David Rubenstein on Private Markets, Investment Regrets, Interviewing Elon Musk & His New Book

View Full Transcript

Transcript Provided by Kensho

Joseph Cass

Hello, and welcome. My name is Joe Cass, Senior Director, S&P Global Ratings and the hosting creator of the FI in 15 podcast. So today, I'm talking to David Rubenstein, Co-Founder and Co-Chairman of the Carlyle Group; and Adam Kansler, President at S&P Global Market Intelligence. Today, we're going to be talking about private markets, the world's greatest investors, data, success and regrets.

But just a quick reminder before we kick off, that the views of the external guests are their views alone, and they do not represent the views of S&P Global Ratings. Okay. Great. David, we just said this off camera, but you're actually the first ever guest to appear twice on the Fixed Income in 15 podcasts. So first of all, thank you very much, and welcome back.

David Rubenstein

My pleasure to be back. Thank you for having me.

Joseph Cass

So last time we came on, it doesn't seem like this long ago, but it was, it was in October 2020. So interested to know how the kind of unique set of circumstances since then may have changed your views of markets, market dynamics? And to put it bluntly, do you think there's going to be a recession in 2023?

David Rubenstein

Of course, nobody really knows if there's going to be a recession in 2023. I think about a year ago, the general consensus in the financial world was that it would be very difficult to avoid a recession. I think the consensus in the last few months has been that it's more likely than not we would be able to avoid a recession. Though I would say in the last week or two, people are getting a little bit more negative about our ability to avoid a recession.

So the truth is nobody really knows. I interviewed Jay Powell recently. Obviously, he doesn't know. The only way that you will know if you're in a recession is when the government officially calls it a recession. I just don't know. But I would say that we are doing reasonably well in the United States, and we are reasonably in control of our own economic situation with respect to interest rates and so forth.

We can't control what happens in Ukraine, what happens in China, what happens in the Middle East or other parts of the world where there might be geopolitical events that will hurt our economy to a certain extent. So if you told me that the war in Ukraine was going to get even more difficult than it is now and it's going to last for another year, I would say that's not good for our own economy.

If you told me that China were going to invade Taiwan, that wouldn't be good for our economy. So it's just too hard to know. But I also want to remind people that a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. There are obviously other definitions, but that's a simplistic definition of it. But it's not the end of the earth.

We typically have them throughout our history about once every seven years or so. So we really haven't had one for quite a while, not counting what happened about a year ago where we had two consecutive quarters of negative growth that was not considered a recession for a lot of reasons. So I wouldn't say it's the most feared thing in the world or the most terrible thing that can happen to us if we have a recession, we'll get through recessions as we always do.

Our bigger problem is whether the government seems to have some solution to the recession if it does come and whether the government is actually operating in an efficient, effective way. I think the biggest geopolitical problem that I think the U.S. government faces is the inability of the government to work in a functional way. Obviously, Congress is controlled by different houses -- different parties and the White House is controlled by a Democratic party, the House is controlled by the Republicans.

So if you could ever get the government to work together efficiently and effectively, that would be the best thing that could happen to avoid recessions and other kinds of things. And final comment is the debt limit bill. We obviously are going to have the Perils of Pauline to deal with whether we're going to pass the debt limit extension bill or not. If we were to not, for some reason that I can't foresee today, not pass the debt limit extension bill on time, that would produce a recession for sure.

Joseph Cass

Adam, thank you very much for joining. Would you go to provide an introduction to yourself, your background and also what you're looking to achieve as President of S&P Global Market Intelligence?

Adam Kansler

Thanks, Joe. I've had a fantastic career. I spent about 16, 17 years as a corporate lawyer doing mostly M&A work, working with a lot of private equity funds, doing acquisitions and dispositions, a lot of times for banks. So I developed a specialization in bank regulatory and where it intersects with M&A corporate activity. That led me to a group of founders that were starting a company that was collecting credit default swap data from banks, forming a new venture with many banks as partners, a small company called Markit.

That evolved to IHS Markit, merged with S&P Global. Here we are today, and I'm running our Market Intelligence division. Today, the largest division of S&P Global and a real powerhouse of information, data and analytics.

My goal as we go forward is to harness all of the capabilities we have and start to deliver to our customers in new seamless ways, putting data sets together, delivering to our customers as they want it and providing customers with the kind of workflows that make what they do much more efficient, much more data informed, streamlined, all the kinds of things that customers in a rapidly changing technology and data environment need from us.

Joseph Cass

Perfect. Thanks, Adam.

Joseph Cass

David, I'd be interested to hear your perspective on private markets over the past two-ish years. So given the low interest rate environment, these markets seem to have attracted a whole new audience of investors in search of yield. Now the rate environment is changing, what role do you think private markets could play for institutional investors going forward?

David Rubenstein

Well, private markets, by that, I assume you're including things like buyouts, venture capital, growth capital, opportunistic real estate and things like that. Over the last 40 years or so, more or less, almost every year, private market investing returns have exceeded public market investment returns, if you just look at market averages. Obviously, some years, some classes of private market are better than other years of certain private markets.

I think the general consensus now is that if one is going to have a diversified and well-structured investment portfolio, somebody should have in that portfolio some private market-related investments. Historically, investors had a so-called, let's say, 60-40 approach. 60% would be public equities, 40% would be some type of debt.

In recent years, I would say the most well-informed endowments and private family offices have probably gone to something like instead of 60-40, they're having maybe 40% in public equities, maybe 20% in fixed income and maybe as much as 30% or 40% in private markets. Now because the interest rate environment has gone up so much in the last year or so, many people are now buying treasury bills or other fixed income instruments because the yield is pretty good.

And so I suspect private market part of one's overall investment portfolio is probably down a little bit as people increase their public fixed income and their, I'd say, treasury-related kinds of investments. But overall, I would say that private markets are likely to outperform public markets again and even outperform any kind of interest rate instrument.

People are probably reducing their exposure to private investments a bit because the interest rate environment is such that it is either harder for some people to think that you can do buyouts, though I'm not sure that's fair, or that you can get the yields that you used to be able to get in private markets. But overall, I think the private market industry is in reasonably good shape. I don't think that all of a sudden private markets are going to disappear as an important part of one's investment portfolio.

In terms of doing buyouts, I want to remind people that in the early days of buyouts, probably -- and this is hard to believe today, 95% of the capital structure was debt and maybe 5% was equity. The famous RJR deal in 1989 was 95% debt and 5% equity. Today, buyouts are maybe 50% equity and maybe 50% debt and maybe even 60% equity and 40% debt. And therefore, the interest rate environment is not as important as it was because you're not borrowing quite as much money as you used to be able to borrow or you did tend to borrow.

So I don't think that the private markets are going to be -- buyout market is going to be hurt all that much by higher interest rates. So clearly, lower interest rates are better. But I think the market will continue to do buyouts probably at a little bit lower pace than they did when the interest rates were a little bit lower.

Joseph Cass

Thanks, David. And David, in kind of relation to that question on private markets, I'd be interested to know your view on valuations in private markets. So in your view, is there any kind of hidden risk in terms of valuations of private equity funds being lower than expected? Or is this kind of concern more a storm in a teacup and any kind of recovery could be more predictable and straightforward?

David Rubenstein

In the early days of private equity and buyouts, I would say deals -- and I'm talking about the '70s and '80s, let's say, buyouts tended to be done at 7x to 9x EBITDA multiple or cash flow multiples. And with leverage, if you did well, you would make very, very good rates of return, 20% net or higher. In more recent years, as more people have come into the market, EBITDA or cash flow multiples have tended to drift up to the double-digit level. And then so today, 13, 14, 15x EBITDA multiples are not that unusual.

Now the returns are going to come down if you're paying those kind of multiples, but I think that the returns have come down to levels that are still acceptable. In other words, in the early days of buyouts, people wanted 20% or 25% net internal rates of return. And that was not impossible because of the enormous leverage that was being used and so forth, and interest rates were not that high.

As interest rates have gone higher, and as EBITDA multiples have gone higher, I think investors have come to expect net internal rates of return of 15% or so from their private equity buyout-related investments. So yes, there is a result from higher interest rates on returns coming down, but investors have come to accept and be willing to be pleased with, I would say, net internal rates of return of 15%, 16%.

And the buyout world is basically doing its deals, assuming those are the kind of rates of return it's trying to get from the investments it's making. People are no longer pro forming the deals and going to investment committee saying, here's a 25% net internal rate of return deal. If somebody did that, they wouldn't be taken seriously.

Joseph Cass

So Adam, S&P Global Market Intelligence is heavily involved in helping out clients on the data and the workflow side within private markets. So how have you seen the needs of your clients develop in this space? And where do you see future opportunities for data and workflow in the private market space?

Adam Kansler

Thanks, Joe. As David touched on, this is a continually growing asset class. We've seen inflows even in 2022, where inflows slowed to some extent, you're still seeing an expansion of capital available for investment in private markets, whether private equity, private credit, real estate, other asset classes.

I think as those markets continue to grow and as you see larger and larger allocations to these asset classes from all different types of investors from pension funds, even to now more individual investors in those asset classes, all of the demands for transparency, data, valuations and audit trail, understanding those portfolios, being able to take the relevant data and information out of those portfolios and for customers to use it in their own analytics whether it's for an LP or a GP comparing against benchmarks to raise additional capital, these are all places where we have relevant solutions to our customer set.

The power of what we've put together at S&P Global is linking many of these capabilities together in order to create the right streamlined workflows and the right comprehensive data sets for our customers to look at everything from sustainability metrics against their portfolios to valuation to time lines for exit, all the components that a private asset manager might find relevant.

I'm very excited about it. It's a growing asset class, and we have a really important set of solutions that we're working hard to pull together in a way to make it super-efficient for our customers.

Joseph Cass

So David, I've seen you interview a number of Federal Reserve chairs over the years, including, as you said previously in one of the other questions, recently interviewing the current Chair, Jay Powell, who is, of course, an ex-employee of Carlyle. So firstly, is it strange seeing someone you hired about 20 years ago becoming the Chair of the Federal Reserve? And secondly, how do you think the Fed's thinking and interest rate trajectory could evolve this year?

David Rubenstein

Well, they probably think it's stranger to see me doing interviewing because they didn't think I was an interviewer. That may be stranger to them than my thinking that they became Chairman of the Fed. When Jay Powell was at our firm, I knew he was a very talented person. I had hired him out of the government when he left the George Herbert-Walker-Bush administration. I thought he was a very solid buyout person. He said he wanted to leave and do public service, and he obviously is doing that now.

So I won't say it's strange. Lots of people go into different parts of their career when they leave a private equity or investment firm. Glenn Younkin left our firm and got elected Governor of Virginia. So you just never know what's going to happen. In terms of going forward, I think the interest rate environment is one that is likely to see another increase or two before the Fed is done.

I think the Fed is more worried about inflation than it is about a recession. Its job principally is to worry about keeping the currency in reasonably good shape and dealing with inflation has other jobs as well. And I think they don't want to be seen as prematurely taking their foot off the accelerator of interest rate increases. So I suspect we'll see another 25 basis point increase at the March meeting.

And I do not think we will see any cuts at the end of the year. I think before the jobs numbers came out a couple of weeks ago, I think it was expected by the markets that you might see a cut by the end of the year, but I don't think that the markets are assuming that anymore, and I'm not assuming that. So I suspect you'll see at least another 25 basis point increase this year and maybe one beyond that if inflation continues to be at levels that the Fed is not comfortable with.

Joseph Cass

Great. Thanks, David. Adam, data analytics is really at kind of the heart of a lot of major decisions across the kind of corporate and the business universe today. How can data and technology more broadly continue to transform decision-making? And what could that mean for financial markets?

Adam Kansler

Thanks, Joe. I think anyone who's played recently with ChatGPT, and I hope everyone has because it's really an eye-opener, sees the power of technology, especially when it's applied against very large data sets. It's that kind of power, I think, and combination of technology and data that will drive the next evolution of great decision-making in financial markets.

For us, the focus is on having the absolute best content, the most accurate, useful, accessible, efficiently accessible data sets against which technology can operate to sort, organize, deliver out and aid in decision-making, whether that's an enterprise data management tool, whether that's the application of automation, machine learning or artificial intelligence against data sets, the linking of data sets to each other that is of tremendous value to many of our customers.

I do think although we've seen many technology transformations, I do think we're on the very cusp of a very significant technology transformation as technology creates new mechanisms for accessing vast amounts of data that are more readily available and creating actual actionable insights or enhanced or more efficient workflows for our customers.

So this is a space to be very focused on. You see it happening all across the industry. You see the partnerships between financial firms and large technology firms. This is clearly a space to watch over the next three to five years.

Joseph Cass

Thanks, Adam. David, last year, you published a new book, how to invest. So I'd be interested to know or to hear you talk about the book's origin, what you're looking to achieve and maybe give a preview of what the most successful investors in the world have in common.

David Rubenstein

Over the years, I've interviewed many people in the financial service industry, and I decided that it might be an interesting idea to take some of the best investors and see what made them so successful. So I interviewed many of the people that I knew or wanted to know who had been really successful as investors and the people would range from Stan Druckenmiller to Jim Simons to Seth Klarman, people like that who are well known in the industry.

What they have in common is many things, but the principal thing that they have in common is they were willing to defy conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom might be to say it's now time to sell. They would say, now is the time to buy or vice versa.

And so when you get a great investor, he or she is not waiting for an investment committee report of 500 pages from a fresh MBA to come along and say, guess what, I, the fresh MBA think you should invest in A or B or C. The great investors generally distill the information quite quickly. They know what they believe in, and they're willing to take risks.

And by willing to take risk -- willing to take risk, they're also willing to lose money. And every great investor has had bad bets, made bad investments. If you haven't made bad bets or bad investments, you're really not actively investing. So all the great investors know that you will take chances and sometimes they work, sometimes they won't. But the great investors have made bets that were contrary to conventional wisdom and more often than not, they worked out.

Joseph Cass

Great. And David, you mentioned that there's a lot of anecdotes in the book from these well-known investors like Larry Fink building BlackRock and Stan Druckenmiller shorting the pound with great success, we should say. Is there kind of 1 or 2 of your favorite investing stories you've uncovered while interviewing these legendary investors?

David Rubenstein

Well, you just referred to one of them, which is Stan Druckenmiller when he was running George Soros' hedge fund, basically came up with the idea of shorting the British pound, which in his view, was ultimately going to be going down in value.

It was too heavily valued in his view. So he went to George Soros and said we're putting a lot of money into this, but I think it's a good idea. And George Soros' general view is investing. If you have a really good idea, do it more than you think you should, just put enormous amounts of money into something you think is a really great idea because great ideas don't come along.

So George Soros wanted him to double down and put twice as much money into it. They didn't actually get as much in before the pound actually was devalued. But I think it's interesting that very often, you have a great idea and you regret that you didn't put more into that great idea. John Paulson similarly had one great idea, which was to short the mortgage market in '07, '08. And he put in essentially all of the money that he had in his fund, plus much more.

He made more or less 100x as money on the money that was invested and became probably the single greatest trade in the trading world in the last couple of dozen years or so. So that's incredible how we took that risk and nobody else really thought he was going to be making the kind of money that he did. So you always find people who've made great investments going against the conventional wisdom, as I mentioned earlier. And those are 2 examples, the bet against the pound and the bet against the mortgage market.

Joseph Cass

Adam, like David, you are a trained lawyer. So you worked in corporate M&A law for nearly 20 years. So what initially attracted to you to the world of law? And is there anything you really miss or conversely, anything you're glad to see the back of from the legal world?

Adam Kansler

Joe, I've been blessed with a great career. I loved being a lawyer. I love the challenge of finding the missing puzzle piece in tough transactions where two sides maybe were close but couldn't quite agree in just finding the way to bring that together.

I love the logic of contractual relationships. I never had -- I've never looked back and regretted any moment of that. That said, I have no desire to go back. I love what I'm doing today. The association with a group of people pursuing a common objective, what you see at a company, thinking about how to change the way customers approach their own workflows, how to create value. That's been really exciting.

And in financial markets, it's actually a particularly exciting place because it really operates right on the cutting edge in so many places. So do I miss elements? I love the cerebral aspects of being a lawyer. I love the aggressive commercial aspects of being in business today. I like what I'm doing today better than anything I've done before, so no desire to go backwards, but no regrets of anywhere I've been.

Joseph Cass

Great. Thanks, Adam. David, you've had a host of wins, let's say, in your investing career, lots of success over a long period of time. However, I did wonder if you could share kind of a few instances of investments that you turned down at the time, but then looking back on it, you regret that you turned it down.

David Rubenstein

Sure. Let me mention 3 of them. When Mark Zuckerberg was at Harvard, my now son-in-law told me about Mark trying to raise a small amount of money to fund this company. And it was described to me as a dating service more or less. And I've seen dating services come and go before. And I said, look, this is not going to go anywhere. He fortunately, from his point of view, Mark's point of view, got $30,000 from one of his classmates that turned out to be worth $1.15 billion. So I do regret that not -- I didn't put up that money.

When Jeff Bezos was starting his company, Amazon, one of our Carlyle companies was providing the bibliography of books in print that he was using to sell books. At one point, we basically sold it to them or rented it to him for $100,000 a year. He had offered us 20% of the company at the beginning in lieu of the fact he didn't have a lot of cash at the time. We turned that down and said we want $100,000 a year, not some stock in some little company.

Later, I decided that was a mistake. I went out and got some stock. He said he didn't need to give us 20% he worked because the company was off the ground, but he gave us 1% of the company, which we didn't think was going to be worth that much and we sold it right at the IPO. That was a mistake.

And last, there was a young man who came into my office one day, I think if I recall in sandals and jeans, long hair with an executive from Silicon Valley, and they wanted to explain to us how they had figured out how to navigate the Internet.

And we said, well, why do we -- why would we want to navigate the Internet and what is the Internet? And we turned down NetsScape at the beginning at a valuation of about $125 million. later was sold for $4.5 billion to AOL. So those are three that I regret because I wasn't smart enough to realize that these other guys who really knew what they were doing.

Joseph Cass

Adam, what's the most exciting, the most cutting-edge product your team are working on right now, S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Adam Kansler

Yes. I know better than on a public video to call out which of my children I love best. Usually, they know, but I don't like to say it out loud. We have a lot of great initiatives, particularly in private markets, thinking about the way we can integrate many of the data sets that we have today that are relevant to private asset managers into their regular private asset workflows.

So that's an area I'm really excited about. I'm excited about expansion of offerings to corporate customers, in particular, helping them manage risk, helping them understand their supply chain. the set of tools we have across the division, our robust capabilities and deep data sets. I'm very excited about how we pull that together to give customers a more comprehensive view of their risk, their supply chain and how they should be making decisions, layered in economic forecasting, regional political and other types of risks.

So this is an area where I think we have a lot to offer our customers. I think in areas like sustainability, layering in sustainability information, ESG information into private markets, in particular, will become more and more important. So I'm excited about the capabilities that we'll be bringing to private markets by combining those capabilities that we have. I think those are a few to name.

We completed our merger about a year ago. We've discovered so many opportunities in bringing our assets together and launching new products for our customers. We're excited over the course of 2023 for those to start hitting the market, and I'm looking forward to seeing our customers' reactions.

Joseph Cass

David, this is a selfish question from me to you. So you host kind of a number of successful shows on Bloomberg, which I usually watch on YouTube. And you're interviewing world leaders at a variety of events virtually and now in person again. In your experience, what makes a great interview? And what tips do you have for me to maximize the time that you have with guests in these kind of interviews?

David Rubenstein

Well, everybody has to have their own style. And so you shouldn't try to force your style to be somebody else's. So you have to do it in a way that feels natural. What I try to do is read as much as I can about the person and absorb the information.

I don't tend to use notes because I feel that when you have notes in front of you, you inevitably look down. And that -- when you look down to use that crutch, you lose the intimacy of having a conversation as opposed to an interview. I also remember that what Oprah Winfrey told me once, she said that when I interviewed her, she said, I'm not really a good interviewer. She said, "I'm a really good listener though.

And so the key is to listen to what the person says and pivot. In other words, if you have a list of questions, but the interviewee says something that's really interesting, it doesn't go in line with what you prepared, then just go with what the interview is talking about. I also feel that the best interviews I have done are with live audiences because you can play off the live audience much better than when you're just in a studio.

And also, if you know the person well, you have an intimacy with them, I think it works much better. So the Jay Powell interview you may have seen that I did a week or so ago, I've known Jay for 20-plus years, so it goes much better.

I interviewed recently in a private setting, Tom Brady. I really didn't know him, but he had on the panel with him was just him and Bob Craft. I knew Bob Craft pretty well, so I could kind of make that relationship work with Tom Brady a bit. But whenever you're interviewing somebody you really don't know, it's always going to be a little awkward.

Over the summer, I interviewed Elon Musk and I wasn't that happy with the interview because I really didn't know him that well. And I think he didn't know me that well, and I think it was a little more awkward.

You're much better off when the person who's the interview is relaxed, they don't think you're going to embarrass them. They're willing to open up, and they're willing to tell you things they might not tell somebody else. And obviously, telling humorous kind of stories about their background always makes the interview -- the audience feel that they're getting some kind of insight that they wouldn't normally get. But anyway.

Joseph Cass

That's great.

David Rubenstein

I'm sure you're doing a good job. So -- but use your own style.

Joseph Cass

And was that interview with Elon Musk in person? Or was it virtual? Do you think that?

David Rubenstein

No, it was not. It was in person, yes. It was an hour at an Aspen event, but he was very busy. And so right before the interview, I didn't get a chance to talk to him. I was supposed to spend an hour with him before. I didn't get a chance to do that. So I didn't really have the relationship with them, and they only met him once or twice before, so I didn't really know him. When you know somebody pretty well, it can go much, much better.

Joseph Cass

Adam, in your spare time, I know one of your passions is engineering. So making things and taking them apart and putting them back together, both on the electrical and the mechanical side. So can you talk a bit more about what projects you've started and where this passion came from?

Adam Kansler

Yes. This is an interest that really came from my child that I had a father who was actually a doctor, but I think he always wanted to be either a plumber or an electrician or a carpenter, every weekend was filled with hobbies around fixing things, building things. When I was younger, we all in our family, we all rode motorcycles. I rode on the dirt, my father rode on the street. This became a hobby, and those are things you generally fix yourself. So all of the mechanical the motors, the electrical systems just became a hobby.

That led to working on cars as well, particularly older American cars where the equipment was a bit simpler in those days. Today, I opened the hood of a car and there's no chance I could touch anything. But I love that mechanical component. I'm always fascinated by the ability to create mechanical tools, the engineering, the physics behind it, whether it's in a motor, a wristwatch, a motorcycle, an electrical wiring through a house.

I love to do those things myself. I'm careful in the house these days. Some of the systems have become very sophisticated and I'm very sensitive to creating anything that could have any kind of a fire or overload hazards.

I always have a professional check on things like that. But simple things, I really do -- I do love doing myself. I like the mental challenge. And unlike many of the things we do every day, projects like that tend to have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and you're done and you feel like it's complete and it's a great feeling. So it's a great thing to do on your weekends.

Joseph Cass

So David, last question goes to you. So on this podcast over the past, it's been nearly three years now, I've interviewed leaders, influential individuals generally from the world of finance and economics and entrepreneurs like yourself, too. So thinking about everyone you've interviewed throughout your career or even met throughout your career, who would be the kind of a real interesting potential guest I should ask to join a future episode of this podcast?

David Rubenstein

Well, the bigger the name, the probably the better your audience is going to be. So if you can get Elon Musk, that would probably be pretty attractive. I'd say if you can get a government leader, President of the United States, that would be pretty good. If you can get a head of state from overseas, Xi Jinping, that would be pretty good.

But in the realistic world, I think getting people who are interested in being on your podcast is probably more realistic. So you want to get people that have something that they want to say, you're not pulling their teeth and they really don't want to be there. So one interesting thing that I've been trying to think about how to best do is to interview people who are no longer with us.

The interview format or the podcast format is relatively new. Maybe 60, 70 years ago, we didn't -- we began the idea of interviews as entertainment on the tonight show and other kinds of TV shows.

But there are no interviews of William Shakespeare. There are no interviews of Henry VIII, no interviews of Cleopatra, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington because people didn't do that in those days. So it would be really good to figure out how you could do an interview that would be interesting perhaps somebody plays George Washington, somebody plays Abraham Lincoln, who knows those people well and do that interview, and it'd be interesting to see what they would say.

So I would love to ask Henry VIII, why did you chop off the heads of your wise? Why not just get a prenup and just deal with it that way? Or ask Cleopatra, who is a better lover, Mark Antony or Julia Caesar, people would like to know or ask William Shakes, who really wrote those plays? You can tell us. We know you couldn't have possibly written them all. So -- but we'll have to figure out a way to get those answers some other time.

Joseph Cass

Yes. No, fantastic. That's a great idea. So thank you very much to David and Adam for your time in this session today and for everyone watching and listening to see you next time on Fixed Income in 15.