The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (BNY) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Okay. Good morning, everybody. I'm Susan Katzke, for those of you who are with us virtually today, and I cover the large-cap banks at Credit Suisse. We will next turn our attention to BNY Mellon, and I'm pleased to introduce Emily Portney, the bank's CFO. And just for context, prior to taking on the CFO position, you served in various roles across asset servicing. So you are well-versed in the businesses, in the budgets, in the balance sheet. And so thank you for being with us here live in person. This is the first time I've met you in person.

Exactly.

I feel like I know you from video. We're going to do a fireside chat and have a lot to cover, so let's get started. So where we're going to start is on the organic growth aspiration of 2% plus. You achieved this in -- Bank of New York achieved this in 2021, and you've expressed confidence in the sustainability of this organic growth rate. But if one judges based on valuation, I would suggest it's pretty much underappreciated by the market overall that a trust bank can actually grow. So let's do -- let's start with a bit of an abbreviated history, if you will, just to understand what changed to support the level of confidence that you have in the sustainability of organic growth.

Sure. Well, first of all, Susan, thanks so much for having me, and it is great to be here in person. And you asked what has changed. And actually, I'm going to take a step back and talk about what hasn't. So when you think about Bank of New York Mellon, 240 years of history, incredibly deep client roster, an exceptional franchise, likewise deep talent. And as you mentioned, I actually had the benefit and the good fortune of seeing that in not only this role, but also my previous role at Bank of New York, where I ran Asset Servicing in the Americas and spoke with clients daily. But you are right that since -- or up until, I should say, 2019, organic growth had basically stalled. And so if you ask me what has changed, I'd highlight a few things. First, new management. So we have a lot of new players around the table. We have set a very clear strategy and have clear accountability, and that's very important. We've had meaningful investments across the enterprise. So in technology, in digital, we're also leaning into growth in terms of our investments. We have exited subscale businesses, and that really has allowed us to focus on what actually matters. Also we've developed a high-performance culture. And what I mean by that is we are consistently providing better service to our clients, and they're seeing it. And that really gives you the right to bid on more business. We're also able to really monitor that and evaluate that. We now have the tools to see just how we're doing. So we very easily can fix something if it's going awry. We're also showing up at clients differently. Much more holistically, much more -- with also much more innovative solutions. We're doing a better job also at mining the seams across the firm and bringing the entire enterprise to our clients. And lastly, I'd say we're just much more nimble now than we used to be in terms of both decisioning -- decision-making, but also in positioning. Like decisions that we're making in order to position the firm to better serve our clients. And our open architecture strategy actually is largely based on that, too, because what we've come to realize is that we want to be nimble. We want to bring best-in-class solutions to our clients. And that doesn't mean that you'll always -- that we should be building that ourselves. So back to organic growth, you're right. So we feel that the organic growth story, in the last couple of years, is proving that we're on the right path. We delivered 1% organic growth between '19 and '20, well in excess of 2% last year. And we feel very confident that we will continue that momentum. And I agree with you, it's probably underappreciated. And why do we feel confident? The win-loss ratios are better. The size of our wins are bigger. We're seeing client inflows across our businesses. Our pipeline is larger than at the same period last year. And like I said, we're leaning into growth.

So when we think about 2022, are there any particular areas that you would call out in terms of organic growth?

Well, first, I would say, in 2021, we were really pleased that organic growth was so broad-based and really across the enterprise. As I think about 2022, I would highlight probably a few key engines of growth, if you will, that will be at least on average with our organic growth target or in excess of our organic growth target. So Asset Servicing for sure; Investment and Wealth Management; Treasury Services, we're doing a lot of really interesting things in the payment space; and Clearance and Collateral Management. I would just highlight, though, that 2 businesses that are going to struggle a bit in terms of organic growth is basically Pershing and Issuer Services, and specifically Corporate Trust in Issuer Services. And really there, the story is that we had a few -- we lost some business in the second half of last year. We've talked about this very openly on our earnings calls, being on the wrong side of M&A transactions, et cetera. So you'll see the annualized impact of that flowing through this year. Underlying growth is still very healthy, but just want to make sure everyone keeps that in mind.

Okay. Perfect. So let's level set a little bit on the macro and talk about kind of the base case assumptions for 2022. And I mean it's -- I can't put this in context of sitting here 2 years ago and how much was changing, how quickly on a moment-to-moment basis. But even in the 4 weeks since your earnings call, that seems like a long time in certain ways. So how have the macro data points and market performance changed your confidence in the assumptions in your 2022 outlook?

So this is an interesting question because you're right, 4 weeks ago, the environment looked pretty different. In terms of the guidance I gave, though, 4 weeks ago, I guess it was, there were 2 main assumptions, especially as it relates to revenues: so one was the forward curve, and the other was market levels. As we sit here today, I mean, the good news is that the economy still seems to be pretty strong, which is good. Obviously, inflation is running much higher than any of us anticipated. That's obviously leading central banks around the world to likewise take probably more significant action and sooner. The curve overall is flattening, which is also something that's flowing through. Markets around the world, very uncertain and basically down anywhere from 3% to in excess of 5%. And we've got a lot of geopolitical risk and uncertainty that's adding to all of this. So we obviously have been taking a step back and thinking about how the changing macroeconomic environment is impacting our assumptions and overall our guidance. Net-net, what I would say is there's a bunch of ins and there's a bunch of outs. And ultimately, they're largely offsetting. So we're kind of in the same place and feel pretty good about the guidance that we gave. I mean the key thing is though that we're being very nimble as it relates to our securities portfolio and our balance sheet.

Okay. So maybe we could put a little bit of a finer point on the ins and outs when it comes to the revenue and the expense. I think NII and revenue is a fairly obvious in, but maybe you can go through the offsets with a little bit more clarity.

So in terms of -- I won't go into too much in terms of specifics, but I'll size it from an approximate standpoint. So if, say, we do now have 6 hikes that are baked into the curve, maybe even 7, who knows, it changes on a daily basis. When we originally provided our guidance, it was more like 3. So if you bake in 6 hikes from a net interest revenue perspective, that probably equates to an additional $100 million in terms of revenues or NIR, I should say, over the course of this year. And the way I think about that is higher rates, certainly great, but offset by what will probably be slightly higher deposit runoff. Also more rates -- more hikes sooner will be beneficial to waivers. So again, that's probably to the tune of, again, 6 hikes baked in. That's probably to the tune of another $100 million-or-so in waivers that we'd recouped. So -- and again, that's subject to money market balances. We've always said that. So net-net, think of that as what positive 200-or-so for the year versus the guidance I gave. On the other side of that, though, equity markets, right, and not really clear, there's a lot of volatility, a lot of uncertainty. We had baked in a 5-percentage-point increase point-to-point, or on average, something closer to 2.5%, 3%. Year-to-date, markets are down, and so that's going to mute some of the upside that we suggested and perhaps pretty much offset some of what we just talked about in the rate environment. So that's how I really think about it. Expense is really de minimis at this point. But the ins and the outs are largely kind of neutral, if you will. The components are changing, NIR and fees, et cetera, but the guidance overall, still we feel pretty good about.

Okay. Fair enough. So when we think about the impact of rising interest rates right now, where are you investing excess liquidity?

Well, the most important thing, I think, for folks to take away is that we are being very nimble, right? We think it's important to be nimble and just to have optionality because there is so much uncertainty at the moment. We've been actively managing the securities portfolio. What that means is we've been derisking and generally in the form of shortening duration, especially in the AFS portion of the portfolio. We've also been utilizing HTM really to insulate ourselves from further capital volatility. As deposits begin to run off, as the Fed starts hiking, the way I would think about it is that on the asset side, cash held at central banks will likely come down, and we'll also probably just take lower yielding HQLA and reinvest it in higher yielding HQLA. So net-net, our securities portfolio, the size of the securities portfolio will be relatively flat from fourth quarter last year. But we are continuing to grow the loan portfolio. That is something that's deliberate, it's intentional, and it's very integral to our franchise.

Okay. So then really, when I think about your rate sensitivity and how you're managing it, is there really any impact of the flattening yield curve from an outlook perspective?

From our perspective, we are the most sensitive to the short end of the curve. And whether it's in the form of net interest revenue or for that matter, waivers. So it's really all for us, all about the short end. Over the medium term, the steepness of the curve matters, sure, because of reinvestment yields, and so the steeper the better. Flat is also okay. We are mindful in watching just in case there's an inversion of the curve because of more -- really more importantly because of what it would signal for the health of the economy and kind of rates out in the future. But net-net, it really is the level of rates in the short term for us that matters most.

Okay. Okay. So let's switch gears a little bit, and talk about expense management, which, in many respects, was this great debate between post earnings and we're now debating kind of with all of the managements is the immediate gratification of positive operating leverage and how much operating leverage versus investment spending for sustainable growth and returns. So there was some, let's call it, some disappointment around your expense guidance on the January earnings call. You guided to positive operating leverage, but not positive fee operating leverage, with the willingness to continue to invest. So I want to know how you think about this year-to-year. We talked about the organic growth aspiration. How do you think about the trade-offs on a given year?

Well, we feel very good that in 2022, we are delivering positive operating leverage. And yes, it's true that some of that operating leverage, or a large majority in 2022 at least, is resulting from a higher rate environment. And of course, over time -- I'm going to focus first on just operating leverage. Over time, you won't see the same rate hikes. So the impact that that has on operating leverage will abate. Having said that, when you think about also our expenses in 2022, there are unique headwinds on expenses also running through. So inflation, being, one, return to the office, et cetera. So likewise, the trend in expenses over time will -- net of investment, of course, will also moderate. So we do feel pretty good not only about delivering operating leverage in 2022, but feeling very -- we feel very confident we will continue delivering positive operating leverage even in a more normalized interest rate environment. So I just want to make sure I make that point. In terms of investments and how we think about investments, we have been investing through the cycle. We are committed to investing in our future growth. All investments have to stand on their own. They must have a strong ROI, but they also have to -- we also have to feel like we've got the bandwidth to be able to accomplish investments successfully. So we look at really both. And as we're investing, we are always monitoring to make sure we're getting the outcomes that we want.

So how do you know that you're investing enough at this moment?

That's a really good question. And we do ask ourselves that question all the time. As I mentioned just before, we have a very disciplined process around investment. Again, it has to have -- each investment has to stand on its own with a proper ROI over a reasonable time frame. Each investment also has to really have a tangible benefit. I mean that can be in terms of accelerating growth, adding a new product, new capabilities, just being able to service our clients better, achieve efficiency, better client service, or for that matter, meet a regulatory deliverable. And we literally -- when we go through our planning process, we literally classify each and every investment in one of those buckets. Now the revenue outlook, by the way, doesn't dictate the amount or what we're going to invest in or how much we're going to invest in, as I said before, I mean it really is we're very committed to continuing to invest for growth. But it's also about -- as much about bandwidth and what we feel we can reasonably accomplish in a given year. So I mean just to put a finer point on that, I mean, this past year in our planning process, at the very, very end, when we basically figured it out, all we wanted to do, we also took a lens, and this is the executive committee of the firm, took a lens against and looked at each investment or the major investments against what we thought we could actually deliver successfully. And some things fell out after that view. Even if they were very compelling, a few things fell out, and that was just us being extraordinarily honest with what we thought we could do. So it really is a mixture of all of these things that determines our investments, both what and how much. What I would say, just to, I should call, to size it. In 2017, our total investment spend, at least tech investment spend, was $2.4 billion. This year, we expect it to be $3.5 billion. So we are obviously investing and continuing to grow our investment. We're leaning in. And I would say we're kind of bound more by bandwidth than probably anything else.

Okay. So when we think about the mix and not just within the tech spend, but overall investment spend, the mix, I believe, has also shifted over time from having been very heavily focused in the last few years on infrastructure upgrades and overhaul versus kind of product and service. So how do you look at within the investments this year, that balance between investments that are just pure infrastructure upgrade versus efficiency driven versus revenue driven?

So our investment spend, as you rightfully point out, is a mix. So it's infrastructure, it's efficiency, it's growth. We kind of look at it in terms of "change the bank" and "run the bank." So in terms of the $3.5 billion I spoke about, a little more than 50% now is "change the bank," and that's good. It's very deliberate. We're trying to push more into change the bank. And you're right, some of the very large scale infrastructure initiatives have abated a bit. When you think about what are those "change the bank" initiatives, just to put some color on it, and Todd has talked about many of these in the past as well as I have. but Pershing X. So building out this new business, Pershing X, which is all about wealth tech and advisory solutions, very exciting. In Clearance and Collateral Management, we continue to progress efforts around collateral mobility and optimization, and we're a world leader in that. We're investing in digital asset capabilities. We've talked a lot about that, whether it's crypto or stable coins, et cetera, and kind of a leader in that space and certainly thinking -- in the thought leadership space, too. We're continuing to modernize our payments platform, doing a lot of really interesting things in terms of e-payments and real-time payments. And we continue to invest in products and digitization in Investment and Wealth Management. So those are just some kind of key areas for "change the bank." That doesn't mean we're not focused on efficiency. We have not relaxed any of our efforts on efficiency. So in 2021, I think we achieved about $300 million of efficiency saves, allowing us to plow all of that back into investment. In 2022, that will probably be closer to 4 -- $400 million. And when you think about that spend, it's general -- or that -- what we're trying to achieve there, some of it is just doubling down on what we've already kind of talked to and committed to like leveraging machine learning and AI for simplifying processes, automating processes, whether it's reconciliations, inquiry, management, et cetera. Some of that is continuing to build out client service facing tools, specifically in areas like transfer agency. Some of that is just streamlining internal processes like accounts payable and procurement. But some of that is also starting to finally get after and really attacking parts of the business, which are very manually intensive and not just for Bank of New York, but for the entire industry like loan administration, fund administration, mid-office outsourcing, and it just so happens that most of those things sit in Securities Services. And we have talked recently as we've re-segmented, and so now you can see Securities Services, the margins there are challenged and part of it is getting after those very manually intensive businesses. And when we do, over time, get after it with new technology, et cetera, that's part of giving what is behind the story of us taking the margins of that particular segment probably to 30-plus over time.

Well, at least we know there's more opportunity left in that business. So it's the cup is half empty, cup is half full, we'll take the half full and the opportunity to come. So just to kind of clarify around this year's expense increase, 5.5% was the guidance, 60% of it being revenue-driven and other factors, including really just annualizing last year's step up into a full year this year. So just to be super clear here, to what degree is inflation being factored into the 5.5%? Kind of circling back to that initial conversation around some of the ins and outs on guidance.

Sure. So you definitely paid attention to our guidance in the 5.5% knowing the different component parts. So as you rightfully point out, the step-up year-on-year, 5.5%. 2% of that 5.5% investment, of which half, as you also pointed out, is really just annualizing investments that we made in the second half of the year. So that leaves about 3.5%. And in that 3.5%, half of that is what we call revenue related, so think volume related. And then the other half is things like an uptick in expenses for return to the office, T&E and marketing and occupancy. And then there's merit, which, by the way, our merit program was twice as big as it was last year, twice the size. So that's part -- part of that is inflationary and then also some other expectations around inflationary pressure. So net-net, it's hard to isolate specifically what's inflation in that 5.5%, but I'd say roughly 50 to 100 basis points.

Okay. Fair enough. Okay. And the guidance, it's called conference prep. So that's paying very close attention to that. So let's switch gears to balance sheet management and really kind of gauging the impacts of rate hikes in QT and deposit flows. And you talked a little bit about the assumption that the deposits would flow off the balance sheet more quickly. So let's talk about those flows in a tightening cycle with QT. And how it's going to differ this time around versus 2017, 2018?

So we always look at previous cycles, and obviously, examine and learn, and some things, we'll retrace previous cycles. But again, as you just said, I mean, there's a lot that's really different. So first, when you look at just the macroeconomic backdrop, I mean, I'm going to say things that everybody here knows, central banks around the world pumped so much unprecedented liquidity into the system, the Fed's balance sheet, twice the size of what it was. Likewise, inflationary pressures, unprecedented, ultimately from the last 40 years, Market expectations around the number of hikes, the pace of hikes, very, very different. So all of that will mean that things probably play out a bit differently. Also importantly, our business mix and our balance sheet is different. So for example, assets under custody and administration are 60% higher than they were back in '15, '16. And when -- as you grow that business, as we grow custody, that also means more operational deposits that are going to be sticky. Likewise, Treasury Services, twice the size -- the business itself is twice the size what it was, again, back in '16 when the tightening began. And again, that, too, comes with higher operational deposits. Also during that time, at least for us, we were looking to come into compliance with SLR. So we also were probably more proactively kind of pushing some of the deposits out the door just to make sure we would come into compliance. So you're kind of looking at all of those different factors. And the way I'd boil it down in a nutshell is that when you think about deposit flows, we'd probably expect roughly the same level of outflows, at least over time, and I would think mid-single to upper single-digit outflows, but it's going to be off of a higher base, and will end therefore, at a higher point.

Okay. So then let's put some of this balance sheet management in the context of capital management. We know leverage is your binding constraint. No issues with CET1, way over the minimums there with the low SCB and a low G-SIB. So you -- in your guidance, you talked about 100% as the target for capital returns for 2022. And we've talked through some of the guidance where earlier Fed action might create some incremental capital through earnings, through deposit runoff, you're managing your liquidity around OCI. Talk about kind of where OCI might impact your capital returns, and what you're thinking about whether or not there's incremental excess capital? How does the 100% play out in this scenario?

It's a great question. And as you rightly point out, there's many moving factors. So the key thing is, again, kind of coming back to we're being very nimble and kind of thinking about the entire landscape. And yes, everyone is very focused on, "Oh, more hikes, that's great." And yes, it's going to be beneficial, as I mentioned earlier, to net interest revenue, beneficial in terms of fee revenue because of waivers for sure. And also as -- if deposits run off a bit faster, it takes a little pressure off Tier 1, all of that is true. Having said all of that. And the other thing you point out, which is really important is that the meaningful move in rates has also put pressure on AOCI. And so it's something that we are looking at very closely. We're well positioned. So -- from that perspective, and we've taken some proactive moves in the securities portfolio. We've taken some proactive actions also just to preserve capital volatility. But because of all that and the continued uncertainty, we are being cautious on buybacks, too, at least as it pertains to the first quarter. Now that doesn't mean or change in any respect our overall intention to return 100% of our earnings to our shareholders over time.

Okay. Fair enough. So within that, the mix of how you're going to return that 100%, how are you thinking about the dividend now? And really, at what point is the dividend more efficient than share buybacks? And how do you think of it in the context of kind of your SCB is well below 2.5%, so that add-on is a nonissue. So how do you think about this?

So the first thing I would say is that we're very fortunate that we have an operating model that's capital light. We can invest and grow through operating expenses so -- and then we can continue to generate meaningful excess capital each quarter, and that's a great model to have. In terms of how we think about returning that capital, dividends versus buybacks, I always say if you ask 10 people, you'll get 10 different answers of what they prefer. We like where we are right now. It's a mix, generally speaking, of about 1/3 in dividends and 2/3 in buybacks. The buybacks (sic) [ dividends ] obviously are set by the Board. Of course, we have a view. And when we think about buybacks (sic) [ dividends ] and just what shapes, how much and size, it's very much we want them to be competitive for sure. You also want them to be certainly resilient, especially in times of stress. We want to be able to grow them modestly also over time. And we think where we are allows us to do that. And then with buybacks, what I'd say is we do think also that gives us -- buybacks, where they are, gives us the most flexibility.

Sure. That makes sense. And just going back to your binding constraint being leveraged, it was never the Fed's intention to make leverage the binding constraint. I haven't tried to kind of put into context your guidance about deposit flows and whether or not normalizing your deposit base will shift the binding constraint to CET1. But I am curious, a, how you think about that? And how much pressure can this relieve for you really in terms of that as a binding constraint? And maybe I'll just throw in there, do you see any change to the Fed's intent around your binding constraint?

That last one, I don't know. Hard to tell. And of course, with Basel IV and everything else, things are also moving around. But in any event, what I'd say is Tier 1 leverage will likely continue to be our binding constraint for at least the foreseeable future. But you're 100% right that the gap between our risk-based and leverage-based capital ratios will absolutely narrow over time. As deposits actually run off, we certainly will see that happening. Worth mentioning too, I mean, when it comes to CET1, as I said, we're growing the loan portfolio that will add modestly to RWA. SA-CCR -- the implementation of SA-CCR earlier this year already added again modestly to RWA. Our G-SIB score, we expect to go up by about 50 basis points in January. So at a certain point in time, depending upon deposit levels, you're right, CET1 will eventually become the binding constraint. But I think just based upon our kind of model, I think I will probably be kind of toggling between the 2 over -- in the medium term, if you will, just depending upon the size of the balance sheet.

Okay. Fair enough. So in terms of claims on capital and what you do with the excess capital, I think we should -- we talked at the outset about actually exiting subscale businesses. But we've actually seen others make pretty major acquisitions. And so in the context of large acquisitions in the asset securities servicing space, how do you think about that? Would you make an acquisition of that kind of size?

So I think the question is...

We did well not naming names, right?

You did very well. So if we're asking would we consider making a large acquisition, the answer is yes. But I would say there's an and, and a but. So with large acquisitions, especially with large acquisitions -- I mean, with any acquisition, there's a high bar. But with a large transaction, there's a really high bar. So it's not just exceeding the returns, the return hurdle, which generally we think of as the cost of capital or the cost of -- or the opportunity cost of buying back shares. But also, it's about adding something, right? It's not just about growing for the sake of growing. We already have scale. So it's about adding capabilities, markets, client base, to diversifying the revenue stream to a degree. And thirdly, we really have to have confidence that we can -- that we have a strong ability to execute. I mean any transaction, but especially a large transaction, I mean, comes with a lot of risk. I mean we all know that, execution risk, frankly, you're diverting resources and attention from management and the rest of the organization. Clients, you're putting a lot of clients suddenly in play. They get -- obviously get nervous. You have to think about potential culture clash. I mean all of those things, so especially in a large transaction, you're really -- it's not just the numbers, it's all of those factors. In terms of just us and acquisitions, I do want to remind folks, I mean, this year, the past 12 months, we actually have been active. We've done more tuck-in digestible acquisitions. There was a Milestone, which is -- provides NAV, contingency NAV, and that was in the Asset Servicing space; Optimal Asset Management, which is a direct indexer, that is really in the Pershing space and helping with Pershing -- our Pershing X strategy. We've also grown the number and size of the investments we've made in our strategic equity portfolio, mostly around fintechs. And all of those things have in common that they're digestible, they're tuck-in and they're generally technologies or companies that we're already working with internally. And we really feel that they have a tangible benefit not only for us, but obviously our clients. So needless to say, you'll probably see more of those, but that certainly does not preclude larger scale transactions if we think -- it ticks all those other boxes.

And in those other boxes, I guess, box 3, on the certainty of returns, I would assume that when you think about the return trade-off, similar to how you're managing the expenses and the investments and looking at those trade-offs, that on an acquisition of size, there would be a hurdle rate of return higher than your typical investment?

Yes. Correct. Yes. Based on all of those factors, yes.

Okay. But by that same token, if you're generating organic growth north of 2%, the pressure to make a transformative acquisition of any sort or a sizable transaction is far less today than it would have been?

Well, we feel very good about our organic growth, for sure. And again, if the right opportunity at the right price, with the right compelling fit for our organization presented itself, we absolutely would evaluate it and be open to doing that, and that would be one means of utilizing our excess capital.

Okay. That is all fair. So to end this on a lighter note, we talked a lot about kind of automation and actually becoming more efficient, removing manual steps and manual labor in some of the processes, et cetera, you're returning to the office at the beginning of March, but we did get you here in live human form at the conference, which is great. So in this -- I mean, for you, the business is different. The business is changing. How does return to office look different as well for you?

So we are -- we've announced that we're going back to the office in some form on March 7. I'm really looking forward to it. We are going to embrace though hybrid and flexibility. So we've -- every -- each employee can have a conversation with their manager about what fits for them and for the business. I mean, I guess the way I think about return to the office, I mean, first, I'd say, I really hope we keep some of the best things from this virtual environment. And believe it or not, there are some good things. One of the best things that I talk about is what I call democratization of access. And what I mean by that is that during this time of being virtual, it didn't matter where you sat or what level of the organization you're in, but we all had the same access. And I'm going to tell a really quick tidbit story. So yesterday, we were -- we had a town hall, and I was speaking on the town hall. And during the town hall, I was getting a chat from an individual because they actually were questioning something in my background. I have an interesting painting in my background that actually sees a new...

We all know it well.

You know it. And it just led to a quick chat during this town hall. And at the very end, she said, "Oh, my gosh," it was actually a person in Risk, middle management in Risk in Europe, and she said, "I can't believe I'm just chatting with the CFO." And I said, "Well, of course." And that's a great example of just something that if we weren't virtual, would never have happened. And it was great for her, it's great for me also. So I hope some of that, we'll keep. Having said all that, I am really looking forward to going back to the office, the in-person collaboration, the energy, the -- actually the informal conversation and connectivity that helps you build relationships and bond, meeting new hires. I still have yet to meet juniors to -- that we still also haven't met. So I do hope that it's -- we take a bit of the best of both.

I'm right there with you, and I appreciate that you and I have now met live in person after 2 years. So thank you so much for joining us, and I hope that we see you back here on a regular basis.

You will. Thank you.

Thank you.