Managing Treasury FX & Automation with Michael Bradley

Welcome to this week's Treasury Career Corner podcast where I interview treasury professionals about their treasury careers. Each and every week I talk to treasurers about how they built their careers, where they are now, and where they see both themselves and the treasury profession. Going to next this week's show. Delighted to be joined by Michael Bradley, the former assistant treasurer and Executive Director for Foreign exchange and Investments at Celgene and now Celgene have recently been acquired by Bristol Myers Squibb. So rather than describe about Celgene, who are a biotech company and everything else, I'll get Michael to describe it a little bit later in the show when he brings us up to date. Suffice to say, he's got a great background, Mr. Bradley. He's all the way from doing his accounting degree up to most recently assistant treasurer. As I say with Celgene, brilliant career. So we're going to dig into it a little. Did a little bit veering off at one stage in tax. We'll address that in the show, not hold it against him. It's all right, don't worry. But joking aside, Michael, it's over to you, really with the show. So talk us through how you first ever finance accounting and then discover the wonderful world of Treasury. So over to you, sir.

Thanks, Mike. So I started out with an accounting degree and went to work in public accounting for about three years, but decided that was really not the path I wanted to go down. Decided to redirect my career, got an MBA and then went to Merck, which is a global pharmaceutical company and they had a rotational program for mba. So the way it would work, you would work about 15 months to 18 months in a given role and then you'd move to another one. And it was all self directed. Like once you got your first job, you're kind of assigned your first job.

Is that like a rotational graduate program? So you do that, fill in a gap, build a bit and then move on or different to that.

Yeah. Basically they wanted people Merck was trying to build, take their MBAs and build broad general managers that knew the whole business. So they wanted you to work in different parts of finance, get exposed to different areas of the company. And so that's how it was set up, but it was based on what you were interested in and what opportunities were available as well. So I indicated that I wanted to be in treasury when I, when Merck hired me and they put me in a group called HR Financial Services, which was basically hr, FP and A, but it was sitting in treasury for some reason so as they were, as far as they were concerned, they gave me treasury. And it was like nothing like treasury, but, you know, it was. I was around all the treasury people and all that sort of stuff. I didn't really enjoy it that much, and so I was keen to move on. And the next role that I took was in this manufacturing financial analysis group. And it wasn't really a FPA group, it was almost like an investment bank group with sitting within the manufacturing group. And so we helped them, the manufacturing group, with their siding decisions, with capacity decisions, as well as with sort of business development stuff. So Merck used to be. Started out as much more of a chemical company and then transitioned to pharmaceuticals. But they had a lot of legacy businesses that we were helping them sort of divest and manage, like supply contracts to other companies with. And the key thing in that role was that with my sort of CPA background and whatnot, we recognized. I recognized that there were a lot of inefficiencies in how Merck was citing, making, citing decisions. They were worried about product costs and they were trying to save a half a cent per pill or something like that by putting things in the most efficient plants that they had, when if they put it in a different plant that had a better tax jurisdiction, they could save 15 cents a pill in taxes. So we started pushing that to senior management in the manufacturing group. And they kind of. At first there was resistance, but they eventually came fully on board and really started to think more. They started considering the broader picture for the company rather than just their product costs. And it was a great relationship. And the tax people at, at Merck started noticing what I was doing. They knew that I knew all the supply chains and financial supply chains and physical supply chains at Merck, which was no small feat. And they brought me into the tax department to do tax planning, which was not something I'd ever, ever really thought was going to be part of my career. It was a really odd detour to take. And I was not a great fit within the tax group, even because everyone there, at least of the senior people, I was a director at this point in tax. Everyone that was a director above had either a law degree or a master's of tax. And here I was new to the group. And by the way, everyone in tax, no one rotated into tax. You were hired in tax, you stayed your whole career in tax. I was an oddity to them, too. They didn't know what to make of me. But it was still. I worked with some really great people. The people that I specifically worked with within the tax group were very supportive of me, allowed me to really do some really neat stuff. So I negotiated tax grants in Puerto Rico, I negotiated tax grants with Singapore and I'd started one with a negotiation with Switzerland, but I ended up moving to treasury before that one was completed. But I've done a lot of neat stuff within the tax area in a very relatively short period of time. But the Director of FX Risk Management at Merck position came open and this was like a dream job to me. This is what I really wanted when I started at Merck was to work in one of these areas and FX in particular seemed like to me the coolest. It was all these countries and all these markets and stuff and trying to piece all that together and dealing with the banks and everything. I thought it was going to be really exciting and it was. From the moment I started working in that area, I fell in love. To me, every day was a new day. The markets were constantly different and trying to marry what's going on in the markets externally with what's going on within your company, to me that was just a really fun and exciting thing. And so I started doing that FX right around 2007, the beginning of 2007.

And so 2007, what was, you know, what was FX and doing the FX stuff like then? Was it trading, was it was still early it technology wise as well so you know, was it much more manual and using your own resources, would you say?

No, they had already started. So here's a funny story. When I was doing HR financial services when I first started at Merck, they had this room right near where I sat that had a vault and it was like it had serious locks on it and stuff. And inside that room they also had a desk and a monitor and the phone like the banks had or they used to have at least where it would beep every few seconds to let you know they were recording. We recorded all the calls too, but that's where that was the trading room. So someone was going to do FX trade, had to go into this vaulted room and do their trades. You know, it's like this funny thing. And then by the time I came back in 2007, you know, we already had FX hall set up so electronic trading. And we did that for all of the fors and swaps basically. And then for non deliverable stuff and for options, we traded that stuff over the phone typically. And I think those platforms have moved on, so they're even better now. I don't know if they're still that good for options unless you're doing really short, dated stuff. But ND apps are easier to do now in FX hall, what was the.

Thing that with fx, was it the immediacy of it or was the impact on the balance sheet or combination of that? What was it that gave you the passion thinking, oh, wow, I'm doing this every day? Or why was it such a buzz?

It was totally new to me and Merck had a really robust program, I would say. So the CFO at the time that I took on the role. So here's the interesting thing. The CFO when I took on the role was Judy Lewand. She had set up basically all of finance in the way she wanted it, particularly Treasury. She came up through treasury and she had done the FX risk management early in her career. And she wrote an article in the Applied Journal of Finance about Merck's FX hedging program. And it turned out when I talked to people at other companies, particularly pharma companies, they're like, oh, I've read that article by Judy Lament. This was like 15 years before I started doing FX, but people were still reading it and using it as a blueprint for how to set up their program. So the CFO had had my job, the treasurer at the time had had my job, and the AP that I reported to had had my job. So I. And I knew nothing about fx.

So it was no pressure.

That was a very challenging environment to step into. Like, everyone knew more than I did about what I was doing, but I really just threw myself into it and learned how Merck did everything, which is they were. It's a fantastic setup. The way they thought about risk and managed risk and having the sort of. That article which I did read, it was one of the first things they gave me when I started in that role. It's a great article. It helps you understand as a Treasury professional how to think about risk to the company rather than just broadly what's going on in the market, how it's affecting the company and how to mitigate that.

Well, what we'll do is we'll try and find a link to that and put that in the show notes afterwards as well. And you say about how, from the sounds of how Leading Edge, if you like, or certainly based on that article and other things, but how did Merck and Foreign Exchange at Merck sort of stack up in the markets in comparison to some of your competitors? Sometimes when I've spoken, we've worked with Nike in the past and they're one of the top houses, FX and they drill down with their fx, go right down into the supply chain and things like that. And that's without talking too much because we can't explain too much on the air because some of it's private. But more than that, they are one of the leading groups. Sounds like Merck were the same at that time as well. Would that be the case?

Yeah, I would say so. You know, we were also big, so we traded at large volumes and the banks were always asking us to come and talk, you know, do be on panels and talk at things and whatnot. And they were also frequently asking us to talk to other companies about how we think about mitigating FX risk and how we manage things. And one of the companies that called us was Celgene, which I later went to, and they were setting up their program and I talked to at that time Sandra Ramos Alves, who's now the at Bristol Myers, and walked her through what we did and everything. And so we were, I think considered to be pretty influential. And it was good. That actually helped me explain when I was explaining to other companies what we did. It makes you, it kind of reinforces your understanding of things, you know, make sure that you really understand and you can explain it in an easy way to someone else. I think that that helped me in my sort of development.

And what's your ethos around fx? You know, you know, is it just mitigate all the risk and lay off and that's it. Or overall, you know, what, what's your attitude to fx? I mean, just, just before, because these were the early days when you're at Merck, you know, we're talking again for the listeners. This was 07 to 2014. Then you made the move 2014 to Celgene. We'll come on to that. But you were being coached by people. What was it? Mitigate the risk, get rid of it all? Or what was the sort of overriding thoughts around FX at the time?

I would probably go off on a small tangent because this is like a year and a half before the Lehman crisis. But the way we thought about things was we had a multi year layering strategy for cash flow risk management. And we did not hedge everything. We hedged the majority, a high percentage of the major exposures. The idea was not to eliminate all FX risk, but just to mute it and spread it out over a period of time and allow the companies to transition in case there's. If you go through a cycle of dollar strengthening, you're delaying that so the business has time to adjust. You're never going to fully eliminate it. Although we did use options primarily as our hedging instruments. So it was kind of interesting. We looked at the history way before I even started up to through 2012 or something. I remember looking at this and we were basically break even on the options. But what happened was in the years where you didn't need a payout, FX was moving in your favor. And in the dollar strengthening years we were making a lot of money on the options. But you added up all those years, it was like a net zero, you know, so that tells me that options are efficiently priced.

And then as you say, you sort of, you were in there for seven years doing well and then you made a move on what happened.

Well, so Merck was going through some lean years in that period. I wanted to become an assistant treasurer. That was what I wanted at Merck really. And they were just going through rounds and rounds of layoffs and then they did a merger with Sharing Plough and then there were more layoffs and all sort of stuff. It was a really difficult environment to get promoted in. And even though I was doing really well doing FX there and they were, you know, the management was very encouraging to me that it just seemed like the opportunities wasn't there. And so I had decided I needed to look externally and Seojin came calling and so I took the move and don't regret it at all. Only read I have is that maybe I just should have moved earlier. You know, seven years was a long time. But I really enjoyed the people I was working with, the stuff I was doing at Merck. So it wasn't like I was unhappy, I just felt like I was ready.

To do more, you know, and, and then again. So Merck, we'll talk about the way we've talked about that, but explain maybe for the listeners, you and I know what Celgene are about. But you know, again, some listeners will know some number of people who are they? So maybe because then that'll trickle down into the FX and investment management that you were then doing in that new role.

Sure, sure. So Celgene was a global biotech focused on new medicines for conditions that had unmet needs, like really life threatening diseases, things like multiple myeloma and other blood cancers primarily. But they also had branched off into inflammation and immunology. So they were also doing stuff for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, irritable bowel syndrome and stuff like that. But most of their revenue was coming from hematology oncology products. And in my first week or so at Celagene, they just finished a quarterly or annual report release. And so they did a town hall, like a finance town hall. And this is one thing that Celgene was just amazing at. But they would have patients come and do testimonials about the product and how it changed their life. And it's like when someone has a disease like cancer and they basically have like a death sentence to take this drug and then just be totally free of it for some period of time. It's really amazing. And it really brings home, you know, you're doing treasury, but you're helping enable, you know, this company to do things for people like this. And I think that's part of why I like working at Merck. But I think that Celgene brought the patient perspective even more to the employees and maybe really feel like you were helping the company achieve real, meaningful transformation in certain disease categories.

I was going to say the move between from director of foreign exchange at Merck for seven years to then Celgene, assistant treasurer of fx, senior director and things like that. Exactly the same. Just same day, different desk, turn the handle.

Yeah, it was the. So the FX stuff was really easy to pick up. It was the same systems, you know, they used Reval. We had moved to Reval before I left Merck. A similar sort of timeline in terms of how they were hedging. They had. It was almost even easier because they could forecast balance sheet amazingly well, which was always a troublesome area at Merck to do balance sheet forecasting. But at Celgene it was much easier. And in a sense it was ideal. It was like, it was pretty easy. The only thing was that they used primarily forwards instead of options. But over time, when I thought there was a need or it might be a better instrument, I would recommend it and they would switch to that. But it was primarily a forward based program. But they were flexible. And that was kind of the neat thing about Celgene was that they would try things. If you, if you thought it was a good idea, they would try them out. And so the program was a little bit more fluid than it was at Merck.

Well, given that, I mean, were there other ways that they were different or what were the key similarities or key differences? Maybe again, for someone listening in today, and they're saying, oh, I might make a move, but I want to change or I want to, you know, is FX the same everywhere and it's just. Or is it just about different attitudes towards it?

So they, yeah, so it's. I mean, there are certainly a huge number of similarities, particularly between. Because I think Saojin set up their system based on how Merck was set up. And in fact, they hired a tax person from Merck who set up their distribution system. So their distribution system almost, it mirrored Merck's distribution system almost. In fact, they even made it, they made theirs even better. It was simpler than what Merck had and so made my job a little bit easier. That's what it felt like. But I think it can be very different depending on the company. So I've talked to people at other pharma and biotech companies and they necessarily don't always do things the way that Celgene or Merck did it. And you go to other industries and they're much more into the supply chain than we were at Merc or Celgene. It was all biotech and pharma companies. It's more centralized and streamlined. You have one or two distribution hubs that sell globally. So it makes it easier. Some supply chains may be much more complicated. Other companies within Merck and Celgene, it was very similar.

I was going to say team wise, how are you organized? And what was the dynamics there as well?

Yeah, so that was probably the biggest difference was that Merck. I'm not even sure how many people we had in treasury, but it was probably over 30 people. And like I said, there were a lot of layoffs. It was probably at one time over 40 people. Celgene had 12 people, including the treasurer. The way we were set up, we had one person doing insurance. We had two people doing FX and investments, including me, we had three people doing debt capital markets, which were debt issuance, interest rate hedging and share repurchase. Then we had four people doing cash management. And actually one of the cash management people was almost exclusively just doing KY with the banks doing account openings and closing and stuff.

And so given that sort of differential in number of people did say that, call it three times as many people at Merck without being critical of Merck, were they three times better?

So, yeah, I think the issue with Merck was that it was far more complex in terms of entities, number of entities and organizational structure. Celgene was by necessity simplified. They had one global hub that distributed. So it made it easy for FX and whatnot, but it also made it easy for the cash people. Everything flowed through a single entity. It wasn't going through multiple places when they did monthly nettings. Everything was kind of coming into one entity and then being distributed from that entity to up the stream, you know. And so it was streamlined. So that enabled us to have a lot fewer people doing the same, the same functions. But yeah, I think you could have had fewer people at Merck. And they were, I mean they kept reducing the number of people there every year it seemed like, but I remember so Merck had things that selling didn't have. They had pensions, so they had a pension team, you know, and their insurance team was quite large. And we had just one person doing insurance. And it's always a determination of how much do you outsource to brokers and whatnot like that. And so Merck chose to be leaner in terms of number of people and maybe outsource some of the stuff or the work.

And just with you, we talk about people there and things like that. I know that more recently Celgene got taken over by Bristol Myers and we'll talk about that. But you know, you had those people. What we like, you know, were you directly managing a lot of them and what we like as a boss, sort of to those guys?

Yeah. So at Celgene I only ever had one person reporting to me at a time. I had two different people reporting to me. And the way we were set up, we had two ats and a director of insurance. It was sort of separate. And then with it between debt, capital markets investments and cash management, we had four like really talented manager level people. And there was a decision after about two years there, after I've been studying for about two years, that they wanted to help develop these managers by doing rotations. So the woman who reported to me the first two years moved to a different area. She was kind of a quasi debt capital markets, quasi cash person. She did a lot of cash forecasting. And then the woman who was doing debt capital markets moved over and did FX and investments. And so she and I worked together for the last three or four years that I was at Celgene. And so I didn't go through a real hiring process. We did hire one manager about seven or eight months after I joined Celgene, but that manager worked for the other AT and I was part of the hiring decision. So I think over the course of my career I've only hired three people. Most of the people I've just inherited, you know, they worked for me, they worked in the role when I got there.

And so you know, when you're. There's much more one to one. I know some people manage bigger teams and things like that, but you know, you were coaching Those guys. But were they. You obviously qualified in AS accounting originally and things like that, but you big into your qualifications and things CTP and stuff like that, or you've not thought it's something you need to do or what are your thoughts?

Yes, I don't put a lot of weight on like a ctp. I think if someone has a cpa, I think that's helpful. You know, particularly how important like hedge accounting is for FX and for interest rate hedging. It's just helpful to have that kind of background. It's not necessary, but I think it's always helpful and I think having an MBA is also really helpful. I much rather see someone with an MBA than a CTP because it just kind of broadens your thinking and maybe helps you kind of think strategically more. And I think that's one of the key. You're running an FX program or an investment program or whatever, but you need to be thinking about not just what's going on externally in the markets, but how what you're doing is going to affect the business, how you're going to help the business achieve their objectives and their goals. And so I think having someone with an MBA or something like that, they're more likely to take a bigger, more.

Strategic picture business aspect, rather than maybe more focusing on Treasury. Although I know that you can do CTP and it really develops your treasury skills, but as you say, you've got breadth of experience anyway, so that's a key thing. One of the things with yourself, obviously you've got the strength of FX and everything else and you work within these global multinational groups and things like that. You've seen treasury develop over the years. Where do you see it going? More recently we've seen automation and I was interviewed with the association of Treasurers and it was like, don't worry, robots, I'm going to take your jobs. You know, they just replace the mundane and routine and get rid of that. But upskills the level of treasury, you know, so two 60, you know, might get rid of 260k people and bring in 180k person, you know, whatever that might be, to really interpret the information and do that. But what are you seeing as the big developments in treasury and what should be people listening today be thinking? You say, right, if you guys should do one thing, it's this or think about this, what would you say? What's your thoughts?

So, I mean, I agree that automation, I think automation is going to continue to be the main driving force. And whether you say automation, I Heard a lot of people talk about AI and how that's going to change things, I don't know. To me that's more automation as well. But it's true, it's going to. You're going to need less worker bees and more people that can take the data and breathe at automation. I think automation is going to continue to be the main driving force. And whether you say automation, I heard a lot of people talk about AI and how that's going to change things, I don't know. To me that's more automation as well. But it's true, it's going to. You're going to need less worker bees and more people that can take the data and interpret it and run with it and less people just, you know, doing the rote work that works going to go away, you know, more straight through processing, less keying in of things, but more analysis and understanding what it means to your company and how to manage that. To me that's the biggest trend. One of the things that I thought was interesting, I've been since I was at Merck and then at Celgene, I was a member of the NOI group and I heard a lot of companies talk about that one of the things they were looking for in new employees was coding experience. And they were, and this is mostly like tech companies that were part numbers of the NOI group. And I had never given this much thought, but they were saying how they wanted employees that could do right algorithms and do some coding to help streamline some of their operations that they were doing. And to me I thought it was interesting. I felt like that's really the job of your vendors to do that sort of stuff. It's not really where I would necessarily want to direct my resources, but it might be like the direction that we're going and we might just be a late adopter or something like that. I think that's interesting, but I think it's really more of the automation. It's going to eliminate the mundane task and make the group a much more of an analytical group than it has been historically.

You know, that's the first, I'm going to say that's the first time ever I've had someone actually say, you know, be good to have someone some programming experience. You know what I mean by that is just to qualify a little bit. People want people that are technically strong, you know, so we technically strong in treasury, you may, you know, you may be able to program in macros on, you know, on Excel or you know, that level of Analytical, you know, not quantitative skill, but maybe, you know, that you're able to utilize that. You know, I had Todd Yoder on show weeks ago where, you know, he's up on stage at Euro Finance writing in code because you want to understand it. Severin Le Blennick from Honeywell, she can write, so she can program robots because she wanted to understand what these guys were going on about the other side of the table. Now, those guys are technically very strong, but their backbone of their experience is treasury isn't necessarily you. Can they code? You know, can they do that now? You know, I would say I'm surprised, but that's the first time I've heard it sort of voiced out that people are saying, oh, I want guys that are up to code. You know, it's not something I've ever seen on a job description. I've got guys that are that level, but they tend to be going more into the system side of things rather than more general corporate treasury. I don't know, it sounds like that might be changing from the sounds of.

Could be, yeah. Like I said, I heard it from more than one tech company. I can't remember if it was an investment or FX group that we were meeting at, but I thought that was really interesting. It was. It kind of alarmed me. We don't have any of that we.

Hit in the coding books. You have to learn in Cobalt quick. And where do you see yourself? You know, where do you see treasury developing itself? You know, we got that sort of. We've talked about the more technical aspects there. But, you know, have you seen more things with the CFO coming to you with different questions that they asked you 10, 15 years ago, or is it exactly the same? Or what's been the development?

You would say, I think with things like Brexit and this has been going on for a while because there was the euro crisis with Greece. Possibly everyone was worried that Greece or Italy or one of these countries was going to leave the euro that predated Brexit. But these are the things that are really worrying CFOs. Those are big picture problems and they want to make sure that they understand how it's going to impact their business. And really that means you've got to reach out to the operations groups and understand what their footprint is in those markets. I think you're viewed as an. Even though it's maybe a more of an operational thing, having a backup plan to maybe move some stuff out of those markets or find a way to just work around the issue. When it, when it comes, you know, you're the advisor to the CFO or to the, you know, if you're assistant treasurer to the assistant treasurer on how to handle that sort of thing. Well, I just think that these sort of big global flare ups are not going to go away, you know, they're going to continue to happen, I think so. It's funny because when I first started everything in FX was based on interest rates, differentials between markets and stuff and then we got down to close to zero or negative rates and now everything is political changes in different countries. That's what really moves the FX rates and stuff. So it's interesting, it's a very interesting cycle to be going through right now.

It seems like you have to be more of a semi economist as much as an FX lead if that's the right way.

Yeah, yeah, I think so. I think so.

So as we approach the end of today's show and you know, we sort of brought ourselves up to date and those guys listening, you know, as we said earlier, that cell dream was actually brought out by Bristol Myers. So Michael is out there and we're looking for roles for Michael. So this is a, you know, a living, breathing advert for you and your background which is, which is fantastic. But you know, in personal terms and we'll put in your LinkedIn profile in the show notes so people can connect to you and everything else. What would you say is sort of some of the tips if some, you know, a junior member of staff or someone were to ask you say having a beer at a conference and they say, oh, you know, looking back at your background, I really like it and I wish or I'd love to follow in your footsteps. What sort of advice would you give to those guys? Or what are the key two or three things that they should be focusing on to be successful in your eyes or to sort of follow on.

So I think, yeah, I think if you're a junior, I think getting sort of financial modeling skills, really honing those is a positive and really understanding sensitivities and how different inputs affect your outcome. Like that's whenever I, when I do interview people and I said I've only hired like three people but when I do interview people, I ask them, you know, about, tell me about a financial model, a financial model that you developed and I want to understand how they thought through it and what were the inputs. Did they run sensitivities, did they, what was the, what was the outcome most sensitive to and how did you then think about, you know, Managing that or how much could you control that single input, you know, that I'm trying to get to one, their ability to model stuff and to how to think through complexity, you know. And so to me that's always important and I think it's a great skill to have in treasury in general. I think as you're working your way up, take note of who you work for and their management style. Are they. Do you think they're a good manager or a bad manager? Because you can learn from both. And I've been fortunate. I've worked for some really great people over the years and I work for a couple of kind of averages to mediocre managers as well and better managers heard of lately. And I've taken learnings from each of those and I really try to emulate when I'm managing someone, you know, like, how would, how would this person have handled the situation? You know, I find that really helpful. And I think taking. If you're young and you're trying to build your career, I think taking stretch assignments, things are things outside of your normal work definition, you know, would be great, like cross functional assignments and things like that will really help build your skills. So those are probably the three things, you know, take note of good managers and bad managers and what you like and don't like about how they do it, really build your financial modeling skills.

Well, I think that, I think the one that really sticks out to me is the emulation, you know, emulate your, you know, the positive and negatives, you know, just like if you've got a good, you know, I've done that myself as well. I sometimes look back at some of the previous bosses I had and I think I love the way they used to do that. And then the flip side as well, you know, one sticks out to me that, you know, a guy sort of pulled me to one side and sort of really, you know, told me a new one sort of thing and said loads of stuff. And I just, you know, and at the time I was one of the, if not the top biller and I just said to him, look, you know, and we went out, I said, can we have a. Just coffee? And we sort of went into a room and I remember just saying to her, said don't ever do that to me again because, you know, I won't ever respect you for it. You know, I'm here to be respected as much as you. And I said I'll always respect upwards, but you know, try to do it the other way around. And you know, and it was, you know, he never did it again, you know, and I just, I said you've got a problem, let's just go do it over a coffee and you shout to me, but don't go in front of people. But as you say, if you can emulate those, those guys, then yeah, the good ones emulate and the bad ones, you know, throw that in the bin. So I think so. That's great.

Yeah.

So Michael, we'll put your LinkedIn profile in the show notes. Great. You know, to find out a lot more about FX there and, you know, some good, you know, stories and things like that. And as I say to listening today, connect to Michael if you're looking for someone and put in general terms, you know, thank you very much for a really interesting journey through your career, sir. Thank you, Michael, Many thanks.