Is Nvidia's Magic Fading & Trump's Impact on the M&A Market for 2025

Hello and welcome back to The Deal Room. We have 3 topics up for discussion with Stephen and I today, and that is NVIDIA's earnings, which came out last week. Time of we're recording this was the day after they released their earnings. They actually dip a little bit in aftermarket trade despite, I think it was a 94% increase in their revenues, which is, you know, when you're pricing perfection, good just doesn't seem to be good enough for NVIDIA, but Well, I look to unpack that. Then also the second story, Trump, and more specifically the impact on the M&A outlook. Obviously this is going to be super important as we go into the turn of the year. And then activist investors. I don't know about you, but whenever I hear activist investors, I think Netflix docuseries, bad people doing bad things. But let's just talk about that a little bit in today's episode about, you know, what makes a good activist target and, you know, do they actually have good results and is it a really healthy thing or not? And perhaps I might kill a few Netflix budgets if we prove it otherwise. But yeah, Stephen, good to have you with me as always. And yeah, really excited to talk about Nvidia and to get your perspective on that earnings report.

Yeah, thank you so much. And I mean, I think every time we look at Nvidia, it's an opportunity for me to kind of give myself, well, the opposite of a pat on the back for never having invested. You hear things like $800 160% increase in the last 2 years. And you think, oh gosh, I could have paid off, paid off my mortgage, but we are where we are. And I'm holding on to the fact that it's probably not worth $3.6 trillion. Maybe I will be wrong. But anyway, so we were going to talk today about the Q3. Weirdly enough, Nvidia calls it the Q3 2025 because their end of year is January 2025. So don't let that confused you, but the Q3 earnings again were absolutely blockbuster. And as you said in the preamble, it's really, really hard to live up to perfection. And this was almost, and I say almost, we can go into why it may not be the perfect earnings statement, but shares slumped as much as 2.5% straight after. And by the way, 2.5% in Nvidia language is $100 billion. Just have to start by putting this stuff into context. But let's just, let's just break this down very quickly and we'll start with some numbers and maybe we'll finish with a bit of technology and outlook. So earnings per share of $0.81, beating estimates by $0.06. Sales were $35.1 billion. The Street estimated sales of $33.2 billion. This is 17% growth quarter on quarter. And 70% growth year on year. Its gross profit margin rose from 74% to 75%. And it's altogether a completely remarkable story. I'm just looking at revenue growth and what's so interesting about Nvidia is 2022 to 2023, their revenue was pretty flat. Right? It wasn't exciting 2 years ago. It was, I think, $26 billion in 2022 and $27 billion in 2023. Remember, that's January 2023, so the year of 2022. And then obviously this AI revolution absolutely took off, went ballistic, and it's 2024 revenues, effectively the year of 2023, they jumped by more than double to over $60 billion. Now let's take the last 3 quarters of this new year. So $60 billion full year of last year, new year Q1 revenue $26 billion.

Not bad.

Q2 revenue $30 billion. So you basically hit your previous total year's revenue in the first 2 quarters. Q3 revenue, as we've just discussed, $35 billion. And they're estimating, forecasting that Q4 revenue is going to be $37 $1.5 billion, meaning that they are on track to double their revenue. Now, just to put this into context, we always talk about the Mag 7 or the whatever, whatever we want to do, but no other company is getting close to this growth rate. Microsoft, double digits, double digits growth for such a big company is fantastic. Google, low double digits. Facebook, low teens. And these are really, really good growth rates. And Nvidia is absolutely crushing the competition, but the share price dropped. Why do you reckon that was, Ant?

Well, I saw some charts floating and they were bar charts and the bar chart columns were getting smaller. And this was, I think, looking at just generally the, um, year-over-year growth rates of the revenue, and it was looking at the quarter-to-quarter, I think, comparisons. And it was something like 3 quarters ago, it was 262% or something like that. Then it went to 200%, now it's at 94%. It's basically going slower, which again, I find hard to think that that's deeply negative. I know the spin when we're recording this, the morning after there's a lot of headlines in financial media spinning a negative view on those numbers. But actually, I mean, look, for one, the shares is down 2.5%. That's just a fraction of what they've gone up over the course of the last 4 weeks, never mind year to date. And also it comes back to that recurring point that we were discussing, I think in the last quarterly earnings, which is why are they why are people shocked by a slowdown in revenue growth? Like, this is inevitable. But I know that there's other things. There was lots of questions about Blackwell, which I'm sure he'll go on to explain. And I know that outlook you mentioned there about the revenue going from, I think you said, what, 20 to 26 to 35 to 37. And they said in their outlook, 37, I think, plus or minus 2%. That doesn't sound as bullish as probably it could be, which is probably unsettling a few people as well.

Yeah, I think, I think that's the main point, isn't it? I think there are probably two factors that are, I wouldn't say dragging on the share price because that would be the, the biggest overstatement to this slight correction. But the first is they are estimating that revenue growth quarter on quarter for the last quarter of this, of their year is going to be just 7%. So $35.1 billion to $37.5 billion.

Remember, previous—

this quarter-on-quarter growth was 17%. So is that slowdown more dramatic than the investor community expected? Well, no, because the investor consensus on Q4 was actually $37.1 billion. So it really is, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. But that's definitely one argument to say, all right, this thing's coming off the boil a little bit. Are we saturated? Is the curve kind of— are we at the at the kind of top end of this AI hype cycle curve, et cetera. Even if we were, by the way, and NVIDIA started to grow by 15, 20% a year instead of by 100% a year, it would still very quickly grow into its valuation. So one of the metrics that we obviously look at is its enterprise value over EBITDA, and it's currently trading at 55 times its core profitability. But the analyst expectations is that's going to go down to between 26 and 35 in the next 2 years. And that is kind of just normal tech S&P levels. So I don't think we're like, this isn't a breakout, you know, boom stock with no really, really solid grounding. But the second thing that I think investors are a little bit concerned about is where does Nvidia go from here? It's got 94% market penetration, 94% market share. So it's not going to be able to grow anymore within that market for data centers and GPUs. It will have to rely on the overall market size getting bigger and retaining its market share. They are talking about diversifying around the kind of GPU vertical. So different post-processing and different elements that I struggle to understand just to diversify a little bit and try and find some more revenue streams and diamonds in the rough in terms of areas that it can go quickly. But I think this is a problem. If you're 94%, you've got to hold onto that. It's a defensive position, not necessarily an offensive position. So I think that's the other thing that investors are a little bit cautious about.

Yeah. One thing I did see was about the Blackwell family of AI chips, they said was going to weigh on the company's gross margins. Initially, but improve over time. And I think that's because they've encountered a few unforeseen challenges more recently. So is that something which you think is more of a bump, or do you think that's more CFO management to say, actually, just a hit now, don't worry, guys, it's going to be great?

Yeah, that's classic CFO management, isn't it? I mean, so they've shipped 13,000 samples of the chips, and they are in full production mode at the moment on this new Blackwell chip, which we'll talk about in a second. Yet gross profit margins are ticking up to 75%. And even if you take a couple of percentage points back down, you're still industry leading. What I love about these stories, by the way, and what I love about companies like Nvidia, and this is why we all get so excited about it, is innovation such as the Blackwell chip. So I'm just going to read you a little sentence about it. Powering a new era of computing. NVIDIA announced the NVIDIA Blackwell platform has arrived. This was back in March, enabling organizations everywhere to build and run real-time generative AI on trillion-parameter large language models at up to 25 times less cost and energy consumption than its predecessor. This is absolutely bonkers. No other industry can suddenly go, hey, we've released a new product that's 25 times cheaper and does more. Like, this is, you know, you might, you would've heard of Moore's Law, that technology, you know, twice as many transistors at half the cost every, you know, every, uh, tech cycle. This is Moore's Law on steroids and no one can catch up. You think about its competitors, AMD and Intel. This, these kind of, I don't know, 30 times performance increase, 208 billion transistors in a Blackwell chip. No one can get close at the moment.

Yeah, it's, it is mind-blowing. There's gotta be, yeah, I'm not, not sure how this pans out for broader society at this type of rapid rate on who has access to this technology.

I, I think as a wider point, it's definitely worth getting your head around the nature of how technology spreads and the fact— and we can look at lots of different types of technologies in the past— and the fact that technology combined with capitalism, its natural state is evolution and growth and being unchecked and competitive spirits to get to that next stage of growth. Only retrospectively, do we often look back and go, oof, I think we overshot that one. And because the speed is so, so fast, the speed of development is so, so fast, it was only a few years ago that we were talking about DeepMind and AlphaGo and things like that. We've, you know, we've come on 30x over the last few years. So yeah, it's, you're right to be concerned and it's good as a student to have a sober analysis of just the speed of technological change and whether it's always good and what we should do to put some guardrails up.

Okay, cool. Well, let's move on to topic 2. And one thing I saw, I think on Bloomberg TV, this would've been on the 20th or something like that of the month, was an interview with a managing director at JP Morgan of technology and investment banking. And he was wildly optimistic about what's to come down the pipe. And I always, whenever I hear sell-side bankers doing the TV rounds, because you blink and all of a sudden he's jumped from Bloomberg studio to CNBC studio to do the rounds to pump the narrative. It does make me question it, and that's why I'm interested to get your opinion. A, what underpins his bullish view? And then B, how does that tie into, and I'm guessing the policy scene under the Trump administration?

Yeah. So this was the headline, or this was the talking head, Madhu Namburi, who's the global chair of technology investment at JP Morgan. He is extraordinarily bullish on the IPO market. And M&A, especially from a technology perspective. He suggests that there are 750 quality companies in tech alone that want to get out. Uh, 60 to 70 is a kind of normal year for technology. Now, he's not the only one, by the way. Goldman Sachs see M&A activity rising 20% in 2025, maybe not quite so bullish. And then Mitch Berlin, Vice Chair of EY, Ernst Young America's Strategy and Transactions Division. In some ways, this is the perfect storm. The demand is there, the business driver's there, the cost of capital is coming down, and the regulatory environment may be more friendly towards dealmaking. So I thought to myself, was Joe Biden really that hostile? I know we all put, we put Lina Khan, the head of the FTC, we kind of stand her up and say maybe some of the things she's doing could be conceived to be anti-competitive. A lot of people think that she's actually rebalancing and readdressing some of the imbalances that have come before. There's a couple of things that suggested that Joe Biden, under his administration, there was a degree of hostility to big mergers and the kind of freedom of acquisitions that there used to be. So in 2023, his administration implemented the 2023 merger guidelines, which according to John Dubrow, the partner at the law firm McDermott, Will Emery, he says that these merger guidelines are very hostile to mergers and acquisitions. And there's a load of stuff if you read down into what this, this, this policy is. It affects the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, and things like they lowered the threshold that a merger could be considered to be anti-competitive. They have prohibited transactions that may enable a firm that is dominant in one market to entrench a position in other markets. So they're, you know, this can be conceived to be, all right, let's put a few more guardrails in and make sure that we're not as freewheeling. But just as a check on this, in, under, from 2017 to 2019, so this was mid-first term Trump, there were 118 Department of Justice antitrust and FTC challenges, right? Under Biden, '21 to '23, there were 108. So there's this wonderful disconnect between rhetoric Donald Trump, the art of the deal. Let's get business going, loosen regulation. And what actually happened, which to a greater or lesser extent during his first term, from a regulatory perspective, not that much did happen. You know, maybe more will now when you see some of his latest appointments, but it's quite instructive just to actually have a look beyond the rhetoric and into the numbers. As a prospect to see what might be happening in the second Trump administration.

It just goes to show the strength of the Trump machine and the strategists around him for pushing that narrative. Because yeah, that's a statistic that I wasn't aware of, and I don't think many people would question Super interesting.

It's, it's a really interesting one. And when we talk about deal volumes, when we're teaching this kind of stuff, and I'm sure you do the same when you're teaching the fundamentals of, of markets, I always say, look, there are two things that are going to drive deals. One of them is interest rates. One of them is confidence. And interest rates, it's nice because there's a number there. The lower the interest rate, the lower the cost of capital and the more deals get done. But confidence is this far more nebulous populous sentiment that Donald Trump might bring. He might bring the animal spirits back without actually doing anything. You've seen this in, you know, in stock markets, right? Over the last few weeks. There are a few technical elements to what we would consider to be a significant revival in 2025. The majority are around lower interest rates, therefore lower cost of capital, and this massive, massive backlog in private equity-backed or venture capital-backed businesses that are waiting for an exit. So I'm just going to zone in very, very quickly on venture capital as a single representation of what might happen next year. So there was a good Wall Street Journal article about how the VC industry has underperformed so significantly over the last few years. Even though AI investments are booming, venture firm profits are at a historic low. In fact, VCs only returned $26 billion to investors, marking the lowest level since 2011. In fact, in 2023, VC firms invested $60 billion more than they collected. Now, Think of a VC firm or a private equity firm like a digestive system, right? You take money in, that's a good thing, it feeds you, but you've got to spit something out at the end. Otherwise, it's just not going to work. And the fact that there is this dislocation between amount of funds raised, everyone's still quite hypey around VC, and the fact that the model over the last 5 or 10 years hasn't proven to be an efficient digestion mechanism processing that money and spitting something out the other side. That is why, you know, the exit opportunities for these later-stage VC-backed companies, 2025, whether it's IPOs, you know, and by the way, recent technology IPOs have been extremely successful, whether you look at Arm or Reddit or Tempus AI or whatever it might be. This is going to need to change because the VC model is under threat. And to an extent, the private equity model is also under threat as well with this massive backlog of companies that have been owned by the private equity firms for 5 or 6 years, and they need to get that liquidity event to make the business model work. Right?

So just going back full circle then to the JPMD, So he's there on his pedestal and is he speaking to PE, VC, founders, just saying, look, I'm open for business. You've got my number. Let's go.

Yeah. I mean, absolutely. This is, this is, this is a, and I'm sure that he's not the only head of technology investment banking at a major Wall Street bank to be doing these rounds. And again, it, I mean, in my mind, it goes back to this talking your own book, uh, wave of confidence. All right, here we go. A thing has happened. Trump has got into the White House and now the reins are off. You know, it is an inflection point that we can use in order to start getting a little bit more excited about deal-making. And because we know the dynamics are there, lowering interest rates, lower inflation, lots of deals ready to be done, lots of cash-out events required. It's a fertile ground. And what, it's better to be lucky than to be smart. Donald Trump comes in and he's going to ride this wave. The wave would've probably come anyway in some way, shape, or form, but he'll probably see the upside of all of this, all of these animal spirits coming out in financial markets.

Yeah, and just to close this topic, one thing you and I saw a few weeks ago was, I think it was the hiring team at one of the major US banks was out quite aggressively as independent recruiters going out on LinkedIn trying to source year 1, year 2 analysts. So they've already been busy in the background then, it would seem.

Yeah. Did you apply for any of those, uh, any of those roles? I actually saw the salary was quite attractive.

So no, I got rejected, Stephen. First round.

Straight away.

All right. Well, let's move on and let's talk about activists. I did mention before, I think this is a term probably a bit misunderstood. The only time I ever hear about it is I do have a close friend who works for a big, well-known US sales software company. No names, but you could probably guess. And yeah, she gets Uh, she talks to me a lot about activism for, for some obvious reasons of the last, uh, probably 18 months. But yeah, I'd like to get your take on this and maybe as you always do so in such a great way, some examples of this in action in, in real terms.

Yeah. The reason why I wanted to talk about activists this week was just because there was a couple of headlines around big activist investor shareholder activist campaigns going on at well-known large US listed companies. So the 3 companies that I want to discuss today, and what we're gonna do is we'll do a little bit of an introduction to the activist campaign. Then we are going to use these companies as a representation of the anatomy of an activist target. So what makes a really good target for an activist investor? So just to take a step back before we look at CVS, Honeywell, and Unilever, what is An activist investor? Well, an activist investor is a hedge fund or investment fund that take significant stakes in underperforming companies and lobby through their shareholders, through their share ownership for significant change at a strategic or a management level within that company, often resulting in taking board seats or even ousting the management and putting a new management in. Activists like Elliott Management, Glenview Capital, and Trian Fund Management, Nelson Peltz's organisation, are some of the biggest players. But there are a lot of activists out there. It's a relatively tried and tested investment model. We will talk at the end about whether they've returned more than the benchmark. So number one, what we're going to talk about. So Honeywell is the one in the news at the moment. So activist Elliott Management has acquired a a $5 billion stake, one of its biggest ever stakes in Honeywell, and wants the company to sell its aerospace technologies business, arguing that Honeywell's inconsistent execution, uneven financial results are not doing a service to the share price and the shareholders. So that's number one. Number two, CVS strikes deal with activist Glenview Capital. This happened last week for 4 board seats. So this is another activist campaign. We'll talk about how poorly CVS has performed, but Glenview's been getting involved, actually helping to oust the ex-CEO, Karen Lynch. They've increased the board size from 12 members to 16 to get these activists on board. And there's going to be a massive shakeup there. And then an oldie but a goodie. So Nelson Peltz, of Trian Fund Management joined the board of Unilever back in 2022, which has prompted Unilever to put its ice cream division up for sale. I think we spoke about that in a previous podcast, and the reason why I want to cover it this week is that there's been some recent news that the spinoff of the ice cream division is going to be listed as a separate entity, an IPO, as opposed to being sold to private equity, which is what we kind of initially thought would happen. So those are the 3 companies that I want to use to talk about the anatomy of an activist's target.

Just before that, you just said there about, I do remember actually Unilever because how could you not remember ice creams? But the point being there was you just said PE at the time, but now they're going IPO. I'm assuming our assumptions were made on some valid evidence at the time. So what would've caused that shift, do you think?

Well, they probably went out to a load of private equity firms and the private equity firms saw that, all right, this is probably not as attractive as we thought. I think the ice cream division was a lot more capital intensive. So private equity firms don't really like an oncoming, an incoming wave of capital expenditure. Because that just takes away from their free cash flow. And I think that a lot of private equity firms saw this and thought, can I make the numbers work basically? And have decided that they probably can't. Yet maybe this is a nicer listed company play because people like ice creams and maybe there's a different story to be told. So let's take a look into this anatomy of an activist target. So I've picked out 4 different factors that would make a good activist target. Firstly, and most obviously, these companies are underperforming. There is no activist campaign for Nvidia, you know, a company that is absolutely hitting lights out and delighting shareholders. So for example, CVS's share price has been down 27% this week and this year, and it's missed 3 quarters of earnings guidance in a row. Honeywell's aerospace division has had totally flat growth for the past 3 years, which again is not particularly impressive. And Unilever's revenue actually dropped between 2022 and 2023 with its net income down 20%. So if you want, if you want the first evidence point for a potential activist campaign, look at their numbers. Secondly, they, I mean, this is not a, a hard and fast rule. They tend to be big kind of ugly conglomerates. They're not all big ugly conglomerates. They're often big companies that are a little bit bloated, but a lot of the companies that are the subject of an activist campaign have lots of different, often very diver— diverse and not necessarily overlapping business units. So let's start with Honeywell. It's an old school US conglomerate with disparate business units across aerospace, building automation, performance materials, and safety solutions. There's just not enough synergies. And in fact, Elliott was saying the conglomerate structure that once benefited Honeywell no longer does. and it's time to embrace simplification. Same kind of goes for Unilever, right? Unilever, I was looking at its products. So it's got beauty and wellbeing, Dove, Vaseline, et cetera. Personal care like Axe, Dove, home care like Cif, Comfort, Domestos, nutrition, Hellmann's, ice cream, Ben Jerry's. Like this is just a sprawling, disparate organisation that works across 190 different countries. Third point I'm gonna talk about. So we've got underperforming conglomerates. The third one is hubris and overexpansion, which is a bit of a link to conglomerates, the likes of CVS. And if you look at other activist campaigns like Salesforce and like Starbucks, there's a little bit of, you know, going over its skis, a little bit of overexpansion. And maybe this links with some maybe slightly hubristic acquisitions that don't make a great deal of sense. So CVS's $78 billion acquisition of Aetna in 2017 is a case in point. Maybe Honeywell's billion-dollar, multi-billion-dollar bet on Quantinium, the quantum computing element of the business, which has been labeled as a distraction by Elliott Management, is another example. And then finally, number 4, management that has lost the confidence of shareholders. So Honeywell's inconsistent execution, as I mentioned before, uneven financial results and underperforming share price. Glenview started building its stake before the ousting of CEO Karen Lynch, who was not well viewed by the shareholder base. So you take these 4 elements, underperforming, possibly a conglomerate, certainly overly expanded, and maybe a little bit hubristic with some poor management. And that is the anatomy of the perfect target for the likes of Elliott and Glenview and Nelson Peltz.

As you described those 4 points, it sounds very sobering, but very necessary. So listening to you, to me, it sounds like when a company's that big and so such bureaucracy, such fat that needs trimming, that, you know, it's a conversation that no one existing can have or can execute. So it'll be interesting to know now whether your stats then can prove whether or not that in these cases or in those in the past, this is actually a successful technique of when an activist comes in.

Yeah, so a couple of stats here. There's a good bit of Goldman Sachs research that said that an equal— this is back in 2022— an equal weighted portfolio of all activist targets since 2006 has generated an average annual excess return relative to the benchmark, the Russell 3000, of 3 percentage points. Now, 3 percentage points, average annual excess return, that is quite impressive. You compound that over, well, over 15 years and you've got an amazing story. In fact, Elliott's average annual returns is above 14% and has been for the last 30 years. That is not to say that every activist campaign is successful. We've referenced Disney in previous episodes and again, Nelson Peltz losing a proxy battle against the CEO, and actually the CEO actually doing a really good job at turning around Disney and Disney Plus. But yeah, so I would say that on balance, there is success here, and this is a reasonable strategy. There is a question mark around low-hanging fruit. There's a lot of activists out there, and there's a lot of activist campaigns that have happened across industries from airlines to software to retail. What fat is there left on the bone to go after yet more and more companies? But I'll just leave you maybe with a couple of companies that I think could be ripe for a bit of activism. The first is VW. Now VW's share price is down 25% in the last year. The only headlines for VW are negative. Factory closures, job cuts, strikes, a botched transition to an EV world, I think that VW could be under a little bit of scrutiny, if it isn't already.

I agree. That seems logical from the topic. But question, is there implications of VW being one of those companies which is like the identity of Germany? And then does that make it a prospect that's not quite the same as, say, a standard company like some of the others we might have discussed?

It's a really interesting one. So yes, it has, you know, the car industry in Germany is pretty sacrosanct and very, very hard to change. And the unionised nature of the German automotive labour force is such that actually making changes is going to be quite difficult. And actually, maybe to that point, we should add a fifth element of the anatomy of an activist target. And the fifth is that there is something that you can do to change things. So whatever that might be, the hiving off of Honeywell's aerospace space division, the simplification of CVS's network of shops, uh, of pharmacies, the, uh, removing of CEO Karen Lynch from CVS, these types of things, the spinning out of the ice cream division of Unilever, these are things that can be done. So there needs to be, and I was actually just thinking about another example, Intel. So Intel is another one that's going to be absolutely right. We've spoken about it on previous podcasts, absolutely right for the activist. What can they do? Because the CEO is actually not disliked by the investment community. But just to finish on Intel, I was thinking about Intel as an activist target, and then I read an article that said that they've actually hired Morgan Stanley to help defend itself against future activists. So I'm not the only one thinking about the threat of activist investors for a company like Intel that's been such a laggard for such a long time. Yeah.

And, and then just one final one is I saw headlines a lot recently about HSBC mid-managers kind of fighting for their life at the moment. And they're going through quite a radical shift. I imagine It's a pretty testing place to be right now because I think they're going to go over more deeper strategy towards that shift they announced a few weeks ago from January 1st. So is that another one on your radar for '25?

Yeah, I mean, it's been actually on the radar for a long time. Ping An, its biggest investor, Chinese insurance company, they're not traditionally an activist investor, but they've been playing an activist role, making a very, very strong case that HSBC needs to be headquartered, it needs to be slimmed down. Trimmed down and headquartered in Hong Kong, which has resulted in this wonderful image. I've got this image of 8 Canada Square, the HSBC headquarters in London, just kind of being half set on fire with middle managers competing for different floors. And maybe, you know, there's some kind of, there's some kind of, uh, Lord of the Flies situation there where everyone's cavorting around trying to beat each other up I hope that's the case, and I hope that Netflix makes a documentary about it, but I can't be too sure.

I did see there's one, uh, a friend of mine who lives in the town where I live, and he works, um, at a fairly senior level within the tower you just mentioned. And, uh, he's normally quite a cool customer, works from home remotely more often than not, but he does run a global team. And, uh, caught him on the train you know, a few times in recent weeks. And I was like, uh, it's like, why are you getting trained at, uh, the crack of dawn? You normally are a late riser. And, uh, yeah, need I ask any more questions? I think, I think you've, you've just summarized the situation. All right, Stephen, thank you as always for sharing those insights. Really fascinating. A lot there to, to go through. So, you know, go back, pick your sections. What I'll do is I'll categorize it by the areas we've covered with little time tags. So if you just go back and re-listen to something, use ChatGPT to flesh it out, then yeah, look, this is an education tool as much as I hope you find it interesting, uh, and useful. So yeah, till next week. Thank you, Stephen.

Thank you, Ant.