Cboe Global Markets, Inc. (CBOE) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

If anybody doesn't know me, my name is Ben Budish, I'm the analyst here covering brokers, asset managers and exchanges. So Ed, thanks so much for joining us. I appreciate you being here.

Great to be here. Thank you.

So maybe let's just start kind of with a macro question, the sort of the topic of the day. What are you seeing in the U.S.? Around the world? How are your customers behaving? What sort of impact is that having on the business?

I think the greatest impact is in this uncertainty, and we measure uncertainty by looking at the volatility term structure. So as you know, we have futures measuring VIX out over many, many months. And that uncertainty, as expressed in VIX terms, looks like that's our normal. We can look out a year and see not a whole lot of change in perceived risk in the market. So what that means for Cboe really is the globe looking for U.S. exposure and the trend away from single name exposure into macro hedging. And for us, that tends to be the S&P 500 and the exclusive relationship that we enjoy in being the home of security S&P 500 trading.

Great. Maybe just like a high-level Cboe question now. So you've made 9 acquisitions in the last 2 years. So what's the higher-level strategy? Can you talk about how they fit together? Should this pace of acquisition kind of continue going forward? Are you sort of now working on piecing everything together? How should we think about all of that?

Yes. Not as much piecing together as technology migration and then integration from a revenue opportunity. So the philosophy and the pace of M&A was really driven by us wanting to be in jurisdictions that allow for open competition. And we find ourselves now a very meaningful presence. Obviously, we started in the U.S. through the Bats acquisition. More broadly, Europe. And recently, Canada, Australia and Japan. Those major market centers are where we operate at a minimum equity transactions, which really feeds our Data and Access Services business and allows us then to look to derivatives, as we did in Europe. So there's a blueprint of success out there for our M&A and our expansion across the globe that starts with equity trading. That's the core. So the pace part of your question is a very difficult pace to maintain. So that's not a goal. Rather right now, it is taking these businesses, and as I said, migrating them. We don't buy businesses to run separate portfolios. Rather, we look at from our customers' perspective, who have global exposure and are looking for certainty from a technology perspective, one common technology stack, and experience that we embrace regulation and want to run reliable and accessible markets. So that's the business that you saw us build through M&A, and now we're in integration and migration mode.

Great. So you mentioned your Data and Access Solutions. I think you've sort of raised the guidance expectation this year several times. Maybe just at a high level, what's going well here? Where are you seeing the most traction in terms of customer types, specific products, geographies? How much of this is sales-driven versus demand-driven?

It is a mixture between demand and sales. So we do have demand. And as we've gone into new geographies, one source of market data, whether it's indicative, which has been the demand of late or it's the continuation of needing to be connected to our exchanges, where we look at that different -- those are different use cases. The connection directly and taking our firehose, if you can imagine that, is a business we've been in for a very, very long time, and that continues to grow as demand for access grows globally and as Cboe broadens. But what we've seen in the uptake in market data is in our Cboe One offering. And that is primarily top of book and not necessarily down to the split micro of timing. And our distribution and sales efforts are a reflection of where that demand is coming from. And we've met that demand with Cboe cloud. So our market data and making it accessible and coming to and answering the demand from users around the globe who don't want to connect directly to Cboe, but want to be able to take that market data. So there's growth there. There's growth in derived data. So running derivatives exchanges and running equity exchanges, we're able to take the exhaust from our exchanges and make that smarter and easily adaptable for back testing and/or analytics around derivatives. So demand coming from just about every angle, but our job is to meet that demand. And again, Cboe cloud, one example. And then geography and jurisdictionally, we've just announced Canada one. So we are at a meaningful market share now in Canada and want to meet the demand for market data on a North American basis so that we can add and you can tack on to the U.S. market data, you can add Canada now. So think about that expansion in the geographies that we build meaningful traction, and that's the direction we want to go with market data.

Great. Kind of on the subject of data. It seems like looking at you and your peers, some of them have really gotten the strategy where they're acquiring software assets less tied to trading. That's not quite your strategy. It's more the packaging and selling the data around the trading. Can you maybe speak to that a little bit? To what extent is the business reliant on trading volumes versus some kind of recurring revenue? And how do you see that kind of evolving over time?

We haven't seen the demand for data tied directly to volumes. Even in lower cycles of volumes or volatility, the demand for data should be pretty consistent. You really do need top of market information even if transactions slow. We do think this is a sustainable model that's not directly tied to volume. Other exchanges, we understand that. That works great for their model. But for us, we do like to take the core data that is inherent in running a match engine, packaging that data and distributing that data. Now we have a partnership with Morningstar that's interesting. It's data as a distribution service. So we're into that as well, just not at the marquee level that some of our competitors are.

Okay. Very helpful. Maybe a question on the European exchanges business. Maybe just a little bit of a high-level overview on kind of the evolution there. And then I know you recently indicated your market share has really kind of increased recently. And what are the kind of key drivers there? And how do you think about the competition on the continent?

I think the -- so the market share is trending up. I think we look today, we're a bit over 30% share in matched volume, which is a pretty high watermark for us. And we continue to meet the customers where they're looking for demand, and that's really cost sensitive and mindful of the incumbents in every jurisdiction. We tend to run #2 in every jurisdiction, which makes us the largest across both the U.K. and Europe. So we like that. We anticipate some competitive response that tends to, as we've learned in the U.S. market, the most competitive market, that share and capture are very related, and those are dials that incumbents will turn as they find us threatening that continued share. We would expect some competitive responses in certain jurisdictions. Now being in the important jurisdictions that can't all happen at once, but we will continue to make our own competitive responses in response as we see the incumbents change. And then the other business that we're trying to grow, we're at about a 1-year anniversary of European derivatives business that we launched about this time a year ago. And that was to bring to the market a more capital-efficient exposure, both to individual country risk and pan-European risk by launching Cboe derivatives indices in Europe. So we've commented on that. It's a little slower on the uptake than we had modeled, and we've pushed what we think are the revenues and the benefits of us being in that business out about a year. So the very drivers of the U.S. market are the hurdles that we need to overcome in Europe. Very difficult to have the global demand change course in so much uncertainty and to try Cboe's indices, which are very highly correlated to the incumbents. But in this market, very difficult to get someone's attention. So we're patient. We'll continue to build. We'll continue to roll out schedule on product, which means we'll go into single name. We'll build out the models to clear single name, all on EuroCCP, and we'll seek approval to do just that. So we're steady as it goes on rollout and patient in the uptake as we are all watching global uncertainty unfold.

Great. Maybe one more kind of question on Europe. Just on the BIDS network. I know you provide that in kind of many geographies. But in Europe, in particular, I think a bit of a newer offering, and it sounds like some market share gains there as well. Can you maybe talk about the dynamics there, specifically with BIDS?

Sure. A bit of a history. So BIDS block trading mechanism that started in the U.S. Before we bought BIDS, Cboe Europe partnered with BIDS to offer LIS, large in scale, in Europe, same block-type mechanism. And then Cboe ultimately purchase BIDS, and we're committed to the rollout of BIDS in other jurisdictions, starting with Canada, Australia then Japan. So the BIDS uptake, not just in Europe, but globally. We're finding demand is our network and access to other geographies is the Cboe way. There's been great demand coming from Australia, in particular, to join the BIDS network. In Europe, we continue to lead the way in block trading. And that is a result, again, is just that commitment to growing the network that is BIDS.

Great. Maybe in Canada, kind of moving back across the pine. So you've acquired MATCHNow, and more recently, NEO. Do you feel that the product set in the country is complete? Is there more to build out? And can you maybe talk about -- [ John ] was here just before you, maybe how you see competitive environment -- the competitive environment evolving in the country.

We have the advantage of operating in the U.S. It'd be hard to find a more competitive environment. Just our regulators so open to competition that we have years and years of looking at competition, both by the disruptor in the equity space and by an incumbent, quite honestly, in the derivative space. So we have both perspectives. And we understand what is now expected from a global incumbent. It is not to rest, and it is to continue to listen to your customers and answer that demand. That is not to imply that John hasn't done that, but we find, particularly in NEO, being a bit of a disruptor and looking at cost of execution being responsive to customers as an opportunity. And then unique for Cboe is entering into the listing space for corporates. We are a very aggressive listing exchange for U.S. ETNs, ETPs and ETFs, Australia as well and Europe. But now going into Canadian market, our first foray into corporate listings, and we think there's an opportunity there.

Great. Maybe kind of elsewhere in the derivative space, can you maybe talk about some of the newer initiatives, the extending trading hours for the SPX and VIX options, the addition of Tuesday, Thursday expirations? What kind of engagement are you seeing there? What kind of customer types? And maybe a similar question, to what extent do you see the product set is kind of becoming more and more complete versus there's more you'd like to add more kind of opportunities to capture?

I think I've been answering that question every year since our IPO the same way as I'm trying to imagine from a customer's perspective, what else. If you look at the 500, in particular, your perfect examples, what are we missing? And each year, I think we come up from listening to our customers if there's more opportunity. The access to our markets is really the driver of late, and that is making sure that we're open when the globe is trading. And the demand for our products, even -- when I say more broadly, U.S. products in this market and this uncertainty, is at a very, very high level, and we needed to meet that demand by extending our trading hours. We've done so successfully, and that investment was about a year ago. As for the Tuesdays, Thursdays, we've been sharing with you the trends that investors have gone from 90- down to 60-day exposure down to 30-day exposure. And we talked about the trends in weeklies, which were phenomenal. And then our listing of Monday, Wednesday, Friday, even more and more uptake. And we said, boy, we are still missing an opportunity here. And sure enough, we listed Tuesdays and Thursdays, and the uptake is absolutely incredible. The 0-day to expiry demand has outpaced our models. And I think we're just beginning to touch on and being able to answer the exposures that customers are looking for intraday. A lot of that started macro-driven. The markets we -- the movements that we see in the underlying markets today in this heightened level of volatility make it -- certainly, it's an obvious demand. But interestingly, even on days where the S&P 500 isn't moving like it is today, where I think we were at 30 or 40 handle move this morning, even in those days where the market is not moving much, the demand does not wane for the daily or the 0 day expiry. So that type of exposure and what exactly customers are looking for, we need to meet that not just in the availability by, I think, Tuesday, Thursday, but in product design. What is the exposure inherent on the same-day expiry. So a lot of work to do. It's very, very early days. We like what we see, and we're learning and we'll be sharing with you as we draw some conclusions from the latest in super short-dated trading.

Great. Maybe a question on retail trading in general. Can you talk about what you're seeing in the SPX complex in terms of engagement with nanos? And maybe at a high level, what are your thoughts on like broader retail participation in both equities and derivative markets post-COVID? Are we sort of -- as we're moving through these choppy markets, do you think engagement picks back up? Does it stay elevated versus pre-COVID? Does it kind of continue to go up and grind higher over time? What are your thoughts there?

I think there's an ebb and flow in every market. So to draw conclusions from a few months or 6 months of saying the retail interest has subsided, I think depending on the market, bull markets are really retail friendly. Our job is to teach retail how to take advantage of any market environment, and we do so in derivatives primarily. That has been -- Cboe's goal is to convert the Delta One exposures in teaching retail. Hey, any market with your perceived risk or any outcome you can imagine, we can replicate that exposure by teaching a derivative. So a little stickier in derivatives, in general, and I don't think that trend changes in this market, and we'll be concentrating, as we do, on education as we've had since Cboe started on how to teach and how to -- a sustainable investment strategy for our retail investors. That's the more broad view and the direction that we like to go. But you pointed it out, retail platforms are the ones embracing this super short-dated exposure. And again, back to and repeating, we've got to figure out what it is thereafter because we think there's great opportunity there.

Sure. And I was going to follow up there in terms of the retail platforms. Can you maybe drill in a little bit on your distribution? How you're going to market? How are you educating the end customer? Is it always through these platforms? Or is it kind of a broader...

Great question.

I don't know, making education more available?

Yes. Great question. So we partnered with just about every online broker that anyone might use in the room as an educational resource. We can white label things that we've done that in the past. We can hold seminars. We do traditional butts on seats. That's all part of being an educator and the responsible from an exchange perspective, sustainable investing. So we're very much into that, and we'll continue to do so. And the engagement by product is where we like to focus. And again, as I say, it's the conversion from Delta One and teaching that any environment is right for and ready for retail investors.

That makes a lot of sense. Maybe one last geographic question I have. I meant to get to earlier, we talked about Canada and Europe. But let's talk about Asia a little bit. Similarly, you recently reported market share gains in Japan and Australia, but I think you're still pretty early with Chi-X acquired not that long ago. And how should we think about the broader evolution there in terms of the product suite? Are you looking to move to more countries? Or is it more about integrating what you've got already and kind of going from there? How should we think about that?

When we look at the size of the economy and the investment it would take to be meaningful in the economy and being #2 in Australia is meaningful for us, and we've got meaningful share. And the gains we've made is before technology migration. So we are migrating early next year on to the Cboe technology in Australia. And then fourth quarter next year, we'll migrate Japan to Cboe technology. And so the gains we've enjoyed in Japan have all been without technology migration as well. So if you can look at that functionality first at Cboe coming to the marketplace, and assuring the market that we're going to be there and that we embrace regulation and transparency and accessibility. And then from our more technical users, migrating the Cboe technology stack so that the global liquidity base knows that the experience they have in the U.S. and in Europe will be the same that they have in Australia and Japan, customized only for local regulation. And that goes a very, very long way from a global liquidity provider. So we really even haven't benefited from the stack being moved to Cboe tech. And then embracing having the relationship with regulators, that's just part of what we do. So that transparency, I think, resonates as well. And just completely different markets, right? We run a PTS in Japan, which is really ATS light, and we run a legit -- not legit. We run a more traditional exchange in Canada and Australia.

Maybe one final question tying it together on the retail side, thinking about the geographies. How does behavior differ outside the U.S.? Do you see similar engagement in Europe, in Asia? I know it's maybe still a little bit early there, but is the trend kind of the same? Or is there any way to think about those differently?

I think it's really the engagement of retail. The U.S. market is the retail forward market. There are -- in the bifurcation of regulation in the U.S. is unique. So it's very, very difficult in the U.S. to open up a futures account and not so in the rest of the world. So we tend to be security retail-based market in the U.S. Europe really lags in retail engagement. They have contract for different markets that are different that try to replicate exposure. And then in Asia, the difference between futures and derivatives, not so clear and kind of a geography of engagement and trading. And then the Japan economy tended to be, most recently, a jurisdiction of saving, and they're not necessarily investing in trading. So plenty of changes coming that we think our timing is pretty good to be in new geographies.

Okay. Great. Maybe switching topics now to digital assets. So you acquired ErisX, I think, earlier in the year. Maybe first, high level, what exactly is the product for people who are maybe less familiar? What exactly does the company do?

Sure. So ErisX, if you can imagine, is probably the closest digital operator to an exchange that you can imagine. So we are registered with the CFTC. We have state approvals in the U.S. to operate as basically money changers in the U.S. or DCM, so highly regulated, highly transparent and a little different approach than some of our competitors, crypto-native in the space. That's primarily the ErisX business that we bought. But what we did announce uniquely was we are not really going to chase the direct-to-customer business that most of the digital exchanges favor. We are partnering and built a syndication, and we announced those that are intending to invest with us in ErisX. An incredible list of retail names that you know and have heard each and every day, crypto-native firms and global liquidity providers, all wanting to go attack the crypto space the way Cboe does. That means we are not going to disintermediate the relationships between existing broker-dealers and their customers, but rather want to turn the experience that customers have in digital to resemble as much as we can the experience that they have in other asset classes like equities or U.S. derivatives. So that's the differentiation in announcing, as we did about 2 weeks ago, those that are intending to invest and to change this market along with us, that's the different approach. A trusted, transparent, intermediated market and a very, very healthy one.

Great. And kind of continuing on that. Can you maybe talk about the company took a write-down on the asset in the most recent quarter, not terribly unexpected given just the change in crypto asset prices. But it seems like you're very kind of committed to this area for the longer term. How do you see like your business in crypto or the offering -- how do you see it like evolving over time? I mean, you mentioned it's not going to be direct-to-consumer. But what other sort of areas are interesting in terms of services you might provide and the like?

The accounting impairment was just that. You're right. We struck the price for ErisX last November and have since -- obviously, there are public comparables and nonpublic comparables in this space. And we thought our first action is always transparent and to follow rules and best guidelines and taking the impairment was best practice. So no apology for that nor on timing. Our focus and direction remains sound. It is executing on the strategy that I laid out more broadly. But we're taking our lead from regulatory guidance. And as I say, the coins we trade today, the chair of the SEC has an opinion on security or not security. His view is that most coins by sheer number will be securities. And we know that what's traded today, primarily most of the volume is in nonsecurity. We will be ready in any event. As I say, operating a very traditional exchange, registration of new coins, registration of ICOs, running an exchange that is SCI-compliant, that means the SEC's highest level of scrutiny, that's what we do every day. And we do it at about 25 different exchanges. This will not be different and not a stretch for us. So that's the broad business that we know today. There's also the question of tokenization of assets that we know around the globe today. How do we go about solving on behalf of customers and breaking down geography lines in solving for greater distribution while being mindful of what the delivery mechanisms and hurdles will be in years to come. So having Cboe Digital focused initially on coins and what's traded today is interesting. But we think the future is broader. And over the years, we'll be laying out for you our strategies on more broadly tokenization, not afraid of security tokenization and what that might mean from our regulator here in the U.S. at the SEC.

Great. Maybe kind of following up on a regulatory question. I wanted to ask, of course, about Chair against those comments...

What could last during a regulatory question is probably timing.

But maybe let's start with, again, on the digital asset side. So there's a lot of proposals kind of out there. Maybe without -- with or without commenting on any specific one, what would you think is like a good, solid, productive, constructive regulatory framework for crypto, if you have thoughts there?

Look at -- there's one big one out there, and we made a comment. We love disruption. So we are probably more open to the proposal that was presented at the CFTC than maybe some of our competitors. What we raised in our comment letter was that directional is fine, but there are a number of questions that weren't answered in the proposal. And so we pose questions rather than just pure criticism. We are in the disruption business. So it will be very, very difficult for us to sit in our seat as an incumbent and say that somebody coming in with new ideas are without merit. It's the complete opposite. We said, here's a list of things, let's answer those before we go and approve something and perhaps cause harm in a new market and then bleed out into the markets that we run pretty remarkably today. So we kind of view the big proposal in maybe a different light than some of our competitors.

Okay. And how about on the more the traditional exchange side? It sounds like you're about to...

Yes. So the other proposal is, obviously, in market structure, in the U.S. market structure. We think more broadly, the -- if you can summarize the proposals as the Chair laid them out, or if you think of order-by-order competition is really what the Chair likes to reference, and that is that each order should be subject to competition and not just the wholesale selling of an order. And what that brings into play are a number of the points he raised then and how do we, as an industry, get to order by our competition. One of the obvious are the trading increments, right? We exchanges are trading in pennies -- sorry, quoting in pennies and nonexchanges are not bound by that. So there's a tick harmonization conversation that's being framed at the SEC. There's odd-lot protection. Kind of everybody in the room, I think, in this market today would say, how do you measure best execution if you're not protecting the odd-lots? That's pretty good stuff. So we think there's a lot of market structure ideas out there that can move forward the Chair's desire to have order buyer competition. Where it's going to get a little bit more dicey, is when we talk about payment for order flow and exchange incentives to quote. And we have exchange rebates. We don't think those are the same thing. We've been very public on that. And when you put all of that in the mix and you really want to get down to order buyer competition, we think the industry is going to embrace the concept, but there's going to be a great debate about what that means and how we do that. So the Chair likes to point to the derivative space in the U.S. is a good example of order buyer competition. You can have it consolidated, you can have a relationship with a broker. And they can promise to treat that broker's order -- that customer's order in the best way and provide best execution. But in the derivative space, that order has to be opened up for all to compete. And those kind of mechanisms, which were very familiar operating both in the U.S. derivatives market and in European equity markets, we understand how that might work. So I think we're ripe for the next iteration coming out of the Chair's office. We're ready for the debate.

Okay. Great. Can you also maybe speak a little bit -- I think investors are focused on regulation in the U.S. Are there any, I don't know, regulatory contracts outside of the U.S. that we should be particularly aware of? Anything that people tend to, I don't know, focus on less or not understand because it's not as prevalent, it's not as front and center? And I guess how would you describe those regulatory environments? Are they constructive? Are there any sort of changes you wish could be made?

We think all regulatory debate is constructive at the end of the day. I mean, through debate, I think we get to a model that works for the most. I think if that's the goal, I think that's all healthy. I think in Europe, a consolidated tape debate is super interesting in how you measure best execution. When you have an exchange that's now running inner day bell-to-bell business of roughly 30%. What role kind of consolidated tape or the pre or post examination of best execution. Those are great debates. I think in Japan, the limits on running a PTS, we have a 10% market share and a 1% auction limit. That's ripe for debate. There is -- Japan went from more than 10 PTSs down to 2, and now a new 1 in ODX. These are meaningful share. And how is that viewed from the regulator of us? Just we're short of an exchange status and what that means. I think there's great debate there. The products that are listed on various different geographies, those are all regulatory debates. You can have crypto exposure in the form of the ETF in Australia. And of course, the debate in the U.S. says no. So I think these are all healthy. And we are informed by the view of being able to operate under regulation in various geographies. We kind of know what works. We know what resonates. And we're only informed by our customers' experience and what works for them. So we have open dialogue with our growing global number of regulators.

Okay. Great. Maybe a question back on Cboe specifically. At the beginning of our conversation, I think you mentioned that the pace of M&A is not likely something you continue. Maybe just at a high level in terms of your capital priorities. Your thoughts on how quickly you'd like to delever, build versus buy? Surely, there's -- or potentially more M&A if the right opportunity comes along, but how do you kind of think through all that?

Yes. Every debate is build versus buy, and the aggressive rollout was really the practical building exchanges in jurisdictions that were pretty far along. I don't think we would have been successful in building an Australian exchange, for example. So the Chi-X was a great entry point. In Japan, as I said, the Japanese market went from over 10 PTS operators down to when we bought Chi-X, too. So I really like the buy. As for your leverage question in particular, we've been very vocal. We like our A rating. We're in constant dialogue with the rating agencies and have always a long -- so we want a balance sheet that's flexible to allow us to act if we have to act, to access credit markets if we have to, to access that market. And we are in a deleveraging mode more broadly now. That is not our only priority, is to build this business organically now and to integrate and take advantage of what we purchased. But we're primarily in deleveraging. We've grown our dividend every year since we've been public in 2010. We just did so with our announcement about 2 months ago. And that's the pace, and that's the way we view this business. We want to grow our business. It's for the long term. We'll delever now. We'll continue to view that dividend as an opportunity to grow. And we believe the dollars we make each and every day belong to our shareholders, and we'll distribute that in all those ways that we have in the past.

Great. Maybe kind of a similar question but on the OpEx side. So you've done a lot of M&A. What should we kind of expect over the next couple of years as the integration work happens? And maybe can you talk about to what extent are you subject to inflationary pressures versus can you kind of pass those kinds of things on? Or how much of your cost base is subject to potential changes from inflation?

Well, pure inflation, our biggest expense are people. And so we're not unique in this seat. Cboe is not unique to the pressures of recruiting from just normal day-to-day people's lives, the inflation that they face tends to show up in our wages. And so we're not immune. To the extent at which we can pass them along, we talked about the dial between capture and market share. But we're not unique. I mean, if the cost of execution and running these exchanges globally goes up, it will go up for our competitors. So I mean, I think, that's all pretty even and level playing field. As for Cboe specific then on expenses, we did gear up, and you saw the jump -- and you'll see in the third and fourth quarter is really reflective of the closing NEO and ErisX that was not here a year ago. So we try to be very, very transparent with the way we see our expenses. And we have geared up and that M&A activity will show up in the expense line in the third and fourth quarter. We think that will be part of the guidance going forward. Clearly, that's what we do. But see really nothing terribly spiky next year, and the rate of acceleration if you account for now just a normal run rate, not at the same acceleration as we've had in the past.

Okay. Great. Well, look, we've got just a little over a minute left. Maybe just one kind of final question. You've done a lot of these deals. You mentioned you're in the middle of the integration work. In the next cycle, when we start to get 2, 3, 4 years out and we're looking at the next 5 years, what excites you the most? Where do you think the most opportunity lies?

Opportunity is taking advantage of now being a global operator. I think we see it on the Data and Access Solutions business bigger than any place. So that growth and our breadth and being able to take advantage of the network effect, one common technology platform, the customers' experience across asset class not varying because of jurisdiction and technology, but rather just local rule. The world is becoming smaller. One reason to be in an asset class like digital is nothing shown us more clearly the portability of interest and how we want to be everywhere where there's competition allowed. I think that's incredibly exciting and the revenue synergies of operating globally in multi-asset class, we have not yet begun to see that pay off.

Great. Well, we're just about out of time. What a great conversation, Ed. thank you so much.

Thank you.

We appreciate your time.

Thank you very much.