[REPLAY] Marko Papic – Geopolitical Alpha at Clocktower Group (Capital Allocators, EP.161)

26:56And here, Ted, I think is the biggest source of potential geopolitical alpha for the next 10 years. I think that everybody in the investment community is using the analogy of the Cold War when they try to think about the trade war. And so the analogy of the Cold War means that we're going to bifurcate global capitalism and there's going to be Alibaba and Amazon camps, like NATO and Warsaw Pact. I think there's a problem with this. There's several problems. First of all, it assumes that we live in a bipolar world. And this is important because political science research, especially formal modeling, game theory, show that a bipolar ordering of power, where there's only two countries that really matter, do produce bifurcated outcomes.

27:43Fine. But a multipolar ordering where there's multiple countries that kind of have an ability to pursue foreign policy and trade policy on their own, that's an ordering that doesn't produce bifurcation. In fact, enemies have to continue to trade with one another. Why? Fundamentally, it comes down to this. It's very difficult to keep your allies in check. So in a Cold War scenario, the U.S. could tell Turkey or France or Italy what to do and what not to do. It was very simple. Like you'd get a call from Washington, D.C. You would have to listen. Today, I'm not sure that's the case. Is France going to stop selling Airbus to China if we stop selling Boeing?

28:22I think the answer to that is definitively no. And so if that's the case, eventually American policymakers realize this is a constraint. This is a huge constraint that they cannot sever their economic relationship from China because if they do, somebody else will pick up the benefits, the revenues. So that's the first major constraint. The second issue is just difference between Cold War and today. I mean, when you think of the Cold War and Soviet Union and the U.S., don't forget the starting conditions of this era. The starting conditions of this era where Europe was beset, was completely destroyed.

28:56It was filled with millions of refugees. You had Japan, which had two nuclear weapons dropped on it. You had China, which was in the middle of its civil war. It didn't end until three years later. And then on top of that, you had India, which was completely irrelevant at the time, and a colony of another country. So when you put all of that together, U.S. and Soviet Union emerged. It is so much more preponderance of power. So they could set the conditions for the Cold War. That's not where we are today. I mean, obviously, Japan and Europe are wreathed in deflationary economies and demographics, for sure.

29:30But they're not destroyed. Someone didn't drop nuclear weapons on them. The implication of China's strength in a multipolar world that you're suggesting is that if US demand isn't there, someone else's will be. What does that mean for an institutional investor who's thinking about the public or private investments in China? Look, right now, from what we understand at Clocktower, the allocation to China is about 2 % for real money allocators. And it's like 20-25 % of global economy. So, I mean, the implication is that. What's interesting is that in this kind of a move away from laissez-faire economics, we're dropping our interest rates, we're using fiscal policy.

30:15China's kind of not doing that because the West learned from the last cycle that austerity was implemented too soon. The West learned from the last cycle that there's going to be political repercussions, rise of anti-establishment policymakers, for example, if you don't generate some sort of nominal GDP growth. I think China learned the opposite lesson. Did they overstimulate it? Did they cause collapsing productivity growth because they over leveraged their system? So they're actually doing the opposite of what we are, and that's going to pull the yield higher. So the yield divergence between US and China is going to favor carry trades in China because they're adopting far less stimulative policies.

30:56I mean, they're still stimulating, don't get me wrong, but the central bank is kind of like moderately hawkish. They're cracking down real estate and stuff like that. So you're going to have this yield advantage in China that I think is going to be very difficult to avoid if you're managing long-term capital. As you flow through to some of the other major potential implications, the world over seems enamored with private equity right now. And there's a question of, in a Biden administration, really, what's the role of Elizabeth Warren? That's a great point. Well, I would suggest that everybody reads through some of her legislation that she's proposed.

31:29One of them was the Stop Wall Street Looting Act of 2019, where basically this proposal really focused on private equity. In particular, it looks to make it much more difficult for private equity companies to sell the debt of portfolio companies. It's also looking to require PE firms to assume pension liabilities. And so it's going to make roll-ups and LBOs much more difficult. There's a good chance that legislators started looking into this. And I think that that's going to cause a shift in allocation to much more smaller players into private space, more VC investments, and other more exotic strategies that don't rely on kind of roll-ups.

32:12We're going to take a quick break in the action to tell you about SRS Aquium. Want to make sure your M &A processes aren't stuck in the past? Partner with a company that's been defining the future of deal-making for nearly two decades instead. When it comes to M &A innovation, SRS Aquium has reshaped the way that deals get done, streamlining processes for maximum efficiency and minimum headaches. Professional shareholder representation, online M &A payments, digital stockholder solicitation, SRS Aquium pioneered each and continues to set the bar for game-changing innovation. So leave the days of disjointed deal management behind and define your future with SRS Aquium, the smartest way to run a deal.

33:03Learn more at srsaquium.com. That's S-R-S-A-C-Q-U-I-O-M.com. And now, back to the show. Yeah, interesting. The other big megatrend everyone's talking about these days is sustainability and ESG investing. How are you thinking about how that plays through this election? Well, I think it's very macro. I think it's very geopolitical too. I think the election will obviously impact EV or green companies, which have been signaling through their rally that Biden's going to win. Obviously, there's going to be like an immediate impact after the election, if Trump were to win. But I think that the longer term trend here, Ted, is towards more policy tailwinds for anything that has to do with sustainability, alternative energy.

33:49I mean, we're China, Europe, Japan, everyone's on this. And so it's funny because, you know, you talk to some folks in finance community and some say, Marco, come on, this is like, okay, even if I believe in climate change or global warming, this is like a 80 year kind of a thing. How does this make an impact? And to me, it doesn't really matter. I don't have an answer to that question. I'm not a scientist, but I don't care. I try to get on these political trends and it's kind of, to me like the moon landing. Let me tell you what I mean about this. When United States of America decided to send a man to the moon, that was one of the most wasteful, idiotic, and inefficient human endeavors in the history of mankind.

34:28Pause for effect. Okay. What? How can you say that? Well, because we never went back. When was the last time we were on the moon? Like 72 or something? Like we never went back. We found nothing there. We wasted all this money to go somewhere and it It was a complete waste of time. However, the ancillary technological innovation that has spilled out of that endeavor has been amazing. When I think of what's going on right now with climate change and sustainability, I think of it in the same way. Policy tailwinds are going to be so massive that I think investors have to start thinking about it. The technologies we're going to discover in trying to address these problems, whether it's food quantity and quality, whether it's obviously climate change, whether it's water availability, whether it's poverty.

35:16I think as a long-term investor, you just have to be behind that effort. Now, the problem I have, though, is that in the public markets, there's clearly this kind of rubber stamp of ESG that I think a lot of investors have already figured out is almost meaningless because you have these ESG indices that are like everybody but poor Exxon. So everybody fits into this bucket. And I don't see the value of that, I don't see an edge there. I think the edge is going to be in the private sector. And that's how investors should start thinking about that. Now, Marco, one of the things you do regularly in your writing is compare what you see as managers' view on markets around the world to your view and Clocktower's view.

35:55And I was wondering if we could take a quick tour around the world in what you're seeing managers are saying and what you're saying. And I'll just let you have at it and we'll go from there. Okay, cool. Well, I wish you had asked me this question like two months ago though, because divergence was huge. So I think right now, unfortunately, the divergence is not that great. And that worries me a little bit. If we think today, I think most managers does agree that the blue wave would be very bullish for the market. But where I think there is a little bit of a divergence is that I think my view would be unique or differentiated is that I am worried about the Senate divergence.

36:31I think there's not enough written about that, that Senate could scuddle the plans. And that's why I think it's more prudent this time around to be a little bit more careful. Also, I think there is not that much enthusiasm for oil. I found even though managers are pretty bullish commodities, but on oil prices, you know, everybody kind of generally thinks that 45 to 50, maybe 55 is okay. I think there's a lot of upside potential in oil markets. And that's both because there's this risk, upside risk to oil prices of a Trump victory. Why? Because I think that what nobody's really talking about right now is Iran.

37:06Iran has patiently waited for this election, but I think they're running out of time, and their economy has been really severely impacted by the sanctions. And so I think if Trump wins again, they see the writing on the wall, and I don't think they're going to reach out by thinking of, oh, let's negotiate with the U.S. I think there's geopolitical potential risk in the Middle East, which is, again, interesting because everyone's focused on Asia and China, U.S., but I'm really worried what happens on that front. So I would say those are some of the differences between the macro universe and my views.

37:38And one of the things we haven't touched upon is the ongoing negotiations with Brexit. So we'd love to hear what you're thinking about Europe in general, and then particularly with the UK. Well, Europe in general, I think, is going to continue to integrate. And this is one of the most controversial views and has been for a decade. I mean, as you read the book, you see that that was really a formative part of my career, getting that call right for the last 10 years. I think it continues. I think Europe has enormous incentives to integrate because in this multipolar world, it's a world that demands economies of scale.

38:12And so, yes, state sovereignty matters. And yes, you'll lose some of it to Brussels. But you know what you're going to lose? You're going to lose a lot more of it to Beijing or Moscow or the US if you don't integrate. So if you're sitting in Italy and you're worried about losing some sovereignty to Brussels, hey, at least you have a say in it. Whereas the other potential alternatives, there's a lot more downside. So I think Europe will continue to integrate. I'm just not sure if that is enough of a catalyst to be bullish Europe. I am bullish the euro. I think that if you are bearish on the dollar for the next decade, you got to be bullish on something.

38:47There's obviously gold, which I would be bullish on. But I think the euro is interesting. And no, this doesn't mean that it's a reserve currency argument at all. There's simply the other side of the ledger. On Brexit, I think it's interesting. Brexit negotiations with the EU and this phase four stimulus negotiations show the importance of the constraint framework. The reason you don't listen to policymakers is because they're selling their own book and they're trying to beat their own chest, move the markets, and then get their opponents to do something. All we've heard for the last three months is how negotiations are done, they don't like each other, blah, blah, blah.

39:20And then apparently today, October 21st, there's a little bit of a breakthrough in negotiations. Look, I think the odds are that we do get some sort of deal, likely a deal on a skeleton that they will then negotiate through 2021. But even if UK concludes a Canada-style FTA instead of an Australia-style, that's still a very hard Brexit. And even with a Canada-style FTA, what's interesting to me is that the UK will have one of the weakest economic relationships in all of Europe for a non-EU country. And so I think the consequences of even what people will hail as a successful conclusion to the negotiations, I think even the consequences of that would probably be negative for the UK economy.

40:04And we haven't heard that much of late about emerging markets other than their continued underperformance, maybe outside of some select tech sector in Asia. So what are you seeing in emerging markets? I'm bullish. And it's interesting because I've never been bullish in emerging markets since I joined financial industry, although I haven't been in the industry for that long, so it doesn't mean much. But from 2011 until this year, I've been very bearish. And I was greatly influenced by my colleagues at BCA Research, especially Arthur Budagayan, the EM strategist there. Great mind, and he's been bearish for as long as I know him.

40:40So for good reasons. The emerging markets had a great decade between 2001 and 2011. And part of that was this industrialization of China play, where commodities obviously entered an epic bull market. And then there was a lot of misallocation of capital, very little governance reform. They kind of wasted that decade, didn't do much in terms of governance. And so when we got the great financial crisis, they didn't have the valuation reset that they really needed, in part because unfortunately for them, commodities stayed in a bull market for an extra three years after recession for metals and another five, six years for oil.

41:18So there was never a reset in terms of the currency valuations and in terms of their overall valuations as markets in equities and so on. So you had a really terrible decade. Now, this pandemic has given that valuation reset, especially in terms of currencies. Currencies completely collapsed earlier this year. I think that's super positive. We're starting this new economic cycle with commodities at much lower levels, unlike in 2010, 2011. We're starting this commodity cycle with currencies in emerging markets at a much lower level. And we're starting with pessimistic and bearish views. I talk to institutional investors who are thinking of closing their offices around emerging markets.

41:55And there's generally a really pessimistic view. I think that's really positive. And that's because I think people think this trade war between China and the US is somehow going to be negative for emerging markets, that rewiring of supply chains is going to be negative for emerging markets. And I think that's kind of silly. I think the rewiring of supply chains is growth positive. It's positive for commodities. You have to build new factories. You have to move stuff around. Look, at the end of the day, when China joined the global trading system, we had to rewire supply chains to welcome it. And so if now we're going to rewire away from it, There will be more opportunities for emerging markets, both because commodities, I think, will get a bid and because some emerging markets could fill the role of China a little bit.

42:43Not too much. I think China can't really lose all of its opportunities, but there will be a little bit of a rewiring that will benefit some countries like Mexico, for example. How does that thesis dovetail with your idea, a very high-level idea that we've moved from a very globalized world to a deglobalized world? if the emerging market nations increasingly have to stand on their own because there isn't as much globalization? How do they manage through that? Well, it's not binary. Globalization to deglobalization. I wouldn't characterize my view as a view that we will have deglobalization. I would say my view is that we had apex of globalization and we won't reach it again.

43:21And because I don't think we're in a bipolar world, because I think we're in a multipolar world, I think there'll be these constraints on full deglobalization. So we'll have less globalization. And what that means is that economies of scale will matter. And so I think emerging markets that can achieve those economies of scale will be interesting for investors. I think Latin America is a good place. It has economies of scale. And what I mean by that is speak two languages only. There are cultural commonalities across. And although they do depend on exports for current account balances and a lot of profits, especially in public markets, they are actually quite closed economies in terms of exports as a share of GDP.

44:03Also, I think that when you think about deglobalization, I think you have to think not just about commodity prices, but also how certain commodity supplies will be taken off of the global markets. And so what I mean by that is that we may not have a global market for X, Y, and Z. which will increase prices of those markets because consumers won't be able to source them on a global market. Rather, they'll have to source it on a more regional market, which will benefit producers as they'll be able to jack up prices. So just as a silly example, I mean, if China basically says on its own to Australia, look, we're not going to take your coking call and then turn to Mongolia and be like, okay, so we'll take yours.

44:46Mongolia could very well say, well, it's a little bit more pricier now. I think you could have that across a slew of different commodities that emerging markets export. There are two parts of emerging markets that we haven't really touched on, Africa and India. And I know in the book, you wrote a fair amount about applying the constraints-based framework to your prognosis for India. Why don't you walk through some of your thoughts on India? I mean, it's really simple. I think India comes down to investment. This is an under-invested economy. and what China has showed is that you don't need necessarily FDI.

45:25You can also have very large SOEs whose profits you kind of recycle back into the economy. So China is a great example of an economy that has both used its corporate sector and its household savings for a great amount of investment and it's done brilliantly with that. India has just not done that. It hasn't created the conditions domestically, either through force or through incentives to be an investment-friendly economy. And I think until they do that, I am bearish in India. But I think that with Modi's second term, there are some good things going on. I think the first term, there was more rhetoric and headlines that were positive than actual things.

46:07Well, we really need two things. India needs new labor laws and property, in particular, real estate laws. That's what needs to be done so that it encourages investment in manufacturing and encourages relocation of some factories. And that is already happening on some scale, but we need to see a lot more of that. So I am looking very much into whether the government in India pursues those two reforms. Why do you think it hasn't happened yet? I think because it's politically painful. I think that's where the constraint comes in. And the constraint is that India is a very low-income country still, and it's very difficult to do away with labor protections and very difficult to have land reform in a country like that.

46:49China has managed to do it for obvious reason. I mean, China didn't really have to worry about the median voter in the 70s and 80s when it did most of the important stuff. I think China now does have constraints. Middle class is a huge portion of its economy. People say it's not a democracy, but there's other ways to voice your displeasure. And I think China is very cognizant of that. So China has its constraints. For India, the usual answer to your question is, I think, still applicable, which is that they democratized before they advanced economically. And this is something that Samuel Huntington wrote about in the 1960s, this idea that democracy should come after you've managed to grow.

47:28Now, I don't want to put too much on that because I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think India might be able to overcome it soon. It just might take a little bit longer. And how about Africa? Well, I think Africa is interesting. Some of the best years for Africa were during the Cold War. And by the way, Latin America too, my own country that I grew up in that doesn't exist anymore. We all used to suck at the teat of the a Cold War geopolitical competition. It was great. It was gravy. You know, like, oh, we need a new bridge. Maybe we'll go communist. Oh, thank you very much, America.

48:01Thank you for that bridge. You know what? We also need a new port. Maybe we'll become capitalist. So this is a dance that a lot of countries did very well. And I think that Africa gets a chance to play this dance again. So let me give you an example. I spoke recently with a large institutional investor and they were very concerned about Chinese loans. to African countries, the Belt and Road. And one of the things they said was, well, the more borrowing one has done, a country has done with China, the less likely we are to invest in there. And I said, why? I don't understand the logic. Well, you know, they have to repay.

48:37And my point was like, look, if you go back to the Cold War and see what happened, I mean, these countries didn't get invaded for debts. They got a blank check. And I think you saw what happened in Zambia, which was an interesting macro story. They basically said, look, we're going to default on Chinese borrowing on Chinese loans. I don't see China preparing itself to invade them. In fact, it may very well lead to more favorable loans. And so I think that this great power competition between China and the US and potentially other countries mixed in creates a really interesting environment for frontier markets like Africa, maybe some of the less developed countries in Latin America and Asia as well, because they can play all sides together.

49:19And I think investors should start actually taking a look at them very closely. So Marco, you make a point in your book to state that you are a strategist, that you will express opinions, but you are not the guy who's making the call in the markets. You leave that to the managers. What have you seen in the many managers that you speak to that differentiates the ones who are good at that from the ones who aren't as much? Yeah, I have an immediate answer to that question. To complete and utter indifference, like I mean, to the elegance of their view, to the parsimony of their theory, to the ideological alignment of their ideas.

50:03It's just pure focus on alpha. And you say that and it says, of course, but no, that's tough. Okay, fine. I'm not ideologically biased. Yeah, but are you biased towards the elegance of your view? So you're a short duration because of this beautiful fiscal view that you have, but then it doesn't work out because Biden has to deal with the Republican Senate. Are you willing to pivot? And so that's why I think some of the best managers are not necessarily people who went to the best schools or not necessarily people who are the best educated in terms of like the length of their education. They're all extremely smart, but they're promiscuous intellectually because they put as primal performance over intellectual prowess, being kind of like rewarded for their elegance of their thinking.

50:52And so, yeah, I think that's what it comes down to. Well, Mark, I want to turn to some closing questions. So let's start with what's your favorite hobby or activity outside of work and family? I think it's pretty clear after you read my book. Very much basketball. So there's a section where I use some math to show constraints. And my example is this lack of fighting in the NBA. So I would say, yeah, basketball. Watch it. I used to coach it, played it, tore my ACL this year while playing it. So there's nothing more that I enjoyed in basketball. I'm going to save for our premium members. I'll have you tell the story of what that mathematical model was for fighting in the NBA.

51:30But until then, what's your most important daily habit? I think drinking a cup of coffee. I'm sorry it's nothing better than that, but a little healthier. But if I don't have my coffee in the morning, I'm useless. All right. What's your biggest pet peeve? I think my biggest pet peeve, and this happens a lot in these podcasts and when I do something on YouTube or something, people hear me say something. Say I said Biden's going to win. And then they just assume my answer on a whole slew of other points. I can't stand that. I really cannot stand that. I have a very low beta between my views. They do not correlate in any way.

52:08I wish we all would give each other more time to hear our views out and to understand where we're coming from, because then we would understand that they're unique. They're not all the same. What teaching from your parents has most stayed with you? My dad grew up in Yugoslavia. He was in corporate affairs and business, and he taught me a lot of things. I think my ability to analyze things comes from my dad. and one of the things he always used to say, it's all Hollywood, but with like a thick Serbian accent, it's all Hollywood. It's all Hollywood. And I love that because you have to kind of like understand there's theater going on.

52:44You know, like UK, EU negotiations you asked me about, like, yeah, it's all Hollywood. So that's the first. The second is I think I have a chip on my shoulders because of my upbringing and because of just where I'm from and everywhere. I've always been an outsider, a foreigner, an immigrant since I was 12, and I think my parents encouraged that. And I think I was good. All right, last one on this set. What life lesson have you learned that you wish you knew a lot earlier in life? I think to be an optimist. I come from a very pessimistic place. And I think one of the problems with that is that you will not have confidence in your vision.

53:20And so you will settle a lot. And I think one of the greatest things about coming here, joining Clocktower Group, especially is my partner and boss, Steve Drobny. he's a true Californian and he's very optimistic. So when he came to me and said, Marco, you should write a book and here's why, here's how I've written a great book. Like I was like, nah, who's going to read my book? That's crazy. That's insane. Why would I do that? I got all this other stuff and I'm smart enough to know that I'm not naturally an optimist. And so I seek out people who are optimistic to surround myself with so I can kind of cover for my deficiency.

53:56Marco, thanks so much. It's a real pleasure, Ted. This was great. Thank you. All right. We're going to keep going a little bit for our premier members. We're going to start right here on the MBA. So why don't you go ahead and talk about that analysis about fighting in the MBA and constraints? Oh my God. Yeah. So I asked one of my closest friends, he's a professor of quantum physics, Dan Green at UC San Diego. And we basically grew up together in Vancouver during our college years. And I said to him, hey, listen, man, I need to put some math into this book. And he was like, why? Well, because it looks cool.

54:27Formulas look just cool. And one of the things that we have a bond between each other is basketball. So I have to admit it's his example, but he wrote it because he knows how absolutely psychotic I am about the NBA. The example is that in the NBA, you no longer have any fights. And one of the constraints to fighting is teammates. so teammates hold the players back and so what you see is that when there are no teammates to hold players back when for example someone goes for a layup on a breakup and they get fouled really hard you don't see them get as aggressive they're kind of waiting waiting for everyone to come from the other side and then they're like hey what'd you do and then that constraint prevents fighting and of course dan and i have to give it to him i mean you know everybody knows i didn't write this formula, but he made a very elegant equation.

55:18And I welcome everyone to read that section because it's awesome. So do you think that the players never wanted to fight and that's why they're doing it? Or is there something else driving that behavior? I think the real constraints, rather than their teammates, the real constraint to fighting is really the fines. For fun, I listen to really good podcasts like Bill Simmons has a great podcast on this and he discussed this all the time. The fines just got huge. In the 80s, the fines were small, whatever. So, you know, Kurt Rambis gets clotheslined and all the good stuff that we saw in the 80s, Shaq and Charles.

55:50Now the constraint to fighting is really monetary. It's a serious one. So what you're going to do is you're going to wait for your teammates to show up so that you can hold me back. Marco, what advice do you give people early in their career? I've thought about that a lot. So when I said that basketball is my passion, it really came from coaching. I wasn't that great at playing, but I really think I could have been a basketball coach. And one of the things that I always thought about is that if you're not very good at something, just find a niche. So if you want to be on the court, set picks really hard.

56:24And I would say the same thing for people starting their career. Just if you're in a firm, don't necessarily try to replicate what the successful people in that firm are doing because they're doing it and they're successful. Rather, find something that the firm is missing. And I was very lucky at Stratfor. You know, 2007, when I joined the firm, nobody cared about Europe, as I said. And I said, look, I'm going to own this. I know everyone's focused on the Middle East, Iraq, things going on in East Asia. But I'm going to own Europe and I'm going to crush it. And then at BCA Research, obviously, I owned the geopolitical analysis from an investment perspective and so on and so on.

57:04And I think that's really important. When you are just starting your career, make sure that the enterprise you work for becomes addicted to you and what you provide. So you talk to a lot of money managers, and I'm curious, outside of just your views and how you're thinking about markets, what do they come and talk to you about when they're asking for advice? I think developing talent is probably one of them. aside from markets and things like that, I think it's developing talent and growing businesses. How do you grow talent? How do you articulate a vision in a way that will appeal to the institutional investor community?

57:40So that's something that I speak to them a lot about. What's your favorite book or thing that you read online? So my favorite book, which would be, I think, applicable to everyone is Why Nations Fail. I don't say that just because it's applicable to everyone here, but I think what Acemoglu and Robinson do is really powerful. And it's a really, really good book. And it really tries to distill like a thousand years of history of successful countries down to really one thing, setting up institutions that will allow successful people to fail. It's like enshrining creative destruction. That's what I got from it.

58:21And I think it's one of the best books, especially if you start thinking about long-term investments and where you want to put your money, like in emerging markets and so on. What's the biggest mistake you've made and what did you learn from it? Definitely putting my job in front of my family for the last 10 years. So great, I got a book out of it, but not a good idea. And I think we all need to find a better way to balance things out, I think. So yeah, that's what I would say. In my acknowledgements, I said I have nothing to thank my children for, but I just want to apologize to them for the last decade.

58:56Okay, Marco, again, thank you so, so much. Really enjoyed it. Thank you so much, Dad. Real pleasure. Thanks for listening to this episode. I hope you found a nugget or two to take away and apply in your investing and your life. If you'd like what you heard, please tell a friend and maybe even write a review on iTunes. You'll help others discover the show, and I thank you for it. Have a good one and see you next time.