Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (FNF) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

[Audio Gap] the management team at FNF for joining us. From FNF, we have Mike Nolan, President and CEO; Tony Park, who is the CFO; and Lisa Foxworthy-Parker, Head of Investor Relations. Before we get started, I'll hand it over to Mike to make some comments about the cybersecurity issue, and then we can go from there.

Thanks, Bose, and thanks for joining us today. It's great to have everybody here. I'm going to read just some comments around the cybersecurity incident, and we've also filed this as an 8-K this morning for further reference. As you know, we reported that on November 19, we became aware of a cybersecurity incident, whereby an unauthorized third-party accessed certain of our systems and acquired certain credentials and data. We promptly commenced an investigation, retained leading experts to assist the company, notified law enforcement authorities, regulatory authorities and other stakeholders and followed our incident response plans, including implementing containment measures. We are continuing to analyze affected data and to further assess our notification obligations. Last week, we reported that the incident was contained on November 26, and we have since resumed normal operations. As a reminder, F&G was not impacted by the incident. While we are still assessing the impact of the incident, I would like to note that we have cyber insurance with a $10 million retention. And the period of time that customers experienced disruption was relatively brief, as a portion of that time was over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. While it is hard to predict any long-term effects, in my view, this incident does not change the long-standing competitive advantages and value-add that FNF provides to its customers. FNF remains committed to protecting our client and customer information, and cybersecurity will continue to be a top priority in our technology spend. As challenging as this incident was, it really showcased how our team pulls together, and I would like to thank the FNF team and our advisers who worked so hard to resolve the incident. I would also like to thank our business partners for working with us as we resolve the matter, our employees in the field who work diligently with our customers to minimize the impact of the incident and the other companies in the industry who reached out and offered their support and assistance. As the investigation is ongoing, we do not plan to comment further on any of the details related to the incident at this time. Thank you, and I'll turn it over to Bose for questions.

Thanks, Mike. Also, just to remind the audience, you can ask questions as well, just either submit them through the Q&A chat box or if you raise your hand, I can unmute your mic and you can just ask the management team directly.

So let me just kick it off with a discussion about trends -- trends quarter-to-date. Can you just talk about what you guys are seeing in the quarter on -- starting with the residential, just on purchase and refi?

Sure, Bose. We're still finalizing kind of November end. But I would say that our November open orders per day on the residential side are in line with our sort of normal seasonal expectations with the seasonal falloff just like in October, as we've talked about in the past, and we still think that our November opens for the quarter will be in line with really where we were in the fourth quarter of last year, as we previously talked about. We did have 2 to 3 days where our production was limited due to the incident relative to open and closed orders, and we're still looking at that to see what might be kind of moving into December. So what we maybe didn't do in November, maybe shows up in December.

Okay. Okay. Great. And then just on the residential fee profile trend, can you just discuss what's happening there as well?

Yes, Bose, maybe I'll touch on that. I would say, generally, if there was a word, it would be stable. We haven't seen a lot of movement really all year. It increased a little bit as we went through the first half, stabilized, and then maybe it's down 2% or 3% in the last 3 months, but still relatively stable in that $3,500, $3,600 range. Now that's on the purchase side. Refi, it's -- there's not a lot of volume in refi, frankly. So it's not moving the needle. I think 5% of our revenue the last couple of quarters has been on the residential refinance side. And our refi fee profile is somewhere in the $1,100, $1,200 range.

Okay. Great. And then just switching over to commercial. Can you just talk about what you're seeing there in terms of the order trends going into the end of the year?

Yes. I would say it's very consistent with expectations and probably what we saw going into the -- into this year, similar to what we saw in the fourth quarter of last year. Our open orders, as we've commented before, in commercial have just been incredibly consistent for the first 3 quarters on the average opens per day. And we typically see some fall off in opens in the fourth quarter in any given year, and I think we're seeing that sort of normal kind of fall off. So we feel good about commercial. We've said for a number of probably quarters now that the expectation was somewhere in that $1 billion-plus in commercial revenue for the year. And I think we're still thinking that we're in that -- we're in that bucket.

Okay. Great. And anything you're seeing there in terms of the large transactions or the changes in the mix on commercial?

Again, probably more consistency than not with asset classes like industrial and multifamily still being really steady. The sort of tax-advantaged transactions around affordable housing and energy are good. And the energy deals, as we've talked about, they're not as frequent, but they're big. Seeing activity in hospitality, hotel, medical, things like that. We have seen, I would say, a modest uptick in more distressed-type transactions. But I would describe it as modest with maybe more loan modification transactions or things like that on the commercial side. There's maybe some view that, that will pick up in and that actually could be more activity for the industry, if that's the case. I would say more single site than multisite this year, but overall, a pretty good commercial market.

Great. And then switching over to margins. You've historically talked about that 15% to 20% range. If '24 ends up being -- if this is kind of the run rate for now, I mean, do you think margins can be at the low end of the range? Or how would you kind of characterize what's your expectations there?

Well, if the question is if going into '24, we have similar order volumes and trends, I would say you would look at '23 as a pretty good guide. We had 2 quarters, the second and third were over 15%. So we're over the range, but not in the first. And I think for the first 9 months, we're at 14.3%. It's just hard in this kind of a low order environment to probably hit that for 4 quarters. You still got the issue of getting over the first quarter. And if you go back and look at maybe the last 7 or 8 years or maybe a little bit longer, you would see that we just haven't -- being more like in a 10% to 13% range in that first quarter is more normal than not. We are going into '24 with maybe a slightly better position on our expense base. I mean, we'll be a little bit smaller going into '24. But I would still say '23 is probably a pretty good guide relative to what range we'd be in.

Great. And then just on the margin, can you remind us how your margins look by segment?

Yes. Bose, I can touch on that. If you're talking about the title businesses within our Title segment, direct operations, which you'll remember, it's 1,300 offices around the country that process all of our purchase orders or primarily all of our purchase orders as well as local commercial orders and local refinance orders. And so those direct operations had a 24% margin in the third quarter. And year-to-date, it's about 23% through 9 months. And so that's kind of where we are now. That's up against about 26% in the third quarter of last year and 26% for the full year last year. Clearly, it was a stronger market last year. But I would view that as not much of a decline, given that the volumes are well down from where we are. Our agency business, you'll recall, we record agency gross versus net. And so the margin is going to be single digits always. We're just short of 7% in the third quarter versus about 8% in the prior year third quarter. Year-to-date, similarly in the mid-6s to about the mid-8s in the prior year on agency. Our national commercial units, these are the 20 operations that specialize on the larger commercial deals in major metropolitan areas. National commercial margins are in the mid-20s right now, 24%-ish, versus low 30s in the third quarter of last year. And that's pretty consistent whether you look at the third quarter or the full 9 months. ServiceLink, I mentioned refi volumes are well off of what a normal market would be, well off of last year as well. But ServiceLink, refi margins were 14% in the third quarter, not too bad because I think it was 0 in Q1. That's up against about the mid-16s in the third quarter of last year. LoanCare, our subservicing business has had a really good year. Their year-to-date margins, almost 17%. So they've had a strong year. Our default businesses are in the low 20s, not bad there, but again, not a lot of volume. So blend all that together, combine that with our shared services, and we did a 16.3% margin versus 17.1% in the third quarter of last year.

Okay. Great. That's excellent color. And then switching over to just investment income. Can you just talk about your outlook there, how that sort of ties with any expectations for what the Fed might do next year?

Yes. So we've talked about investment income, and it continues to increase, primarily as short-term rates have increased. And we, as you know, have big balances in short-term money. We've got $1 billion in holding company cash. We've got cash at the insurance company level also earning, call it, the mid-5s. And that was -- frankly, that was 0 a couple of years ago. And so there's been quite a move there, our 1031 Exchange balances. And we share some of those returns with our customers, but still, those 1031 Exchange balances are earning probably a net 4% to the company. Those balances have come down this year, and probably will continue to come down because of seasonality as we make our way through the end of the year. But yes, I mean, the Fed -- short-term rates, I would say, have a big impact on our overall investment income. I think we guided to somewhere in the $95 million to $100 million quarterly interest and investment income as we look out over the next 3 or 4 quarters. That obviously does not include F&G.

Okay. Great. But there are a couple of questions, so maybe I'll get those done here. So the first 1 is, can you estimate the amount of lost business due to the cyber issue as transactions could not have closed due to individuals not been able to access your systems?

Yes. Good question. I don't think we can quantify that just yet. As I said, we had 2 to 3 days where we really were limited in the ability to close. But our people in the field really worked hard to -- worked with the clients to see what could be rescheduled, what could be moved to another day. And I would also note that we resumed operations the last 2 days of the month. So we probably caught some of that in November, and we'll just have to evaluate to see what might have also been moved into even December.

Okay. Great. And then actually one on F&G. So FNF recently announced that it will invest $250 million in F&G to support its growth. How should we think about FNF's commitment to maintain stakes in F&G near term and long term?

Yes, good question. We can probably both address that. I mean we basically, I think, laid out our reasoning in our press release and F&G did as well, And we're seeing tremendous growth and opportunity over at F&G. But as we all know, it takes capital to grow that business, and the opportunities for growth and the returns on that growth have been really strong. And so F&G can source capital, they can source capital through debt and reinsurance and equity raises. The most value they get is through an equity raise because they can leverage that and add more capital and grow even faster. And so really, FNF's Board had to make a decision, should we continue to have F&G source that capital through third parties? Or do we want to make a commitment to help fund some of that? And so our Board determined that, hey, a modest $250 million investment in F&G would allow us to benefit from that growth. We -- as everyone probably appreciates, we have told investors really throughout the year that we were preserving capital because it's been a rough year in the title insurance business. But we've accumulated roughly $950 million of holding company cash. And $250 million seemed modest enough that we can still stand by that preservation of capital focus, but at the same time, make an investment that's going to generate returns -- better returns to FNF versus other alternatives. And so that's really the thinking behind that. Obviously, we haven't done it yet. We haven't announced that we've done it, but we did indicate we expect to have that done in either the fourth quarter or the first quarter.

And actually, have you guys indicated if this is going to be in the form of debt or equity, this commitment to that -- F&G?

Yes. So that's going to be determined by the special committees of each of the Boards. I would say this. I think equity is more valuable to F&G because they can leverage that and really assist their growth more impactfully. So I would -- I would guess that it's going to be some form of equity versus some form of debt. So in other words, they would likely get equity treatment from it.

Okay. Great. Actually, there's one more -- there's a question here on F&G. As a result of the strength in F&G's performance, does that change the time line for reducing the stake in F&G?

Yes. I don't know if it changes the time line because we've never laid out the time line -- whether -- or if we would reduce the stake in F&G. I think people have brought the question up several times. And we've certainly mentioned that preservation of the tax-free spin ability by owning at least 80% of F&G is important to FNF and its Board. And we do have a 5-year runway, if you will, which began in June of 2020, so June of 2025, we could technically spin it tax free. But I will tell you this, and we've mentioned this before, the Board has been very pleased at F&G's performance. The complement really in terms of total earnings to the organization has been strong. And I think F&G's share price is getting some recognition that they weren't getting when we first spun out that 15% stub back in December of last year. And so that's all been positive. But again, it's hard to say whether the time line has changed since it was never really laid out as a particular time line.

Okay. Great. And actually, does the sale of F&G remain a possibility? And does the long-term investment contract with Blackstone impact that in any way?

Yes, I think the sale of F&G is always a possibility. I think we've talked about optionality with respect to that investment and holding the company for a longer period is one of those options. But I think selling it or merging it with another company or spinning it tax-free, or there's other options, reinsuring a block. I mean, there's optionality there, as I mentioned, if we were in the mindset to divest. I think the Blackstone contract is a consideration for maybe some buyers, some would-be buyers that may consider that. Impediment might be a strong word because I don't know. It's not an impediment if you have another buyer. I think Chris and Wendy and team would tell you that, that Blackstone relationship has been phenomenal, and it allows them returns that maybe others aren't getting in the industry. And so I think we would say that the contract itself and the performance has been great. But it is a consideration because it's a long-term contract to manage that portfolio.

Okay. Great. Actually just one more from the audience. It says -- I think it's on the margin, going back to my question on the margin, but it says, "Can you clarify, do you expect 2024 to be similar to '23?" Yes, so that's basically the question. Did you expect 2024 to be similar to '23?

Yes, I would say that we -- our view in terms of managing the business is not to base a lot on forecast and projections just because our experience has been it's very difficult to predict. I think my answer was along the lines of if it looks like '23, that's what we would expect. I think there's a range of outcomes for '24. And some of them could be better than '23, particularly as rates have moved down, I think, we're now down maybe to the low end of the 7s instead of the high end of the 7s in the past, I don't know, 30, 45 days, whatever it's been. And some have a view that rates could come down more in '24, I think that would be a net positive for our business, and then we could see more transactional volumes both in purchase, maybe some refi and commercial. We do have some commercial -- larger commercial customers, this is more anecdotal information, who have an outlook at the -- '24 could be better than '23. And I think they're basing that on maybe rates moderating a bit and also valuations getting reconciled in some of these asset classes that will allow for more transactional volumes. So I think there's certainly an argument to be made that '24 could be better than '23. And -- but -- and if it is, we'll drive stronger margins.

Actually, there's one more question again on the margin. When purchase volumes return to normal, why will title margins be higher than 15%, historical average?

What's the question, why will they be? Or...

Maybe broadly, will it be, maybe if you look at it.

Well, I think if you look at our performance in -- and I don't have the numbers in front of me, but '19, '20 and '21, when we started to get into the midpoint of the range and higher, you had a very strong purchase environment, probably existing home sales in the 5.5 to maybe higher number, very good refi market, strong commercial. So we kind of had all the segments performing at a high level. And our operating leverage in the business is strong. So our incremental margins on that new revenue are really good, so we get better margins. I think -- if you looked at a case where maybe existing home sales got back in the $5 million-plus range, where at the latest, I think, is that there may be $4.5 million on the annualized run rate basis. And you had a refi market, doesn't have to be as high as it was in probably '20 and '21, but maybe $1 trillion-plus in a good commercial market. I think we're right back into the midpoint of that 15 to 20 range. Again, as I mentioned earlier, our expense basis right now in the field is, at least on the personnel side, the number of people we have is -- really positions us well to drive those stronger margins.

Okay. Great. Actually, one more on the cybersecurity, a little specific. Also on the topic of FNF's recent cyber attack, can you confirm whether or not any consumer -- customer data was accessed or compromised? Are you still contracting with Mandiant, which the cyber attacker specifically accused of being a laggard in their response to the breach?

Yes, I don't think we're in a position to field any questions. I mean, we put the 8-K out there, and Mike read the statement. And I think that's all we're prepared to discuss. At this point, I mean if there were material updates, obviously, we'll make those. But I think we're probably not going to respond to those questions, as we said.

Okay. Sounds good. Actually, switching back to a couple of the operational issues. Can you discuss target leverage, where it stands now? And then how you think about just the negative AOCI piece? And then just how the -- just on the AOCI, the rating agencies and other kind of parties, kind of look through that? Or just how do they think about it?

Yes. We target 20% to 30% debt-to-capital ratios on a consolidated basis. I think F&G is more in that 25%, probably a tighter range there. We do carve out AOCI. FNF doesn't have much in AOCI, a much smaller bond portfolio. F&G has a large AOCI. Our rating agencies get that. They understand that. And our credit facility contemplates that AOCI is not part of our 35% peak debt-to-cap leverage at FNF. And so I think currently, we're in the, call it, 27%, 28%, something in that neighborhood at the end of the third quarter, which is very comfortable for us.

Okay. Great. And then just switching to buybacks. How should we think about the potential time line for the resumption of buybacks?

Yes. Good question. I spoke about capital a little bit earlier. I mean, the dividend is #1 on the priority list. We did raise the dividend last month, I guess, about 7%, and the Board typically looks at that annually and oftentimes increases that. So that's been a focal point. Also, a focal point has been preserving capital as we make our way through a pretty challenging title insurance market. And cash, I would say, holding company cash has been pretty stable as we work through the year. It hasn't grown. But given that we pay a $0.5 billion dividend annually. And I think it's been good, if not great, capital generation. But we have been on the sidelines on the buyback front. I think we need to see what the 2024 outlook looks like for us. And we have a feel for it, we think -- we think the fourth quarter of this year and the first quarter of next year will look a lot like the prior periods of fourth quarter and first quarter. But we still have to see how that plays out and see if that is true. And then I think the Board will definitely take a look at trends in the spring and see how order counts look and what the backdrop looks like and then maybe make a different decision with respect to buybacks.

Okay. But just to sort of clarify, if '24 ends up looking quite a bit like '23, could there still be room for buybacks in '24?

I think there's room for buybacks, but it might also depend on acquisition opportunities that we see there. So yes, it's -- if it looks -- if it looks like '23, let's call it a even cash generation year. So I think there's a possibility it might also look -- hate to say it, but it might look like what we think the next year is going to look like.

Yes. Okay. No, that makes sense. And then actually, just -- you kind of touched on this, which is my next question. Just can you talk about the acquisition landscape, both within title and other ancillary areas? And you've been opportunistic in the past, just when there's been distress. Anything out there that you guys are seeing that's interesting?

Yes, sure. I'll start, and Tony can add on if he chooses. I would say, first on sort of the real estate-related ancillary side, there are certainly some things we've looked at but nothing that we really felt strong enough to do at this point. On the title agent side, it's been relatively quiet in '23. We've done a handful of deals, have been pretty small. I think that will -- would expect that to pick up in '24. I think '23 has still been a year of can you reach a valuation when you have these low volumes? And you might have companies that would be interested in selling, but they're not going to sell at a historic low valuation. And I think it's kind of like we talked about commercial real estate, there could be the same element of that, that plays out with agent acquisitions.

Okay. Great. And then actually, just a couple of other topics. There was a recent report in The Wall Street Journal noting that the Fannie title program is, I guess, put on hold. I mean, how -- do you think that's an incremental positive? Do you think there could be other initiatives like this going forward? Just curious on your thoughts there.

We view that as a welcome development. In our view, it was a misguided effort, what they were proposing. And not just our view, I think a lot of other stakeholders and legislators agreed with that. And I think it does recognize the value that the title industry brings to the real estate economy. There -- I think still could be other things that get offered up. You don't really know. And I think that just emphasizes for us the need to continue to have dialogue really with all stakeholders involved in real estate in the title industry and legislators of the important work we do to protect consumers and others in the real estate buying process and the real estate records in the broader economy. And I think that's something that we just have to -- through ALTA and industry participants, really step up our dialogue.

And other things like the attorney opinion letters, et cetera, I guess that really has never gotten any traction in the market, has it?

No. Not to my knowledge, I haven't heard that. I don't think anyone said that. And again, my view, they've been around a long time. They've never really had much hold in the marketplace. I think there's probably reasons for that. I just really view it as a lesser product and no one's -- I've not seen anybody put forth any information to me that shows it's less expensive.

Okay. Great. And then just anything else on the regulatory front that you're keeping an eye on? And then actually, Texas revisits their premiums every few years, when that comes up next.

Yes, I'll start with Texas. Yes, you're right. I think generally, it's about every 5 years. I don't know if it's always every 5 years, but the last time they did it was 2019. And we expect a process to begin in '24. So we'll be working with the regulators on that. In '19, there was a modest rate reduction, overall rate reduction. And we don't really know yet what '24 will look like. Other than that, I'm not aware of any significant thing going on in the regulatory front. But I give Tony a chance to weigh in.

No, I agree. Nothing -- I mean, there's normal things that occur with 50 state regulators. But no, nothing out of the ordinary, nothing concerning.

Great. Just let me remind the audience, you can submit questions through the chat. Or just raise your hand, and I can unmute you. A couple of other topics. There's been meaningful changes seemingly happening in the realtor landscape in terms of buyer agent compensation. Just wanted to get your thoughts on what's happening there and are things there that might change the ecosystem in terms of how sort of title operates.

Yes, you're right. I mean, there's been these lawsuits. I think there's a number of them going on. At least one judgment, I guess, was rendered in one of them and certainly created a lot of conversation, I think, in the broader real estate industry. I guess our view is it's really hard to say how it changes over time. There's going to be an appeals process and all those kinds of things that go on that could elongate what the real change will be. In our view, while this could lead to changes, particularly for buy-side agents and commission structures, we really think real estate agents will continue to be sort of the trusted adviser to homebuyers and sellers in the homebuying process. Now it might look differently, there could be more consolidation with agents as a possibility. But even if commissions change for the buy side, I think, our view would be that real estate agents continue to play a very important role. And we continue to think every day about how we can provide more value to our real estate agent customers, and by extension, to home buyers and sellers.

Right. Great. There are no questions. Let me just switch back to a couple of other topics, actually, somewhat surrounding the margin. Just on the -- in terms of the cost-cutting side, can you discuss just fixed cost versus variable costs? Like would -- how you think about that?

Yes, I can maybe touch on that. If you look at our income statement and you look at the line items, obviously, agent commission is 100% variable with agent premiums. And so that's pretty easy to determine there and know that as revenue comes down, commissions come down and vice versa. Claim expense provision is generally the same rate over time and so that works the same way as agent commissions would work. If you look at our personnel costs, it's probably about close to 70% fixed. So in other words, salaries, we consider fixed and payroll taxes associated with salaries and insurance to some extent. And the other 30% would be variable costs like commissions on revenue generation, bonuses on profit generation and taxes associated with those buckets. What we do -- and you've heard us talk about this for a long time -- knowing that we have such a high personnel fixed cost base, we have to react very quickly to changes in volumes. And that's why we try to convert fixed to variable as quickly as possible if we see orders trending down. If you turn to our other operating expense line item, which is really probably 25 or 30 different subcategories of expense, those are going to range really across the board, but it's more of a 50-50. 50% of that is going to vary with revenue, and 50% of that is pretty much locked in and going to be fixed, like your office space is fixed until you make decisions to reduce that over time. Your technology spend is going to be fixed and probably growing over time. But some of the buckets in there like your cost of sales relative to maybe some default business or maybe your appraisal business, that's going to be 100% variable with revenue in those units.

Great. And then actually, can you just remind us where the provision stands and is there room for that to go down?

Yes. Provision's been solid at 4.5% of title premiums for really a number of years now. We look at it every quarter or even every month just to see what trends look like. Trends have been very favorable on the paid side of things, and it isn't -- hasn't changed this year. I think we're comfortable. Certainly, where we are at this point, we have a redundancy, short of $100 million, but still a sizable redundancy in our reserve balance, but not an immaterial redundancy -- I'm sorry, not a material redundancy. But yes, we -- I think there's room maybe for it to trend down as losses have trended down over a long period of time. But we're also mindful of changes in the environment. We experienced and the industry experienced higher claims in an economic distress situation that we saw in the financial crisis. And so we had an increase in claims there. And so we want to be careful that we're certainly well reserved for anything like that. But we haven't seen anything like that even -- even with the challenges that we've seen in the last year or so, we have not seen an increase in claims.

Okay. Great. And then also I just wanted to ask about technology spend. So what is kind of the areas that you guys are focused on there?

Sure. I mean, it's certainly a lot of areas. First, we own SoftPro, which is the technology that we use internally to power our title and closing business. And then it's also the #1 used software by independent agents in the industry. So that's a big -- a big part of what we do on the technology side. And we're always investing in that to add capabilities to make it sort of cutting-edge kind of technology. We're -- we built out our digital transaction platform in here. We continue to invest in that to add capabilities to that. We've made at least 1 acquisition that we've added into that platform for content. And -- then there's many other areas from title automation. We have our NextDays and ValueCheck companies, continue to add to that, continue to invest in our databases through Property Insight, bring a TitlePoint back in. We're looking at ways we continue to grow our footprint with TitlePoint and Property Insight. And then just the maintenance of everything we do, obviously, inside the organization just to keep all the technology working and staying current. And I'm probably missing something, Tony. So I don't know if you have anything to add on to that?

Yes. I mean, I think you covered it. I don't have a number. It's a big number. It's a very significant number. It might be $400 million, but that might -- don't hold me to that, because I'm just -- as Mike walked through it, I was trying to do the math in my head, but it's significant, the amount of spend, but it's important because it basically runs the company in all those different areas.

Okay. Great. And then actually, I just wanted to -- we kind of touched on this earlier, but just I guess the topic of title disintermediation probably came up a little more a year or 2 ago when some of the competitors were talking about it. But just any updated thoughts there, things you're seeing in terms of companies trying to do things differently? Or any color?

Yes. It is a topic, obviously, that comes up periodically. We -- there's been new entrants that have tried to come in, and maybe it wasn't as successful as they would have liked. You had this idea of title waiver, and that really didn't go anywhere. I think sometimes disruptors maybe don't understand the real value that's offered up by the title industry and how it works. I think sometimes it's a bit misguided. The way we think about it, though, is that we've just got to focus on our customers and how do we continue to enhance the value proposition we provide realtors and lawyers and lenders, builders, attorneys, buyers and sellers. And if we stay always with that as forefront of our thinking, we think that's the best way not to deal with disruption. And I think, again, and I mentioned this in an earlier comment. The property records in this country are the bedrock of this country. And it's really the title industry that's preserving that and enhancing that over time. And I think that sometimes isn't always in people's view when they think about disruption.

Okay. Great. Let me check any -- does anyone in the audience have any questions? Feel free to submit it. Okay. I think it looks like we're done with questions, and I've largely exhausted mine as well. So thanks very much, guys, for joining us today. Thanks, everyone, in the audience for joining us well -- as well. And have -- everyone, have a good day.

Right. Thank you.