.

[A]

So the one I want to, I want to shift here to housing and get a little bit, if you will, out of 30,000ft on the macro and down more specifically to commercial real estate and markets. But before I do so, the one other thing that I think Peter is really interesting for people to keep in mind is the following. There's a lot of talk about the wealth transfer that will happen from the baby boomers the next generation estimates are that there's 90 trillion billion of wealth that should move sometime in the next decade to two decades depending on life expectancy and, and, and, and what have you. But it makes me think back to your very, very important point during the pandemic about the acceleration of death rates. Therefore, a lot of people who typically would have lived for another four or eight or 10 years died during the pandemic tragically to those who lost loved ones during the pandemic and therefore transfer that wealth, if you will, prematurely to the next generation which then drove the ability for people to put down payments on single family homes and drove up single family home sales. And I think it's a very important thing that at some point if this next generation is, we hear living paycheck to paycheck, we hear all of this as it relates to that the wealthy are getting wealthier and that the next down from them, you're not getting wealth distribution across it. This wealth transfer will by nature bring to this next generation a huge amount of capital that will allow for down payments on single family homes. And at some point I would project that it will increase the amount of single family home sales dramatically. Once that wealth transfer cycle begins, it'll.

[B]

Happen slowly because the deaths are going to happen slowly. But I think you're absolutely right. I don't think it happens in the next 10 years, five years.

[A]

You don't?

[B]

No, I think it happens more dramatically because the reason is yes, the non baby boomers that are old have wealth, there's no doubt. But the bulk of that wealth is in the baby boom generation and the leading edge of that is only 77. So you're just kind of what, five? And remember, it's the surviving spouse which is likely to be the female. You're still probably 10 years away from the real beginning of that wave. And then it picks up steam because the younger age of the edge of the baby boom is what is 59 or something like that. And so that's the window of big, big inheritance. Now, by the way, we've already seen it in a different way. How many kids are having their high end student housing paid for by grandma or grandpa? How many are having their apartment in New York at $5 a foot being paid partially by grandma and grandpa? How many have, you know, go through the list, right, Tuition, et cetera, by grandma and grandpa? So it's happening, but it's happening in a, what do you want to call it, cash flow sense rather than a corpus. Here's this corpus kind of matter. It's one thing to say grandma and grandpa are giving me, I'm not taking away from it, 3,000amonth. It's another thing to say grandma and grandpa left me, you know, 400,000. I'm not talking about the mega, mega, I'm just talking grandma and grandpa leave 400,000. Wow. Down payment, big down payment available. Right.

[A]

The one other, the one other thing on that that I would say, and then I do, I want to go to housing, is that, you know, your comment as it relates to our national debt and our ability to continue to add it on, clearly there are people there who say he's talking about asset value and not cash flow. And one of the big issues in all of that is, you know, do you have the ability to continue to service the debt with the current tax rates and budget that we are going through every single year. You actually, in this Linneman letter, point out some of the things in the big beautiful bill that you said were both misreported in the sense that there was no change to tax rates, really, it was an extension, if you will, of the existing tax rates. And then you talk about some of the things, such as the liabilities that the federal government runs, that this is the first time that we've actually focused on that in almost, you know, in, in, in generations as it relates to, can we continue to fund Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and all that at the same rate that we have. But the point I wanted to raise here is this. The amount of activity going in in both the public markets and private markets as it relates to capital gains is making it so that treasury inflows as far as taxes have just skyrocketed. And one of the things that I think we are going to see after 2025 is that the treasury is going to print something in early 2026 that talks about unprecedented, unprecedented tax income to the treasury given the amount of capital markets activity that is going on. And so if you think about it from a cash flow standpoint, very clearly, are we able to fund our debt service as we add debt onto it right now, given what's going on in the capital markets and the amount of taxes that people are paying in capital gains? Without a doubt. The question would be if you turn the other way and don't get those types of tax revenues, then, then you're back to people saying, oh, we need to raise the ordinary income rate, we need to raise the sales taxes, et.

[B]

Cetera, et cetera, or we need to float more debt.

[A]

Right?

[B]

Or we just, you know, we, we just float. We pay for the debt by floating more debt. Right. That's the other way. That's an alternative. And again, that alternative has been a popular one, right? That alternative has been, we've been through a period of low interest rates, so it hasn't been so pressing. But if interest rates went up a lot, the other thing I point out, don't forget that much. The majority of federal debt, the payments on it are received by either the government or domestic citizens. So, yes, some of it's received by foreigners. And people forget that. It's why Japan has been able to run without huge wealth growth. Japan has been able to run it because they owe all the debt to themselves. It's a little millimeter. It doesn't matter what I call it. It's just I said to somebody the other day, imagine if all the citizens in the United States held hands in a big circle and they all gave a piece of paper to the person to their right. Every one of them in a circle gave a piece of paper that says, here's the loan for $1,000. The measured debt would go up, but there'd be no change in any economic condition because I got an asset and a liability. Now, I'm taking a very extreme example to drive that home.

[A]

Yeah, I know, but you and I also both know that the reason the GFC happened and the reason that the GFC was so dangerous is that we lost confidence in the system. And so while that example is, is. Is correct, at the same time, when someone doesn't know that that piece of paper they just handed to the right actually has the value in it, you lose the system. And so I think you're making a good point. But at the same time, our Entire system is based off of confidence. And so the moment that, for instance, we would default on our own federal debt, we have a run on the banking system, we have a run on the federal government. And so while theoretically you sit there and say, yeah, we could do it, it would sort of be like, you know, I'm a, I'm a very Walker and Dunlop. And you might sit there and say, oh well, if they cut the dividend at Walker and Dunlop. And anyone listening to this, do not worry about that. I'm just trying to use an extreme example here that Willie gets a lot of the benefits from the dividend on Walker. No op. So like, you know, that wouldn't be a big thing because he's just trying to manage the company better. I would tell you flat out, no, that would, that would, that would hurt. I wouldn't like that. And so I'm only saying to you, I get your example that we owe ourselves the money. But as you and I both know, the entire system is based off of the confidence that those payments are going to continue to flow.

[B]

That's why the two conversations we had earlier, one is we continue to create substantial wealth, you know, and you can just name the great companies, right? Big and small, Walker, Dunlap, Big and Small, you know, Google, doesn't matter, some guy who's got a home building company doing 82 homes a year. Big and small. We create wealth. That's critical to that confidence. And the other thing is that we maintain our strength relative to the rest of the world. And I would like to see us be absolutely stronger, not just relatively strong. I'd like back to my little analogy on myself. I wish I had the strength I had when I was 21, but I do the best I can, right? So I'm not saying don't try to be strong. Critical to that confidence though, I think is we continue to create. Take Germany. The last great company Germany created was probably SAP 30 some years ago. And I'm not knocking Germany, I'm just kind of saying it factually. If I sent you out and said, right, all the great companies, at least as substantial as SAP created in the last 30 years in the United States, you need two days to do it. That's what's critical to that confidence, right?

[A]

So on, on lrei and housing, the two, two, two questions here, let me, let me start on this one. You say that about 70% of the faltering of GDP to trend line given the pandemic is due to an under supply of housing. And yet if you look at the home builders, Peter, you look at the big public home builders, who, by the way, the independent home builder market is basically gone. You go back 20 years and there were lots of independent home builders in the United States. The GFC wiped all of them out. And today it's almost 60% of home building in the United States is done by the publics. And so it's become a big institutionalized business. And if you look at those big publics, they aren't building, they aren't growing the number of homes that they are building. And so you sit there and say, your estimate is we're under supplied in housing by 3.5 million units. It's a big number, okay? To give people a sense of that, the third largest home builder in America, Pulte, will make 31,000, build 31,000 homes this year. The third largest public is going to build 31, 30. Maybe they go over that and build 35,000, okay? So to put it into, you got a shortage of 3.5 million. You sit there and you say, all you got to do is be a home builder. You can build them because there's insatiable demand for them. And that's not the case. And so I guess my question to you is, you continue to hone in on, there's a lack of GDP that if we got home building going, it would add a lot. It had a lot of jobs. If I have a lot of gdp, all this other stuff. And yet at the same time, the homebuilders aren't building additional units. They're not, they're, they're building to their budgets, but they're not going above it. Why is your analysis of supply and demand so wrong?

[B]

It's not wrong, it's accurate. But there are other issues happening. The other issues are, as you know, regulatory cost, regulatory burdens, regulatory.

[A]

But everyone says that, Peter. Everyone, everyone sits there and says, oh, I mean, I look, these home builders have years and years and years of land that's entitled. They've got, they can look out and they can sit there and say over the next eight years, we've got this amount of land, it's going to go into entry level, move up and high end active seniors. And they've got it all mapped out and they've got three to four years of land entitled this, this. I mean, and I get it, and I know that it's been an inhibitor, but the concept that they sit there and say that local governments can't get their act together to allow me to actually Build on the property seems to be a. An easy excuse, is it not?

[B]

It's easy excuse because it's true. I mean, sometimes I. Sometimes. Why am I not playing major league baseball? I can't hit my head.

[A]

I don't think the demand is there. I mean, I have multifamily developers who sit there and say to me, the numbers don't work. I get that. Like yesterday in my meeting that I was talking about, I said, what kind of a yield on cost are you building to? They said.

[B]

One of the most important pieces of research I think I did in my career was back in 1990, and there was a lot of discussion about why people were not able to buy homes. And they kept saying income was not high enough and income was not high. And we did, along with Susan Wachter at Wharton, we did a very careful analysis and we found it's not so much income. Income determines what kind of home you buy. Is it a big one, a small one? Is it two and a half baths or three baths? Is it the corner or the middle of the block, et cetera. What determines if you buy is down payment, is down payment. And there is a lack of down payment capacity. And it's partly because home prices have gone up because of the shortage. And it means you have to save longer to accumulate the down payment. And the second reason is young people have made the decision, and I'm not saying they're wrong, versus 25 years ago, young people have decided they would rather go on a ski holiday for a week and a Caribbean holiday for a week than to save that money. And they would rather go to the restaurant every week rather than once a month, rather than save that money. And they'd rather use GrubHub or whatever the delivery service is rather than walking or fixing. Now you say, well, those sound like peanuts. Do the math. They add up pretty substantially to, you don't have the money for a down payment quite as soon you put the shortage on top of that and therefore the home price going up, accentuating how big the down payment you need is. That's why they're not doing it. It's much more about the down payment than the desire. Now, you could say it is the desire. They could go back if they wanted. They could go back and say, real people didn't go to Europe. I mean, rich people did. But real people, the people who bought those homes, they didn't go to Europe.

[A]

But I get.

[B]

So I get all that.

[A]

But. But then, okay, so you're saying, go long Caribbean cruises And go long Hilton hotels and, and, and, and ski vacations to Vail resorts. I, I, I, I, I, I get that. So then let's go back to where people are actually living. So if you're saying down single because people can't afford it, and, and very clearly in the home builder data of last quarter, it's very clear they're down significantly on entry level sales. It's the higher end. Sal, your point about not having a down payment is exactly right. But then you go to net absorption of over 720,000 units in the multifamily space. T12 on Q2 to Q2, 720, more absorption than we've ever seen. And yet the rent bumps that everyone has been projecting, including you, haven't materialized. You're not, I'm in Dallas, Texas, the highest growth market in the country as it relates to job growth since the pandemic. Highest job growth of net jobs. And we're going to go into this in a second of any msa. And yesterday in meeting after meeting, I get from developers and owners, we have not been able to push rents. So what is supply?

[B]

Supply, it is demand. One of the first lessons you learn in economics is that for a hundred years there was a discussion that it's all about supply. And then there was a discussion it was all about demand. And then Alfred Marshall in 1914 or whatever said, no, it's about supply interacting with demand. So what you've had happen in multifamily is pretty good demand through all this, how is it so weak? Because supply spurted. And it was the supply side. If supply had come online at half the rate, you would see rents spiking all over the place. And it's one of the challenges. I often get asked, tell me what a real good market is. And you know, we had this conversation I think two years ago and I named a couple like I think I named Detroit. And these people said, why the heck are you naming Detroit? And I said, because there's no supply.

[A]

Right, so let's go to this slide because this is, this is where you and I, this is where you and I, I mean, look, you're talking about supply and demand. It's great. But this is, this is real page rent growth versus your data on job growth. Okay, so this is the most recent real page data as it relates to T12 through Q3 of rent decreases across the country. Denver, as you can see on this slide, down the Most dramatic of 7.7%, followed by Austin, Phoenix, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Orlando, Dallas, Nashville, Charlotte and Jacksonville. Okay, now if you'd said to me in 2001 and 2002, what are your top growth, top sales markets in the United States? It would be that list of MSAs. Literally our investment sales volumes in 21 and 22 were off the charts in those at major MSAs. And to your point, those all got oversupplied. But as you can see on this chart, even though rents are down across there, the job growth that we've seen from your data over the last five years in these listed MSAs goes from a low of 5.5% in Denver to a high of 19.3% in Austin, and all of them are in low double digits. Job growth, where are corporations moving? Where are people creating employment and therefore creating a need for housing? Now let's go to the next slide.

[B]

Coco.

[A]

So this slide shows you those metros that per real page data through Q3 of 2025 had the greatest rent growth, starting with San Francisco, going to Chicago, New York, Pittsburgh, one that you love, Cincinnati, another one, Kansas City, and finally Newark, New Jersey. Okay. And as we plotted on here with your job growth numbers, you can see the actual jobs that have been created in San Francisco down 3.8% over the last five years. You can look at San Jose, down 1.6%. And you can look at the biggest growth city of all, these MSAs of Kansas City at 4.3%. So your comment as it relates to supply and demand is what is driving that rent growth? The question is, as a developer today, a developer today, are you playing on that, just supply, demand play, or are you playing on longer term trends that say, I know that those high growth markets, whether it be tax rates, corporate relocations, where people just like to live, are going to drive the economy forward. And therefore my bet goes there versus going to somewhere where there's just a supply and demand imbalance today.

[B]

I always look at the supply demand and in fact, I wrote about this about 15 years ago. High growth markets have a hidden risk. Houston, Dallas, whatever have a hidden risk. What's the hidden risk? Great growth developers get a lot of development fees, right? Lenders get a lot of fees for the construction loans the units will fill because there is growth, right? Do you get a lot of value increase in your asset or rent increase, as you say? And the problem is that demand generally is outstripped by supply in those markets. It's like people are more optimistic than a very optimistic reality. There's a second problem that's micro. That's not broad micro. I'M about to say, which is I have, I think you guys helped, are helping us do it out in Dover, New Philadelphia, Ohio, we have 208 units. Nobody knows where it's at. It's like 29,000 people. I have 208 units. Nobody is ever going to have a better project. And if they do, I've made a fortune because the rents don't justify it. I never have to worry about, by the way, in the market I'm at, nobody's going to steal my property manager because there's no new projects being built. I don't have to worry about that. If I'm Atlanta or Dallas, there's constantly new projects being built. Where are they going to go? They're going to steal my property manager, my people, and so I've constantly got to deal with that. Second, there'll never be a better project than mine in the market I'm in, right? There just won't be. That's because there's no growth. But nobody's leaving. I mean there's minuscule growth, nobody. There's income growth, by the way, there's income growth, but not population growth. And you say, how can you make money there? And you make money because nobody will build anything. Mine not only will exist, it'll still be the best. Now I'm taking an extreme. Now let's suppose instead I build today in Houston. I know that a decade from now 30% more will have been built during that decade because that population growth, et cetera. My brand new unit has now been outstripped in a matter of 10 years in terms of best amenities, best designing features, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, shiniest, newest, et cetera. Now obviously if you have a drop dead location, you can mitigate, you can do maintenance, but let's face it, you're competing. It's like the NFL. You're competing against a new running back all the time. If you're in a market like Houston and Yep, you lost 1/10 of a second on your acceleration, doesn't sound like much. It's everything if you're competing in a market like that. So that's a hidden risk. So I think people get enamored by growth because it's great for developers. If, if a developer calls me and says, where can I, where should I go? I know they want the development fees, they probably want to flip, et cetera, et cetera. So you want to go where there's growth as a, you'll never make money in New Philadelphia as a developer. There's just not enough action. You go where there's growth, but as an owner, you go to supply and demand fundamentals.

[A]

So essentially what you're saying there is that our housing crisis, the cost of renting in major MSAs is going to just continue to escalate because if someone goes and puts new supply in there, you're going to be competed out of the market the next day. And therefore people aren't going to build to that demand. And Therefore our major MSAs get underinvested in and people look to other alternatives. Is that, I mean, am I reading right?

[B]

That's been going on now for 15 years, and I don't see a dramatic change. And when you throw the, not the national political scene, when you throw the local political scene, all those homeowners in those communities have almost no incentive to encourage development because they want their home price to go up. That's a big part of that wealth we talked about for them. And so if I can reduce the supply by protesting, showing up at city hearings, hiring an attorney, making a lawsuit, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, I'm protecting my wealth. And people are protecting their wealth at a local. And they've gotten good at it. You know, if you go back 30 years ago, that happened, but they weren't professionally good at it. There are people who are professionally good at this now.

[A]

So one of the things that I think is really interesting for those listening, if you really want to try and is you go through your various asset classes. Peter, in the, in, in the letter, you, you put forth markets that you think by the end of 27 are going to be strong from an office standpoint, weak from an office stance, strong from a retail standpoint, weak from a retail standpoint. First of all, there is no one winner. Let me just, let me, let me give, let me give everybody. There's no one market that Peter's like, go long in Austin or go short in wherever. But to your point, it's interesting to try and match up where you see a strong office market, for instance. So you see strength in office in places like Miami, Charleston and St. Louis, which quite honestly, if you'd asked me a quiz and said, list your, you know, top MSAs for office at the end of 27, I'm pretty sure I would not have put Charleston or St. Louis or San Antonio on that list. But then you also go to places like industrial and you say, you know, one of the strongest is also going to be St. Louis. So it's like, wow, St. Louis, strong on office and strong on industrial, does that necessarily mean it's good on housing? Is that where I ought to go build apartments?

[B]

Not much growth. So you're not going to get much action building, but you might get a lot of action holding and owning. And obviously I'm not talking downtown St. Louis, you're talking about the Metro. The Metro has relatively slow growth and almost no development. And I like that dynamic. Now you can't just go buy any property, but if you can figure out. And that's why I think, I say like two or three years ago we talked about Detroit and people. But I'm not saying go everywhere in Detroit. I'm saying go somewhere in Detroit because nobody was building. You get me a market where there's any growth and no building. It becomes interesting for a coder, not for a developer. And I remember when I first joined uli in like 1985 and they did this survey, what is the best sector for apartments? And I'm thinking, well, it depends if I'm a developer or an owner. And what I found out is ULI was mostly developers because they all said the high growth markets. Absolutely. For developers. You want high growth of population, high growth of jobs as a holder of the asset. Not necessarily.

[A]

You got so much more to talk to you about and we're out of time. $62 a barrel oil. One of the things you point out in the letter is that that is below the average since 1970, but above the inflation adjusted average since 1948. I think something like that. What? What? Just on that, like at some point, data points are irrelevant, if you will. In other words, the economy is so different today than it was in 1948.

[B]

Correct.

[A]

Should we be looking at the long term average since 48, since 70 or actually since, I don't know, the advent of electric vehicles? I mean, in other words, like where do you point that says that $62 a barrel oil is super helpful to the economy?

[B]

Well, you know, I like to point out, I just love charts and graphs. So I just like to put them because they look pretty. You raise a very good point on oil. You could make a legit argument that the relevant time period to look at it versus is since fracking became a big phenomena. Okay. Because that, that was a new technology. That was a real.

[A]

So what data are we talking about there in 1990s?

[B]

No, no, no. It was existent, but it wasn't being used. It really was like 2007. I'm doing this from memory. It came a few years earlier for gas than it did for oil, but. And that just changed the world. And deep offshore drilling kind of changed the world. So you're right that things change. I think oil, for example, people don't understand how fundamentally changed oil is. We're the largest producer of oil in the world. We're the largest producer of gas in the world. You go Back to, what, 1974. We were a net importer of everything. It crushed us, it and so forth. And then you throw in things like Guyana, and you look at Guyana, which has an enormous find, and it's a small country that has historically been very poor. You are running a small country that's historically been very poor, don't you think? You look at the Emirates and go, ha. Pump like hell. And they got a lot of it, and a lot of it. I mean, like a lot of it. And they have no allegiance, they have no historic ties to opec. They just want to get rich. And whether they want to get rich as a citizenry or as a potentate class, that's a different question. But whoever wants to get rich. And so a major find like that really changes things in that. I don't want to call them a rogue because they're not rogue, but from a historic sense, they're a rogue producer.

[A]

I'm going to loop back to the beginning of this because you just talked about Kyana and the uae, and in the beginning of the letter, you talk about Michael Jordan and Tom Brady as it relates to Jordan missing more shots than he made and Tom Brady, some statistic you put in there. But at the end of the day, there's both goats, and they. They will go down in history. I did see just yesterday, Peter, that Tom Brady's being paid $75 million to go to Saudi Arabia and play a touch football game for the, for. For. For $75 million. And I just sat there and said, this world is, at least in my view, somewhat upside down. When we take a former NFL football player and pay him to play a p. More money than he made in any year he played in the NFL, like, for a higher season. Well, more than he ever paid.

[B]

And it.

[A]

And it does sort of sit there and say, at what point does. You know, I don't know. It makes you wonder what value is today. I think that that's what that asks me, to me is what is value? Like, is Tom Brady worth 75 million bucks for a football game? I guess maybe he is to somebody in Saudi Arabia. Justice Ronaldo to you.

[B]

Not to me, but to somebody.

[A]

Somebody, God bless it's, some grant somebody to go.

[B]

Can I just. You mentioned that little piece, I think 10 seconds through the context of that little piece. Yeah, Context of that little piece. I live, for those who don't know, I live about two blocks from Independence hall and I'm involved in an organization called Historic Philadelphia. And the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration comes up in July 4th next year. And I had attended the 4th of July, 249th. And it's very moving. It's very moving when you have the Declaration read and you do, and it's very moving. And it occurred to me that the United States has done amazing things and has done horrible things, but when you enshrine somebody into the hall of Fame, they focus on the passes. They completed the shots, they made the clips. They don't show all the clunkers that Jordan threw up and they don't show the overthrown pass or the fumble. And my only context for that was celebrate this unique event that. And if you people who don't know the history, it's an extraordinary history that begins with that. And so the context was, Please, for the 250th, come to Philadelphia and understand the great things. And they should be heralded. Much like at a Hall of Fame celebration, you herald the great things that somebody did. That was the context.

[A]

Well, you do great things. The Linnemann letter is a great read. I love our quarterly engagement. Thank you for taking my questions. Safe travels to Europe and I look forward to seeing you soon.

[B]

Pleasure talk to you.

[A]

Thanks, everyone. Sa.