New Constructs' Live Podcast: Intelligent Capital Allocation - 18 Oct 2024

All right. We always like to get kicked off with a quote, sometimes from different articles, some of our reports, something we might see in the news. Today is from a recent report we published on our site called A Rare Good Stock in Today's Expensive Market. In a market that just keeps rising, investors can ground themselves by getting back to the basics, evaluating risk-reward. If you don't know what you're risking or get potential reward, you need to understand the actual fundamentals of the company to figure out what that risk-reward of the business is. So I think it's a good note at the moment when the market seems to hit new highs every day. Welcome in. This is Intelligent Capital Allocation. I am Kyle Guskey II. No David Trainer today. Instead, we've got Liebman Eticoler alongside me joining us. Hey everyone, we're in.

Thanks for having me, Kyle.

We'll get this kicked off. It is October 18th. Start off with the disclosures and disclaimers. Main thing is we're not giving any advice. We are publishing research, but check these out at As you can get into the agenda next, welcome in. The next podcast will be November 15th and December 13th. If you're already registered for this one, you're registered for those as well. You should get notification emails as those get closer. I always like to point out what we've had going on since our last podcast. Since these are monthly, we put out a couple different new long ideas, some long idea updates, a lot of danger zone updates. We've actually been pretty active on closing out different open positions, whether that's long ideas or danger zones. We've seen some long ideas outperform significantly that now they look maybe not expensive, but definitely not cheap as they once were. So we've taken some of those gains and closed out some of the long ideas. On the danger zone side, some of the stocks trade near $2 a share, less than that. Volatility gets a little wild. Closed out positions like that. And then updating a lot of the zombie stocks as well. We've seen some companies that have either raised capital, there's, you know, some companies that have improved their business a little bit that they no longer have as short of a runway before they run out of cash. Not many that have gotten completely to the point where they're still not potential zombies, but there are a few that, you know, maybe they have 3 years worth of cash instead of 2. So we've taken those off the zombie stock list. Put out our earnings preview, the most likely to beat, most likely to miss going into 3Q earnings. And that is coming up soon. So definitely check those out. They're available free on the website. We've got the links in here. We'll share these slides with the replay out on the community as well. So those can be checked out there. We've had a bunch of model portfolio updates. And then this past week and the week before, we've got our sector and style ratings for ETFs and mutual funds that are coming out. I think some of those are being published maybe as we speak. So definitely check those out on the website. Give you the 5 best, 5 worst ETFs, mutual funds in each sector and style across the entire market. But with that, today's agenda, we'll be talking a few different things. We've got Q3 filing season updates, some talk about the Bloomberg New Constructs indices, some questions from the community, different posts. And then at the end, if you want to send in any stock tickers you'd want us to take a look at through our ratings, We'll take a few requests at the end if we have got time, and those are a special only available in the live podcast that will not be in the recording. So get those requests in the Q&A and the chat, and we can look at those at the end.

Looks like you've been busy as usual publishing things this last month, Kyle. A prodigious amount of reports we put out.

Yes, we try and we definitely stay busy trying to get a bunch of information out to our clients. There's a lot of data, so there's a lot of things we can write about, a lot of things we can dig into. So it's always fun to do just that. Let me make sure I've got everything open here.

Cool.

I did want to announce we do have a special webinar coming up next Wednesday, How to Profit from Expectations Investing. Some emails will be going out, I believe, starting this afternoon for some signups on that. So check that out. The email will have a lot more information on exactly what the training will be, what to expect, what you'll learn. So we'll get into that next week. Um, that'll be with David. So we'll jump into the headlines and happenings in the community next. I think, Lee, we got a little bit of info here on Q3 filing season starting.

Yes, Q3 filing season is upon us. It's the time when companies report their third quarter— most companies report their third quarter filings to the SEC. Uh, so we should be expecting around 2,700 model updates based on new filings in the next, let's say, 2 to 3 weeks. We'll be starting the week of October the 28th. And, you know, the big peak is about a week and a half in. We've done lots of analysis in the past on, on what kind of, how much work gets done during those periods. You know, our technology is a real booster to our productivity and our analyst team. It allows us to produce large amounts of data, large amounts of research, and do so accurately and consistently. And if you had to hire analysts to do this kind of work in the traditional Wall Street manner, you would spend over $2 million in just one quarter paying analysts to read through these filings. So we're all grateful here for the magic of technology. It makes our, our lives much better, and hopefully it makes all of our clients' lives better and easier as well. So we're really looking forward to that. It's a great time to be paying attention. If you've got tickers that you're interested in your portfolio, you'll get updates via email anytime we update a model with a new filing.

Yeah, I think it's important to note, you know, the filings are the 10-Qs most often right now, not, you know, the press releases that have barely any data in them. So that's where there's a little bit of a delay. You might be seeing some earnings announcements right now, but once we get that 10-Q, we can really update the model and get into the adjustments and what really— yeah, what we call that superior data we've got.

Yeah, what we care about is the information that we can collect from the management discussion and the footnotes. Those are the things that give us a clearer picture of what's really going on with the economics of the business, not only what the companies want to tell us based on the financial statements.

So awesome, looking forward to that. And we got a lot of good data coming in. And with that good data, we do want to talk about some of the indices we've got with Bloomberg that use our data. Start off, we've got 3 of them right now: the Bloomberg New Constructs Core Earnings Leader Index, And this first one here uses our core earnings to look at earnings capture, basically the earnings distortion in companies. Takes the top 100 companies with that earnings capture metric based on the— I think they have to be in the Bloomberg US 1000, but basically an index using our core earnings data. So we're very excited that this one is live. You can see some of the info as you would see it on the Bloomberg terminal there. And after we talk about all 3 of them, I think we're gonna go out to the actual live pages, we can see some of the performance. Got the fact sheet index methodology linked here. Again, we'll share these slides in the replay. So anyone can check those out to learn exactly how this index is put together. We're extremely happy that it is based on our proprietary core earnings and to get a better measure of earnings and get into those, invest in some of those companies that have better earnings than what GAAP may tell you. The next one is the Bloomberg New Constructs 500 Index. This one takes the traditional S&P 500 market cap weighting and actually tilts it towards companies with high earnings capture. So you've got basically an S&P 500 weighted by core earnings and earnings distortion instead of weighting it by market cap. And so we've got a scenario where the index can actually track the best of the best in the S&P called the Bloomberg New Constructs 500. And so a different way of thinking, you don't have to just weight by how big a company is because we know the problems with that when I think what the top 7 companies are a huge percentage of different market-cap-weighted indexes.

Yeah, I'm especially excited by this one, Kyle. I think this is a great idea. It really allows you to get broad exposure to the market and to the market that most people are looking at with the S&P 500. That's the general benchmark for performance, and it allows you to reweight the index in a way that focuses on what New Constructs does uniquely well, which is understanding the true earnings and true profitability of the firms. So you can take general market exposure, get diversification across all industries, and get extra exposure to the companies that we know are actually profitable. So this one seems very appealing to me. It's a great replacement for things like Warren Buffett always saying, just go buy the S&P 500.

Yeah. I think I find this interesting as well because it's something we do in some of our Long Idea and Danger Zone reports. When we look at ETFs and mutual funds, we'll go in and use our DIY ETF builder in the portfolio and basically reweight a mutual fund by core earnings or reweight a mutual fund by ROIC and get a better allocation of stocks to show that, hey, even if holdings might not look great weighted by market cap or something, they can actually look, you know, much better if you weight by core earnings, weight by ROIC. And so this does just that with the S&P 500. So it's pretty cool.

Yeah, and I did see that there was a question in the chat about, uh, the performance of these indices. We will, when we're done talking through them, we'll go over and take a look at them on Bloomberg's website. And Kyle has also put here, if you look in the, in the title lines of each of these rows, those very long tickers are the index tickers. So if you have access to a Bloomberg terminal or the Bloomberg website, that's how you can look any of these indices up. Yeah, track their performance regularly.

A question there is B500 NCTA ETF. No, it is an index on Bloomberg, not an actual traded ETF or anything. Um, the last one we want to talk about is the Bloomberg New Constructs Ratings VA1. Mouthful there. But it looks at the companies in the Bloomberg US 1000 index that have a very attractive rating. And so it's using our ratings to allocate to just the very attractive companies. So it's another way to use our data to build an index. It doesn't look just at maybe core earnings or just ROIC. It looks at the overall very attractive rating. And so very cool. Another way to build a portfolio with our data. I'm going to turn over the screen share, Lee, if you want to jump out to the actual live Bloomberg pages on these different indices.

All right, can you see that screen all right, Kyle?

Yes.

Great. So this is the Core Earnings Leaders Total Return Index, that's BCoreT, and you can see this is their performance year to date. I can place in here X And find the S&P 500 index. And you can see that our returns over the year or year to date are 25.25% compared to 23.56% for the S&P 500. So we're outperforming the index so far this year. It's been a good year for the S&P and it's a good year for the Core Earnings Leaders Index as well. So we're very pleased with that performance. You can also see here This is the Bloomberg New Constructs 500 that we talked about. If you look at its year-to-date performance, we can also compare that to the S&P 500. And we can see again, 23.56% for the S&P 500 compared to 29.42% for the Bloomberg New Constructs 500 index. So again, outperformance From our index here as well. Just shows you that collecting data from the notes, uncovering the true profitability of firms matters. And finally, we have the Very Attractive Ratings Index. This one looks like it's down today, Kyle. Compare that one to the S&P 500 as well. We are a little bit behind the S&P 500 on this index, Kyle, like a little, a little less than a percent, but very close. So not as, not as, as a good performance there. But if you look over the last year rather than year to date, you can see that we've meaningfully outperformed there as well by 5.5%. So we're very excited to be partnering with Bloomberg to put these indices together. We're very excited about them. They perform well, and we're very confident that they are built on high-quality data.

Awesome. Let's jump back into the slides then.

Um, swing it back over to you. Yep.

And we may end up jumping back out to a couple different screen shares here. Had some really good questions that were posted into the community. If you guys haven't noticed, seen, there is a jump over here real quick, a questions for the podcast section here. If anyone wants to ever add anything, if you also put it in general, we'll catch those there as well. But here specifically, we had some great questions from Kent Seymour. I summarized them, but we can look at what they are in detail and we'll get some answers here about each of these different items. Um, let me jump over. I think, Lee, if you wanted to take screen share, I can just ask the questions to you. Sure. Does that work?

Yeah, that's fine. I should have just kept it, huh?

All right.

So the first question was about largely negative economic book values. Is that the first question, right, Kyle?

Correct.

The question was— Yeah, go ahead.

When looking at a large negative economic book value, is it typically due to debt or generating negative NOPAT? And then what kind of situations could lead to either of those?

Sure. Just to make sure that everybody understands what we're talking about, economic book value is the no-growth value of the business. So whenever you look at a stock price, you can divide it up into the economic book value and then the future growth value. And so the economic book value explains how much of the current value the business is, or whenever you're comparing the price to economic book value, which we do in our rating system, I guess. So the economic book value is one portion and the remainder is the amount that's based on future cash flow growth. So the question here is, what does it mean whenever you have a large negative economic book value? And like the question says, there's really 2 reasons why that can happen. It can happen because of a negative NOPAT, right? So negative earnings in the most recent period, or it can happen because of a variety of valuation adjustments, often debt, that make that whole value negative. Whenever that happens, right, that means that the expectations for future profitability have got to be bigger than the stock price itself, right? So you've got even more ground to cover than the stock price in order to generate value. The best place to look for that kind of information when you're on the ratings page is to just click on this Gap Reconciliation tab. And here you can find— first, this is a firm which I picked out because you can see on the price-to-economic book value metric that they've got a negative 3.2. Prices are always positive, so if this value is negative, it's got to be because the economic book value itself is negative. So you can see if you come down here, So the GAAP reconciliation page, you can get a better understanding of how that's happening. So you can see a firm does in fact have a negative NOPAT. And it's not exactly economic book value. But you can scroll down to here to these adjustments for the— well, there it is, economic book value, you can see for the total valuations adjustments, we're also making a negative adjustment there as well, primarily driven by ESOs, ESO liabilities. So there is some debt here as well. So there's no single answer as to which one is more common. They both seem to happen fairly common, but I would say that it's depending. Every company is different, but NOPAT is a more volatile measure than anything like invested capital or these valuation adjustments. So if you were choosing between 2 firms that had similarly negative economic book values, You'd probably be more interested as an investor in the ones that had negative NOPATs and not gigantic valuation adjustments because it's more likely that the companies can become profitable than it is that they're going to be able to say pay off all of their debt. So if you're looking for companies like that, I think you're looking for negative NOPATs over negative valuation, big negative valuation adjustments. Both of those situations are difficult ones, you know, but if a company does have a stock price, there is some expectation from the market that they will generate cash flows in the future.

So they're more likely to get those cash flows before paying down all the debt.

Correct. That's probably how they would do it.

If it was a small amount.

Yeah, right. So yeah, I mean, those companies are generally going to be rated relatively poorly in our system.

Yeah.

Hopefully that answers your question. Good.

We had a quick question come in while we're on the ratings page here to explain the market implied growth appreciation period. why so many stocks are unattractive in this criteria. I think that might hit to the overvaluation of the market right now, but if you wanted to quickly jump into the market implied gap there.

Sure. So the market implied gap is going to be a measure of how many years it's going to take the company to add its current profitability or forecasted profitability to justify its current stock price. So we're building 100 years' worth of DCFs with a long explicit forecast, and we're trying to find out how long the company needs to make ROIC greater than WACC on new investments in order to keep growing its value so that its stock price or its valuation gets up to its current stock price. And so traditionally these numbers for the market have been overall somewhere in the high 20s or low 30s for the market as a whole. The S&P has been like that over time. The gap number has gone up. You know, I've been doing this for around 20 years and the gap number in general has gone up over that period. It's like slowly creeped up. But I think that you're right that a large number of companies right now have gaps that are much higher, maybe in this greater than 50 measure. And I think that, like Kyle said, that's a measure of general overvaluation in the market. We're in a place where prices have gone up so much that companies at their current levels of cash flow and operations, their current profitability, are going to have to continue to do that for a very long time to justify those prices. Either that or they're going to have to get a whole lot more profitable. So there's some mix there of hopefulness from investors maybe and unreasonableness from investors. Kyle, do you have anything else you want to add to that?

No, I think that's exactly it. They've got to, you know, Anything over 100 years is a— they got to do a lot of positive results for a long time. And so that's when we're looking, you know, when we're looking for danger zone picks or long ideas. On the flip side, if you see something with a market implied gap, you know, 0 to less than 3, I mean, that very attractive threshold there, you look at that to determine, you know, hey, how out of whack could these expectations for future profit growth be based on what the company's already done and what they're forecasting to do in the next few years?

Yeah, 100 years is a very, very long time.

Yeah.

So if, you know, it's 2024, if we think back to 1924, I don't think most of the firms are doing what they were doing in 1924 still today. So I think that's a— something is likely to have to change with any companies that have gaps that are that long. Either the price has to come down, profitability has to go way up, something's got to happen to make things different because it's very unlikely that what's going to happen is that they're going to continue to operate like they've been operating for the next So it's a, it's a, like Kyle said, it's a measure that the market's just pretty overvalued, pretty frothy.

And if you actually go, last point on the investment summary tab here for Affirm, since you mentioned stock price has to go down, you can see Affirm on its ratings history had a huge decrease in stock price a couple years back. But it started to creep back up into that valuation. It's still overvalued, but you can imagine. At the peak there, over $140 a share, it was vastly overvalued. I think that was around the time we first put it in the danger zone, actually.

Yeah. The gap rating is maybe the best rating for understanding what New Constructs is doing with our reversed DCF models. I think it's the sort of single number that most clearly captures that kind of expectations investing methodology, which is instead of trying to predict what the stock price should be, Our aim instead is to be a critic of what the market says the stock price is. And we say like, look, this implies these kinds of operational thresholds, this kind of revenue growth, this kind of profitability for this long. And then your job as an investor is to evaluate those kinds of hurdles and make a decision about whether you think the company is likely to meet or beat those hurdles or likely to underperform. Historical performance is a great guide for making those kinds of decisions. But it's not the only thing, right? It's the beginning of the analysis. You know, companies like biotech companies are destroying value all the time whenever they're young. That doesn't mean that they have stock prices because people believe that they're going to generate value in the future. They're going to generate cash flow in the future. So if you relied exclusively on historical results, you wouldn't understand why those things have positive stock prices. But if you understand that the drugs might be successful, then it makes a lot of sense. Hopefully that answered your question. If it's unclear, you're more than welcome to follow up in, in the New Constructs community on Circle, and we're happy to continue to talk about it there. I think understanding the gap rating is an important one for understanding what New Constructs is doing.

All right, I'll go to the next question that was out in community. Will economic versus reported EPS be a screenable item? Right now it is screenable in the Dynamic Data Screener, which is available to institutional members. I don't think that it will be on the actual screeners page for economic greater than GAAP.

Right. That is correct.

It is an institutional screening item at the moment. Third question. I think this is a good one on WACC. Specifically, the question was about Google, but with a company that, you know, ROIC is increasing, economic earnings margin is higher, but the WACC is higher as well. And just talking about, you know, should a larger, more stable company have a lower WACC? in general, or what could be driving increases in WACC as the company has actually— the stock price doubled and profitability looks better.

Yes. So that stuff's all true. The way we calculate WACC at New Constructs is using CAPM, which is a relatively simple and straightforward method for producing WACC. We are not specialists in coming up with an exact WACC. In fact, I'm not quite sure that anyone is. So our aim there is to be vaguely right rather than being precisely wrong. So we're not trying to spend a lot of effort coming up with a very precise WACC, mostly because it's an estimate of the cost of capital. So in Google's case, like Kyle said, their price has gone up, and what that does is increase the percent of the total capital for the business that's attributable to equity. We know in general, as compared to debt, we know in general that equity is more expensive than debt. So we should expect everything else held equal for WACC to rise in those cases. That said, that's not exactly what's happening for Google. I think that their equity to total capital was around 97% in 2020, and it's up to 98% today. So it's really a minor change. The real driver of the change between 2020 and today is the increase in the risk-free rate from basically 0%. I think, Kyle, you were looking at it earlier and it was like 0.2 at some point.

0.6.

0.6, whatever it was. And it's up to, it's up 4% from that.

Over 4%. Yeah. Yeah.

So basically Google's WACC is their cost of equity, and the cost of equity is driven in large part by the risk-free rate. So an increase in the risk-free rate of 4+ percent is likely to translate into a WACC increase for the company of around the same magnitude. And I think in the question, Google's WACC has gone up by Around 4%, 3.5% or 4%, something like that. So that's the real driver of the increase in the cost of capital for Google.

Sticking with Google, another question on the market expectations table, which I believe is in the ratings breakdown. Wanted to, at the very bottom, really explaining why in the market expectations we've got such a high ROIC minus WACC and such a low revenue CAGR. when the last, you know, 5, 3 fiscal years kind of flipped the exact opposite?

Sure. I think that's a great question. And this is a related question to the gap rating question. It's a similar kind of thing. We were talking earlier that what New Constructs is doing is building an expectations investing model in a reverse DCF. So what we're trying to do is extrapolate out the company's— excuse me, current levels of performance into the future and make sure we understand what the market is saying the company has to do in the future to justify its current stock price. So a couple of things here. We base our revenue forecast for the next 3 to 5 years on consensus estimates, consensus revenue growth estimates. And those numbers, it's 3 to 5 depending on what's available. And then after that period of 3 to 5 years, We generally trail revenue down to the average revenue growth for all companies over time because we're doing a long explicit forecast of 100 years. Like I was talking about earlier, I don't think most firms are doing today what they were doing in 1924. So it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to continue to show revenue growth for all companies broadly in 100 years from now, apart from say maybe 2 or 3 or 4%. So it's relatively small numbers in the future. And as this growth appreciation period, you can see for Google it's 100 years, gets very long, we get more and more periods of those more normalized revenue growth numbers, and it brings the revenue CAGR down overall over time. And then the ROIC minus WACC, I think, is compensating for that to try to get us up to the stock price. Institutional investors would be able to go in and make alternate forecasts for Google here. based on what they think are more likely scenarios for revenue growth or profitability in the future. So yeah, that's what I can say. I think that it's true that it seems probably unlikely that ROIC minus WACC, which is economic profit margin, will be 71% over 100 years. But we're not forecasting that that's what the company is going to do. What we're trying to do is explain what it is the company would need to do in order to justify its current value over a 100-year period. So honestly, by the time it's a 100-year period, I'm not sure that it's extremely significant whether it's a 5% revenue growth and a 60% margin or a 6% revenue growth and a 50% margin. All of those things are very high for very long periods of time. So my answer there basically is institutional investors have the ability to— institutional members have the ability to make adjustments to these kinds of forecasts in our models. But for a company like this over a 100-year period of gap, I'm not sure that it is really all that necessary. Once it's to 100 years, I think it's pretty long.

Yeah, and if anyone else has watched any of these or any trainings with David, when we jump into the model, you know, what we're doing is often shortening a forecast from, you know, getting it down from a gap of 100 years to Getting it to 20 and seeing what that does. You know, how, how much would we increase the revenue CAGR to lower that gap, you know, and get different forecasts and see what that does to the gap. And that, that sometimes makes it a little easier to view just from a, you know, 4% over 100 years is a huge timeframe. But if you say 18% over 20 years, that's at least a little more, maybe something you can wrap your mind around of, okay, what does that actually mean? You know, we've seen Google do that over past, you know, 5 years they've done 17%. So they can do that for, you know, a couple more years after that. And that's really the power of the DCF model, building those different forecasts and seeing what it does to the gap.

Yes. Right. And like I said, we, our default forecasts are built off of consensus estimates. So we're not putting things in like 18%. Perhaps that's what investors, that's what's driving the stock price. But if it is, it's not what analysts are providing as revenue growth estimates. So something There's some disconnect there. The disconnect has to show up somewhere in the model. Cool.

We'll go one last question, and it's on, is there a profile that suggests an investment opportunity? Is there any one metric or any, you know, low PEBV, positive economic earnings, low ROIC? I think I can answer this one quickly. You know, the initial profile is our overall ratings. You know, that's the starting point. It's not the, you know, end-all be-all. But the overall rating encompasses all of those 5 metrics, you know, economic earnings, ROIC, free cash flow yield, P/B, and GAAP. And so that overall rating, very attractive, very unattractive, would be your starting point for a profile of, you know, where you want to dig deeper, whether you're looking for good stocks, bad stocks, in between. The overall rating would be the start to suggest, you know, you at least know what you're getting into when you start digging in deeper, you know, if you're looking for certain type of company, that profile fits with the overall rating.

Yeah. And when we built the rating system in order to be what we believe to be an appropriate balance between things like profitability and valuation metrics, that's why it's built the way that it's built. But like you said, Kyle, it's not the end. If there were a single metric that allowed you to pick stocks consistently every time, you would— we would just use one. We would just use one measure instead of 5.

Awesome. Well, thank you for walking through those, Lee. Um, good.

If anyone has any questions about, or follow-up questions, or wants more information, please go ahead and post it in the community. We're happy to continue to discuss there. I love talking about this stuff.

Yeah, and there is a bunch of other stuff in the community. We're not going to go over all of it today. Just got a quick roundup here. Some posts on ratings history, what it means as far as entry and exit points. Are coal, oil, and gas companies good investments? There's some good discussion there. We've actually put together a few long ideas on some energy companies, and we see right now some of the companies are extremely profitable. Expectations for their profits are to decline when we look at our DCF model. And so we can actually build out forecasts that even if profits do decline in the future, they're still undervalued now. And so there's definitely some good-looking stocks out there, but like there was a lot of good comments in there. Other stuff on ratings of portfolios versus ratings of operating companies. You know, how do the ratings handle one company versus an ETF mutual fund or a company like Berkshire, which has multiple different companies within it? It's good discussions on there. And then I think we've had a few different trade discussions on some tickers there. You can check all of that out in the community. There's lots of different wide-ranging topics. And like I said, and like Lee said, if you have any questions, you can put 'em up there. There's that question section, or just put 'em in a general discussion. You can have the community discussion as well as, you know, David, Lee, myself, different analysts on there as well. So with that, we've come to the end. Talk about some stock picking. We do have the latest stock picking accolade, you know, from SumZero. Proud to announce another, another number 1 rating, multiple different categories. We're proud of this, you know, 41 straight months of number 1 ranked stock picking.

Yeah, don't skip over that, Kyle. I saw you almost clicked through that slide. We don't want to skip this one. 41 months. Maybe it gets a little repetitive, but I think it's an enormously impressive achievement.

So yeah, we're proud of this one. Better data lets us get better stock picks that end up, you know, SumZero is 16,000+ buy-side professionals, so it's people whose job is to pick Good stocks.

So yeah, and these stock picks are made using the— back to the original question, one of the questions, Kyle, was about which part of, you know, which metric do people want to look at. These picks are all made using our existing rating system and work that you and the investment analyst team do to do deeper dives on, you know, understanding the positioning of the company in the marketplace based on our models and data.

So we'll have a replay of this posted in the community. I'll have the slides and you guys can check that out. And otherwise we will talk to you out in the community and next time. Thanks for being here.

Thanks for letting me join.