IPO Market Update 2026: Why Asia Is Winning & UK IPOs Are Struggling

Welcome back to the Market Maker podcast, and this week we are going to talk everything to do with IPOs. So we're going to start off with the good. So Shanghai-based Lai Intelligence, it's a word I haven't come across before, but it does exist. Lai Intelligence popping by almost 400% on its Hong Kong debut. So a good opportunity for us to discuss how much Hong Kong is smashing it this year, at least. Compared to us here in the UK. And then after that, we're going to discuss Hawkeye360's proposed US listing and chat about the unpredictability of a green shoe option. So many of you might not have even heard of that, but Stephen, our expert, will definitely explain in detail. And then follow that swiftly with an update on Revolut's proposed IPO. This is one I feel like we've been waiting, Stephen, forever for, but No danger of this happening anytime soon, must add. Uh, they're looking around 2028 in order for Revolut to hit its desired $200 billion valuation. And then finally, the ugly. So we're going to cover everything from top and tail, uh, to add salt to the wounds of UK PLC, the breakdown cover and car insurance giant RAC has decided to delay its IPO until later this year, citing market volatility, of course. Caused by the Iranian conflict, but they can't hang about. And as much the case for many companies, that's because the private equity owners are starting to get a little bit impatient. So we'll also cover that story. But Stephen, how are you?

Yeah, I'm pretty good, thanks. And you, off air, you made a comment about my kind of superfluity of hair. Anthony Cheung, and anyone that's watching, that's absolutely right. I was actually reading, I was reading a couple of weeks ago about the concept that before we invented, before we invented things like mirrors, we just didn't really know what we looked like. And because I haven't been on a Zoom call today, I don't know what I look like until I land on this call with you and I see my face and I see my hair and I see you saying, look, that's a proper That's a proper barnet, as they say.

Looking at the dimension on your window of your screen, I reckon you've got at least another few inches until you cover the entire bookcase. So, keep it going.

It's a challenge. The famous Man United supporter. It's got to get 5 victories in a row. I don't think I'm going to be doing that anytime soon. But anyway, more importantly, I thought it would be good today to do an IPO update. We spoke last week about strategy and it's so tempting just to keep going back to Anthropic and stories like that because there's tales of $900 billion valuations and all of this kind of good stuff. But the day-to-day of banking and the day-to-day of finance isn't usually about Anthropic. So let's cover a few other companies. The first one, as you rightly mentioned, Anne, is this company called Lightelligence. Which is that lovely kind of combination of light and intelligence. And I thought, just, I'm a very visual person. In my notes that I was creating for you, Anne, I thought I'd put a, I'd put an image of the CEO working on these optical fibre cables that supposedly, in fact, are much more efficient at channelling, processing information from one to another. Yes.

Can I just give people a visualization? So if you're from the UK, at least, if you've ever been to The Range, that discount store at Christmas, and they put out all the Christmas lights and they make a little tunnel of them, it's basically what this picture's like that you shared, Steven.

Yeah, I totally agree. But I don't think Range, The Range is going to have quite as stunning an IPO debut as this company. So Lightelligence. What they do is they do, it's called optical computing, optical interconnects. The core thesis is that as artificial intelligence workloads get larger, the traditional, we've always dealt in copper, right? The traditional interconnects become a bottleneck in terms of speed, bandwidth, efficiency. And it's so interesting in this AI buildout where we are seeing those bottlenecks appear whether it's in memory, whether it's in processing, but processing is the thing that's going further ahead, or whether it is just getting the kind of AI workloads from A to B. So this company is right at the kind of forefront of one of the bottlenecks that might well be slowing the pace of AI development down. So this company, Lightelligence, 410 patents. It was actually born from a PhD thesis, um, from the founder Yi Chen Shen in 2017 at MIT, the American university. But since then, he relocated to Shanghai, which again is a story in and of itself, and grew this technology, grew his kind of client base, grew this proof of concept into a business. To the point that earlier last week, Lighthelligence became one of the most successful IPOs. Depends what you mean by success, but successful IPOs that I've ever seen. So just to give you a couple of numbers. So the company raised 2.5 billion Hong Kong dollars. It's about $320 million US. It priced at the top of its marketed range. So the IPO range. That investment banks agree with the company and put out to investors. And it popped, it jumped 408% on debut and actually closed a little bit lower at only 384%. So there you go.

That's just, that is insane. I'm assuming then that the way this would work is there's a lot of key strategic investors that would be tracking this stuff. It's almost like I'd imagine an investment house almost like having a team of scouts, like a sports team. And you're like, okay, so, and I know this from anecdotally working from with some of these more sophisticated hedge funds. It's not so much that, okay, let's promote an opportunity and let's have some talent apply to roles. That's not how it works in the big leagues. How it works is the MIT professor who was this guy's advisor on his thesis. That's the person who's like, where do you go to generate this talent? So yeah, who are some of these cornerstone investors in this? And I'm sure they would've been tapping up these professors or at least keeping a pulse on these potential bottlenecks down the line.

Yeah, it's a really good point. So the cornerstone investor list for this IPO included names such as Alibaba, GIC, the Singapore Sovereign Wealth Fund, Temasek, same deal. BlackRock, Fidelity, Schroders, Hillhouse, Lenovo, the PC desktop maker, laptop maker. So, you know, some big names and almost all of them can write a $323 million check themselves, right? And there was a report by a website called TradingView. I can't vouch for the credibility, it said that the IPO was oversubscribed by as much as 5,800 times. I remember doing a pod on IPOs a couple of years ago and talking about the UAE and 300 times oversubscribed, but 5,800. So there's all of this stored up demand. Let's say that BlackRock, you know, they wanted to put $100 million into this IPO, but only got an allocation of $5 million. What are they going to do as soon as this thing starts trading? Buy on the open market. Hence this, there's a very strong relationship between the oversubscription rate and the first day pop, as you can imagine.

Can I ask, how does this work then? If it's a Chinese company, but it's got US backers on an international investor base, if doesn't China have a history though? This is like, cutting-edge technology. Is there any risk factor here surrounding the IP and how that would get generally shared with the public market?

Yeah, it's a good point. And there definitely is risk, you know, associated with being a Chinese domiciled HQ company, especially in an industry that's so strategically important. I think investors can and do get comfortable with the fact that this is a Hong Kong debut, right? Hong Kong Stock Exchange. It's one of the big ones around the world and actually segues nicely. I'm going to say one thing before I get onto Hong Kong. The price-to-revenue multiple of this business at the moment is 666 times. Yeah. So I mean, NVIDIA's at about 30. So just think about this. 666.

666. Are you having a laugh?

I know.

I know.

I got it at the right time. Yeah, well, look, okay, so Hong Kong, we tend to talk a lot about America, the US. We talk about Europe because that's where we're based, but we don't speak too much about Asia and most, more specifically Hong Kong. And we should do because the IPO market has been flying in Hong Kong. It basically sucks up anything Asian and Asia is a big place, right? Including China that wants kind of global exposure. So IPOs have already raised $14 billion so far this year, which is only a fraction short of the US. We always think that US is the big beast, but US was $16.3 billion in Q1. EMEA, $7.4 billion. So doubled EMEA. Do you want to know what the amount, the total proceeds, IPO proceeds of UK PLC has been this year?

No, I don't want to know.

£12.8 million.

Sorry, say that again.

£12.8 million relative to Hong Kong, £14 billion so far this year. That's bad, isn't it?

So if you were a banker at the moment working in ECM, would you just be like, I need a secondment, I need to leave the London branch.

Get me out, get me out as fast as possible. You know, obviously the ECM, the Equity Capital Markets team, do a lot more than IPOs, but it's a pretty frigid market out there. You know, an equity capital markets team's bread and butter is follow-on offerings. So companies that are already public raising more money, but because there are less public companies than there used to be in the UK, and certainly less than there are in different parts of the world, even that stuff's drying up. So yeah, it's not a great time for, well, we've been discussing this for years now, UK PLC, but it is a great time for Hong Kong. Last year, $36.5 billion raised in IPO proceeds from 114 new listings. So this is a, you know, we've, I think the market or the general journalistic mood on Hong Kong has been down for a few years. Increasing stretch from China, et cetera. But the numbers don't say that.

Cool. Well, look, my family in Hong Kong will be extremely happy by your latest appraisal. So let's move on and talk about one of which I did actually pop onto the filing that they made for this IPO, Hawkeye. And I really loved the graphic and it was just very reminiscent of a lot of the material linked to SpaceX. So yeah, interesting to get your insight into this one, perhaps because a lot of people probably have only ever heard of Hawkeye from Wimbledon or something like that. But this company and also the timing aspect, just given what it does in relation to some of those other big IPOs down the pipe.

Yeah, this is Hawkeye 360. No, relation to Wimbledon or to cricket. It operates satellites that detect and analyze radio frequency signals, allowing governments, mainly governments and allied customers, to monitor activity that might not be visible through traditional optical imagery. As you can imagine, it's defense, it's government. I think US government entities accounted for 61% of its 2025 revenue. And yes, it's got a bit of a spacey feel about it. It's, it's an exciting IPO, but it's a little bit more sober than the 666 revenue multiple that we saw before. So this IPO is being priced at 20 times revenue. The fact that we are saying that this is sober is still relatively remarkable, but the company's growing at 70-odd percent a year, and actually is profitable. So this is a nice time to IPO. A, because everyone's talking about defense. B, because, well, quite frankly, everyone's talking about SpaceX. So if you can get a little bit of that, that magic dust, that stardust, shall we call it, and sprinkle it onto this IPO, this could pop. I'm not going to say by 300-400%, but this could pop quite significantly. It'll be a really interesting one to see where this goes. Looking at a market valuation of only $2.4 billion. So it's not going to be massive, but you know what? It's an interesting one.

So I know there's a lot of banks on the ticket here. So there's GSMS, support from RBC, Jefferies, Bank of America, the list goes on and on and on and on. How then, like in a scenario like this, what we mentioned something at the top of the show about strategic ways that as a banker, I'm sure that you want to de-risk how this is going to perform and your sort of liability. Where does that sit in terms of you plan for success, but you also plan for failure? So am I understanding this right? There's some interesting mechanics on how this deal's being constructed.

Yeah, it's a really good learning opportunity for those people that don't know about the kind of the process and mechanics of an IPO. What tends to happen with a traditional underwritten IPO, which most big IPOs are, i.e., they're guaranteed by the banks. You mentioned Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and the like. They, in the case of Hawkeye 360, 16 million shares are being offered at a price range of $24 to $26 per share. But underwriters, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, et cetera, have a 30-day option to buy up to 2.4 million more shares. That's 15%. And this is called a green shoe option. The technical term is an over allotment option. So what effectively happens is the company issues 16 million shares. But the underwriters sell 18.4 million shares. They sell more than they bought. So effectively, when that bell rings in this scenario, when that bell rings, the banks, the underwriters are short 2.4 million shares that they have 30 days to kind of make whole. You're thinking, all right, why? This is, you know, is this just needlessly complicated? So let's see what happens. So if the price drops, and this is the main reason why we have this over-allocation option, if the price drops, this becomes a price stabilizing mechanism, right? So the banks have effectively sold 18.4 million shares. Only 16 million of these shares exist. They can now go back into the open market and buy those shares back, covering that 2.4 million short position and actually propping up demand and propping up the price of that IPO. So imagine Hawkeye 360 craters 30% on day one. That's a shocker for the investors. That's a shocker for the company, and that's a reputational issue for the banks. So what do they do? They come in because they effectively are short $2.4 million. They come in and start buying, buying, buying, buying, buying. Share price goes up. By the way, they make a pretty handsome profit because they sold at the IPO price and they're buying back at the depressed, you know, day 1, day 2, day 3 share price. So that's a pretty sweet little profit. Obviously it's not a great story to be part of an IPO that you've maybe overpriced.

In a free market, how is that from a regulatory perspective even allowed? I mean, I know it is allowed and it happens all of the time. It's a very regular occurrence, but it just feels a bit odd when you explain it and I'm just sort of listening along to, so hang about, you're going to, what's the word that they have? It happens a lot in China when a company just tanks all of a sudden. The regulator and government decide you are no longer allowed to go short. It's a short selling ban, and then the stock destabilizer is put into place. Feels like, yeah, just a question that came to mind was like, how is that allowed? Or is it because of the timing nature of when these companies first launch, they're given the benefit of the doubt to have some flexibility?

Yeah, absolutely. I think the headline or the party line is, all right, It's going to take 30 days for public equity investors to get their head around this stock, right?

Like price discovery sort of thing.

Exactly. And again, you're, you know, if there's a bunch of selling activity and there's a bit of negative momentum, that can put a lot of companies off IPOing, right? So this is like, all right, don't worry. You know, we know that those 30 days can be pretty volatile. Let's allow this over allotment option as a defensive mechanism. Obviously the hope is the price rises. Hawkeye360 goes from $26 to $35 or whatever it, whatever, you know, whatever share price rise it might be. At that point, the banks can exercise this option and buy the 2.4 million shares. Off the company and distribute them to their investors at the offer price. So basically they're not out of, you know, they're not out of the money in either situation, whether the price rises or the price drops. It's just a mechanism that you'll see on almost every IPO. So you'll see this over allotment option, this extra is usually 15%, this extra 15%. That really just helps price stability and yeah, and that smooth transition from private to public.

Overall then, just looking at the numbers as well of the actual business, how do you feel about it in its initial launch?

Yeah, I need to do some more work on the customer base and things like that. 'Cause you've gotta think about, it's very, very positive that you've got a lot of governments and central defense institutions as your customer base, that could be really sticky, but it could be overly concentrated. 61% US. I mean, it's a, it generated $25 million of adjusted EBITDA. I don't know what the adjustments were in 2025. That's compared with negative EBITDA in 2024. As I said, it's growing at 74% a year. It's, you know, it is not a pie in the sky meme stock. Let's, you know, let's boost this as much as we can. Let's hope that this thing is real. This looks like a pretty solid company that's doing some interesting stuff. Let's see where it gets to.

All right, cool. Well, look, let's talk about the next one, which is Revolut. And interested to hear about this because I don't really think about Revolut a lot, but I saw that image that you shared with me of a Revolut ATM, and I was like, wow, okay. Now we're talking. But yeah, talk to me about this one then. Where are we at with devaluation around Revolut at the moment?

Yeah, if you go on Revolut's website and go to their annual reports and scroll down a little bit, you'll get a lovely rendered image of the Revolut ATM coming soon to Spain. And it looks like, looks like if I punched in, do me a kind of whizzy tech version of an ATM, put that prompt into ChatGPT, we'd get something like this.

It certainly doesn't look like my Barclays cash point on my local high street, that's for sure.

No, it looks like the central console on a very, very kind of elite car is what I would probably describe it. But anyway, I don't know why they're going into ATMs. That's for another part of the business. But I just wanted to give an update on Revolut because it is a British tech success story. British being a word that I'm going to use maybe in parentheses going forward because of the potential location of its IPO and where the money is effectively. But the headline from the FT last week was that Revolut is reportedly targeting a valuation of between $150 billion and $200 billion for a future IPO. Now, future IPO, probably not going to happen before 2028, but it's really interesting to see and to track this through time. And again, as a young person, it's good to have a slightly more longitudinal approach to covering stories if you could, if you can do it instead of cramming last minute. At the moment, we're in November 2025, their valuation was $75 billion, which again makes it one of the largest fintechs in Europe. It's a, you know, a real success story and it's got fast-growing revenue and it's profitable. It had a 2025 revenue of $6 billion. So what's that? A kind of 13x revenue multiple and a pre-tax profit of $2.3 billion, which is really impressive. Really, really impressive. Now, what I wanted to do here, because Revolut is exciting. It's a bank, it's got a UK banking license. It does a load of banking products. It is trying to be this super app that kind of does everything in your pocket from business to personal, currency, FX, savings, mortgages, whatever, right? But I just wanted to compare it to my old employer, HSBC, just from a pure banking perspective, not to pour kind of cold water on this tech story. But they, in that annual report, they're very excited to say that Revolut has $68 billion of customer balances, effectively deposits lying in Revolut accounts. That's a lot of money, $68 billion, but HSBC has $1.8 trillion, just to kind of put things into perspective.

That is a crazy number. Is it, am I right in thinking then that, because the first thing that comes to mind is when I think about someone like Revolut, and I know very little about them, but the fact that they're technologically led in terms of what their product is and their solutions, is it easier for someone like Revolut to become HSBC and grow up and start offering these other more mainstream products in more traditional markets and geographies, rather than a HPC try to take on a fintech. And then I'm assuming the legacy architecture of these dinosaurs is so old and archaic, you can't actually integrate it to that point.

You're totally right. It's so much more fun being a chippy startup with a blank canvas and all of the modern technology. It is so much harder going in with a very entrenched tech stack, workforce, et cetera, and trying to compete with these fast-moving— again, it was the classic dinosaur extinction story, wasn't it? You know, the big lumbering dinosaurs with big teeth look pretty cool, but they got totally outcompeted by the smaller ones, right? And I remember when I joined HSBC, They were really proud by saying that the tech department, the tech unit of HSBC alone would've been something like the 6th biggest tech company in the world by employees. It's had like 60,000 tech people located all around the world, but that's basically maintaining an archaic architecture. So, but what does HSBC have that Revolut doesn't? Credibility, trust, reputation, longstanding relationships. So that's the, you're the hard-charging rival upstart, and you've got all of this amazing tech versus, well, I might as well go with HSBC because I kind of know them. Now, interestingly enough, I mentioned that customer balance discrepancy. HSBC's got a market cap of about $310 billion, so kind of 4 times bigger than Revolut at the moment. And when you look at the numbers, you're like, how is that possible? But the profit margins of Revolut are so good and the growth rate is so good and their tech stack is so good that banking is almost the final piece of the puzzle. It's the central pillar of Revolut, but getting that banking license, which they've only just got in the UK, and eventually trying to get banking licenses in a lot more countries, including the US. That is going to potentially turbocharge them to that $150, $200 billion valuation.

So it is now then ahead of the IPO, more about brand awareness. Is that now like, look, let's try to like plant the seed in the masses now beyond what were the early adopters?

Totally, totally, totally. So they didn't spend any money on advertising marketing for the first 7 years. It was all word of mouth, which is pretty cool that they grew organically. But this latest funding round, which I think totaled almost $3 billion at that $75 billion valuation, I think I know where quite a lot of the money's going. Bearing in mind that I sent over to you a photo of the rear wing of an Audi Formula 1 car, new team in Formula 1, nice little Revolut on the back of the top of the wing. And then I sent a little photo of the bottom of the back of the Man City shirt. So Revolut are now official back of shirt partner. Do you, uh, do you, are you sponsored on the back of your shirt, Ann? Or are you not quite there yet?

Yeah, I've, yeah, Uniqlo is my sponsor for the podcast. So I just want to give a shout out to Uniqlo. Thanks.

Yeah, absolutely. You can send me, you can send me as many Uniqlo as possible. I'm glad it's not Shein or Temu or something like that. Anyway. So yeah, they're now doubling down. They're spending a lot of this $3 billion that they raised obviously on tech and continuing that process. But I reckon a big portion's going on marketing. I'd say a decent portion's probably going on lobbying and regulatory and legal, trying to get banking licenses in all of these different places. So yeah, that money's going to run out very quickly. $3 billion is a lot of a lot, but They've got a lot to do to get to that valuation.

Alright, well, let's talk then on a slightly sour note, I guess. This was the ugly story that you had listed, which again, for anyone in North America listening, RAC. So if your car breaks down, this typically is one of the people you would call, if not their main competitor, I guess, AA. But what's happened here? What, why is they put the brakes on this London IPO?

Yeah, absolutely. And it's great to use as many car and auto analogies or kind of clever words as possible. So yes, putting the brakes on the £5 billion London IPO. So RAC, Royal Automobile Company, if you break down, you're absolutely right. It's an orange van, I think it is, with someone that's probably begrudgingly wearing an orange jacket and, and probably not particularly happy to be picking you up on the side of the M40 at 9:00 PM on a Friday night or whatever it might be. But anyway, so relatively successful company and much like its biggest rival, DAA, which is yellow. So that's the big, big difference in my mind. I'm sure it's not the biggest financial difference, but they're both owned by private equity. And have been for quite some time. So the AA was taken private, I think they were a publicly traded company taken private in 2021, owned by Tower Brook Capital Partners, Warburg Pincus, and Stonepeak. They're potentially gearing up for a sale. You know, it's 2021 that they were taken private. It's now 2026. That fund, you know, that exit window starts to open for these private equity-backed companies. And the same goes for, the same goes for RAC as well. So it was acquired in 2015 by CVC, big European private equity firm, from Carlyle, who was another US private equity firm who owned it from 2011 to 2015. So it's a bit of private equity, pass the parcel here. So acquired in 2015, and then in 2021, there was a fresh injection of capital. From Silver Lake to support its digital opportunities, whatever that means. In 2015, it was valued at £2.2 billion. Sorry. In 2021, that grew. It was valued at £3.7 billion, and it is looking to be valued at about £5 billion. Now, this is really interesting. Obviously the story is that it's delayed, but what I really wanted to get to was this private equity piece. So as we all know, private equity buys companies, tries to improve them, and then seeks to sell them. And I was looking at RAC's numbers because they publish their numbers. They're technically in some vague way owned by their customers. I don't precisely know how that works, but you get to see their annual report. So in 2021, they were valued at £3.7 billion and they were bought by Silver Lake or invested in by Silver Lake at a 15x EV to EBITDA multiple, right? Relatively punchy, 15x for a non-tech business, but it's a solid business, right? Ever since 2021, the goal for these private equity firms is to increase the bottom line, increase that EBITDA, pay down debt, and hope against hope that you get a bigger multiple valuation multiple when you come to sell it in 2026. So fast forward to 2026, EBITDA has grown from $250 million in 2021 to about $320 million. In 2025. So not bad growth, you know, not lights out, 100% growth a year, but it's solid. £320 million of EBITDA. That suggests at a 15x EV/EBITDA multiple, which is what they got in 2021, that suggests a £4.7 billion valuation. Now they're going out to the market at a £5 billion valuation. So they're hoping that they get that little bit of kind of what we call multiple expansion. They've grown the EBITDA, but they also want to sell at maybe a 15.5x EV/EBITDA multiple instead of the 15x to get to that $5 billion evaluation. Now, the final thing that we need to consider when thinking, is this a good deal? Has this been a good deal for CVC and for Silver Lake is debt paydown. And this company, RAC, has been paying down debt saddled with a lot of debt at the beginning, as they tend to be, has been paying down a lot of debt such that when they IPO, a lot of that check will go to the equity holders. So you have to bring in all of these different things to figure out whether this has been a successful private equity ownership, but it's only successful as how much they exit for, right? And this has been pushed back. 5 billion in a London, as we've discussed before, a London IPO. Are they going to get the investor demand at that valuation with that quite punchy multiple? Is the timing right? Well, obviously not at the moment, but is it going to be right later on in this year? The clock is ticking because private equity wants to exit and distribute some of that capital back to their investors, their clients. So it's a, again, it's one of those stories that it's great to watch during the course of 2026.

I was just kind of connecting the dots on the dates because I was just thinking, you know, RACA, you know, it's very domestic focused in the UK. You can't just up that and lift and list somewhere else, I would think. So then I was just looking, then you took Carlisle was the owners in 2011 to 2015, and then obviously Brexit happened. At that point when RAC was valued at £2.2 billion, which then I'm guessing it would've been interesting just on the timing, because London would've looked a lot of a different— the attractiveness of London pre-Brexit in 2011 to 2015, I'd imagine was a different environment to what it is today.

Yeah, absolutely. And there would've definitely been a lot of conversations, whether it's at Carlyle or CBCS, to the continued strategic commitment to the UK that maybe they once had. But as you said, the RAC is quite protected in the sense that it's basically an oligopoly between 2 or 3 big players, and it's very hard to have a tech upstart that goes and comes in from America to take RAC's lunch.

Final question to wrap up then. Just given the geopolitical climate that's happening at the moment, private equity get their funds from pension funds and other places to fill the pot of capital. Has there been, is there an overconcentration or has there been into North America? And just given what's been happening, do you think that there's a need where the UK could be quite positive in fact? Because it acts as a diversification play, so you're not overexposed when the geopolitics are quite volatile with North America.

Yeah, absolutely. From an asset owner's perspective, obviously your goal is to be appropriately diversified to cover your future liabilities. That's the name of the game. But unfortunately we keep, and I'm going to definitely grow gray by the time that we stop talking about this, We keep saying, oh, all right, okay, America's pretty all over the place. Let's, you know, oh, the UK could be quite attractive now. Valuations aren't as high, you know, the policy's not quite as sclerotic, et cetera. And then you guys know better than I do. Look what happens to the stock market in the US. It is going absolutely great guns. Then we get reports from the IMF saying, you know, the UK's going to get hit worse by these geopolitical conflicts. And you start thinking, yeah, I wish it were the case that the UK is now the best diversification play, but it still seems to be, let's just pile into the US and cross our fingers.

All right, cool. Well, great conversation. Thank you as always for your time, Steven. Any questions, as we always say, drop us a comment, let us know. And if you're not liked or subscribed to the channel, please do so. We've got new episodes coming every week. So, Have a great week ahead. Thank you, Stephen.

Thanks, Ant.