INSIDE ECONOMICS

Mark Zandi:                      Welcome to Inside Economics. I'm Mark Zandi, the chief economist of Moody's Analytics. And this is part two of the podcast we recorded a couple days with Nick Bunker, Adam Ozimek and the team. We focused on the job market in the last podcast. This podcast we're going to be focusing on remote work dynamics. Something that Nick and Adam have spent a lot of time on. So I hope you enjoy the conversation and we'll pick it up here. But let's turn to remote work. And I know both you, Adam and Nick, have done a lot of work in this area. And I mean Adam, you're definitely a remote work, I'll call it a proselytizer, someone who's all in. Remote work is here to stay. It's a game changer and there's a lot of cross currents, but on net it's a definitive positive for the broader economy. And Nick, are you in that camp? Are you a proselytizer as well? I don't know where you stand exactly on this.

Nick Bunker:                     So, I'm definitely of the camp that it's here to stay here, in the extent and for who it's here to stay for or the speed at which more people have access to it. I think maybe, and I don't want to mischaracterize Adam's vision there. I think maybe I'm less of a remote work full or have less of an optimistic outlook. So I think it's definitely here to stay. I think it just might be here to stay for a smaller subset of workers than some people think.

Mark Zandi:                      Yeah, I guess that depends on the technology too and how fast that changes and so forth and so on. Is there data that you look at Indeed, that gives you this perspective on why you think remote work is here to stay?

Nick Bunker:                     Yeah, so I mean the main thing that we look at is job postings. So looking at the text of job postings to look at the rate at which those job advertisements advertise remote work. And it's a pretty expansive definition of remote work. And we've been publishing a series that looks at essentially the beginning of 2019 through October. So Halloween of this year, October 31st of all November data when the month ends. But prior to 2019, the average share of postings on Indeed that mentioned or advertised remote work was about 2.7%. And then that jumped dramatically in the spring of 2020 and it hit its peak of about 10% in February of this year. And has come down and now it's closer to eight and a half as the end of October. So there's been some pull back there. But some portion of that can be explained by the fact that the sectors that have seen the biggest pullback in job postings in Indeed this year, have been the sectors most likely to-

Mark Zandi:                      Tech related kind of.

Nick Bunker:                     Exactly. Yeah. So software development is one category on our site. Those postings have come down dramatically this year. And they're also the sector most likely to advertise remote work. But what's interesting is that as that has come down, the number of postings in software development on Indeed, the rate at which software development job postings advertise remote work, sell flat. So it's not as though employers are... When they're pulling those, it's not as though they're disproportionately pulling down the remote postings or within their postings, they do have [inaudible 00:03:47] away. It's just that it's mostly, at least for that sector composition of technology, where it's just the number of those postings that sector's coming down and employers aren't rethinking their, at least when it comes to advertising remote work, their decision there.

Adam Ozimek:                  You got to give us the fixed weight version Nick. When are you guys going to do the fixed sectoral weight version?

Nick Bunker:                     I mean maybe that's a Christmas vacation project. No, I'm kidding.

Mark Zandi:                      That'd be Christmas for everybody. I'd love to see that. Yeah, to control for it. Two questions. One is, when you say remote work, do you mean full remote work or is that also hybrid remote?

Nick Bunker:                     It is both. So it is an expansive definition and Adam was asking for the fixed weight. But I think the thing that we're working on currently is a better understanding of hybrid and non-hybrid remote work. It's better measuring that and teasing that out in the data series that we share.

Mark Zandi:                      So if you went from two, I'm making this up roughly 2%, 10%, 8%. What is the full remote work share? Is it half that? What is that? Do you have a sense of that?

Nick Bunker:                     So, don't have a precise number in part because that's what we're trying to figure out.

Mark Zandi:                      Yeah, what you're working on.

Nick Bunker:                     Yeah, but I think my sense is that given what we're seeing in other measures of remote work, it's mostly hybrid. So the sectors that are fully remote, that's the minority, I think pretty highly concentrated in sectors like tech. So like software development jobs. Caveat here or sort of personal bias, is that I work at a technology company, I'm fully remote and have been for years. And I think earlier I said-

Mark Zandi:                      You look pretty healthy too. You look very healthy. Seems to be working out for you okay, this whole remote work thing. You see that Marisa? Look how good he looks.

Marisa DiNatale:              Looks great. Yeah.

Mark Zandi:                      He looks fantastic.

Marisa DiNatale:              Very sporty.

Mark Zandi:                      Yeah, very sporty.

Nick Bunker:                     Thank you. Yeah, the Florida sunshine can do wonders.

Mark Zandi:                      I was wondering where you were because you look too relaxed. You're in Tampa aren't you? You're in Tampa, I think.

Nick Bunker:                     Yeah. St. Pete.

Mark Zandi:                      St. Pete.

Nick Bunker:                     It's just across the bay.

Mark Zandi:                      Yeah. See he's even gotten that down now, "I live in St. Pete, I don't really live in Tampa."

Nick Bunker:                     That mostly comes from the fact that... So we moved to St. Pete cause that's where my wife grew up and there's like a big... If you're from St. Pete, "No, not Tampa."

Mark Zandi:                      No, I hear you. Yeah, the Philly suburbs, I go three miles west of here, "Oh, that's not where I live. I don't live over there." So funny.

Nick Bunker:                     It's very specific.

Mark Zandi:                      One other question. You do have international operations. Is the US unique or is this typical across the world, these kind of percentages for remote work?

Nick Bunker:                     Yeah. No American exceptionalism on here. Very similar stories in a variety of markets where you saw a baseline level of postings that advertise remote work spring of 2020, the share postings that mention these kinds of role or opportunities jump and have slowly come down. Again this is not compositionally adjusted, so no fixed weights yet. Thank you for that project, Adam. And some colleagues of mine did research, did some work with the OCD and that was the finding of their research, was across 20 markets that Indeed has operations in and that we have data on, similar trend restrictions and reductions in mobility happened in 2020. They are lifted or removed or people start moving around again and remote postings have drifted down but they haven't returned back to their 2019 level.

Mark Zandi:                      Just my, again anecdotes, when I went on this global world tour, everywhere I went, except for the Middle East in Europe, in Asia, not in the Middle East. It was very much like here in the US, people not coming in. They just don't come into the office. They just don't come in. In London and in Singapore they just don't. Tokyo would be the other exception. They definitely go to the office in Tokyo. Yeah, they definitely go to the office.

Nick Bunker:                     Yeah, our team's a global team and that's been my experience too. Going on Zoom calls with folks in the Toronto office, you can just have a meeting in an open area because there's no one there. Same thing with the London office, stuff like that.

Mark Zandi:                      Yeah. Hey Adam, because you've done a lot of work in this area. Those percentages feel low to me. I mean in my mind's eye, I've got this thought that the percentage of the workforce that's going to be remote and that's why I asked whether it's full or hybrid, and full is going to settle in somewhere around 15 to 20%, is that right? Am I getting that right based on the other data you're looking at or am I wrong?

Adam Ozimek:                  Yeah, I mean Nick's looking at job posts and without industry mix being controlled. So I believe if you look at the relative change, that's probably a better... From two to eight, a quadrupling is probably a better way to think about it than to look at it as 2% versus 8%. When you look at the [inaudible 00:09:06] economy. Right now, actually we're going to have better data I'd assume, the BLS stopped asking its remote work question which was not functioning because it included the caveat, "Are you working remotely because of COVID?" They stopped asking that and I believe next month is going to be the first month when they have new remote work questions when they ask about, in much more detail. So we'll have a better estimate then.

                                             But if you look across a variety of surveys, Gallup, Nick Bloom is running surveys. The current remote plus hybrid is probably like 35 to 45%. Still, substantial with two thirds of that being hybrid. So think of something like 13% fully, and then 30% remote I think is where Bloom's estimates currently stand at. You have to be concerned that there's online survey bias there. So when the BLS numbers come out, they might be lower than that, but I don't think they're going to be orders of magnitude lower. I don't think they're going to look more like that than the 8% number in Nick's work. But they also look at employer expectations. They ask employers, "What are you planning?" And in their data, the long run is not planned to be substantially lower than where we are. So normalization has happened a lot. And another piece of evidence for that is to look at the castle data on office vacancies.

                                             That's pretty consistent with, "This is it. We're back to normal." You don't have some big return to office shoe yet to drop. It's more like, "At best, this is how it's going to be." And I think longer run, as the remote labor market evolves, we're going to see even more full-time because while things are converging back to what employers want, employees want more. And so in the long run, you're going to have this negotiation between employers and employees and you're going to have new firm entrance in a variety of factors that I think are going to... And technology getting better, labor markets evolving that I think are going to push us even further into the fully remote camp. Now at the end of the day, I don't think we're going to end up with more than 20% fully remote, but that's still huge, right? That's going on five workers that-

Mark Zandi:                      Okay, so that kind of rule of thumb I was using, feels about right to you? Like the 15 to 20%-ish where we settle in it sounds about-

Adam Ozimek:                  Well, I think that's fully remote and then I think another 20% [inaudible 00:11:37]. So, I think a third of workers, maybe 40% being hybrid. If you're doing one day a week, I think a lot of jobs can accommodate one day a week for example. So two days a week, three days a week. So, I think 30 to 40% hybrid is probably where... All together. Remote fully plus hybrid is where we'll end up.

Mark Zandi:                      Got it. We're remote. We're fully remote. Our economics world within the Moody's Analytics organization, everyone is able to do their own thing depending on circumstance and culturally what is felt to be appropriate. But we're fully remote now.

Marisa DiNatale:              Except Cris.

Mark Zandi:                      Maybe hybrid.

Adam Ozimek:                  Except Cris

Mark Zandi:                      You can go in. I mean, we have an office. I mean, Chris and three other people go in and I'm not exaggerating. It might be 10 other people, I don't know. You remember our office Adam. It's a five story office building and at most we can't even fill a floor at this point on a given day.

Adam Ozimek:                  Now how long until you guys start decreasing your office size?

Mark Zandi:                      Yeah, there you go.

Adam Ozimek:                  You've got subleases already. Where do you think you'll be in three years? What's your office-

Mark Zandi:                      We're out.

Adam Ozimek:                  [inaudible 00:12:51].

Mark Zandi:                      We're definitely out

Adam Ozimek:                  Whole building, gone?

Mark Zandi:                      Yeah, well, we might be a little unique in that Moody's has other office space in... [inaudible 00:13:01] for example, that's not far away. So we can use that if we need to. But yeah, I think three years from now, if we have any space is going to be a shadow of what it is today. Because that's what people want. A lot of folks say, "Oh, young people want to go into the office." Well, not in my experience. Again this is anecdotal and maybe it's confirmation bias, I'm not sure because I do find a lot of value in the remote work, but even the young people are all in. They want contact. They want, "Can we get together on a regular basis on an offsite," and maybe at conferences that we put on and you can have team building and that kind of thing.

                                             They want that, which I totally get and I think that's makes... But they don't want to have an obligation to go into the office even one day a week. They don't want that. Which by the way, and this is now evolving into, well what does it mean the broader economy, the one thing it's done for us is vastly increased our labor supply opportunities. Because now I got folks that we're hiring in California. Marisa's in California and you were the only one for a long time and now we've got others because we can. There's all kinds of HR issues around, "Well, what salary should they be tied to?" And nexus and legal issues and overseas, "If somebody wants to go from here to there, does Moody's have nexus in that country?" Those kind of issues. But we'll work those through and increasingly it's becoming part of the process.

                                             So we're all in. Let's talk about the economic implications of this. A year and a half ago Adam, you were making the case that this was productivity enhancing and I guess there's lots of different ways remote work affects the economy. Migration flows, regional economic performances, real estate markets, which we're going to come back to in the context of your recent work but also productivity, which I think is probably the... Correct me if you have a different view. The most significant macroeconomic consequence of remote work is what it means for underlying productivity growth. And you were making the case that it is productivity enhancing on that. And I'm sure you feel the same way, but I kind of lost track. Is the research out there that we've seen in the last year and a half, confirming that view or is it changing the view in any way? How do you think about that now?

Adam Ozimek:                  Yeah, I mean so top line productivity's not great. So to the extent that you're looking for that for your evidence, that wouldn't be suggestive about it. But I similarly wouldn't look there for evidence of this impact. I think top line productivity is probably mostly being held down by the level of excess churn in the labor market as an employer. How difficult it is to get people up to speed to be at their peak productivity. It takes time. And when you're dealing with lots of still elevated quits and turnover, that's going to be a drag on productivity and that's going to matter more as your firm hits capacity. When you're dealing in the early stages of the pandemic, all your outputs down anyway, it's not really going to hold you back.

                                             But as you start to be returning to regular levels of demand, trying to produce high levels of demand but you're dealing with churn, what's probably bringing headline productivity down, that's my expectation but that's a pretty qualitative assessment. In the experimental evidence, we've got studies that look at what are the drivers of productivity growth. So Microsoft had this interesting study suggesting that remote workers communicate really well within teams but then it becomes silo between teams. That's an interesting result that is suggestive of possible negative productivity effects. Then you've got straight on experimental evidence. Nick Bloom did a great study on remote work and a lot of the experimental evidence to date has been around call center workers and relatively low-skilled.

                                             This was software developers and other skilled workers at a company and they did an experimental study showing that the productivity effects were positive. So, that's sort of the accumulative evidence we've got so far. And I don't see any reason to revise my beliefs there. I do think a big part of the productivity part is going to come through more dynamism in the economy, new firms and it's really hard to take a company as I'm sure you guys have felt and change your operating procedures to accommodate fully remote work. It's just a different way of doing business. And I think that a lot of companies who struggled to do it are bringing people back to the office and what they will find is that because they said look, "Remote work doesn't work in our industry," and that's their conclusion. And what they're actually finding is, "Remote work doesn't work with our leadership team, with our processes, with our way we work." But some startup is going to figure out how to make it work and they'll be disruptive.

Mark Zandi:                      Yeah, I can't see new companies forming and optimizing around cubes in an office building. I just can't see it, if they can help it. And we have seen a surge in business formation and the increases have come down a bit this year. But in the last couple of years, we've seen really an unprecedented surge in formation. And we know this by looking at taxpayer identification numbers for new companies that are forming. So it's pretty good data and I'm sure there're many reasons for that. But one thought I had was that this was also remote work empowered. I mean, it's much easier to set up shop if you're able to... You don't need an office space to do it. Is there some evidence of that? Any evidence of that?

Adam Ozimek:                  Yeah, I did a study last year showing that the business applications data in a state panel was related to growth and remote workers using Upwork data. So yeah, I've seen pretty strong correlation between... it's not causable but they're happening in the same places basically.

Mark Zandi:                      Yeah. Hey Nick, anything you want to add here on the macro consequences, particularly from the perspective of productivity gains? I mean, anything you're observing that kind of reinforces the point or takes away from the point?

Nick Bunker:                     No, I think I would just really strongly agree with what Adam said about just business' saying that remote work doesn't work for them. I think that's just a, doesn't work for them now. And they might find that they're going to have to adjust that return to office is something that happened on this timeline. But on a longer timeline it's going to be relatively difficult for firms. Maybe in some sectors there'll be some holdouts but to firmly say, "No, five days a week in office." Maybe there'll be holdouts and some firms that survive that way.

                                             But it does feel like as this becomes more and more just a normal way of working, it doesn't seem sustainable for companies to hold out against hybrid. I do wonder again with the growth or permits of it, how much can be done or how much fully remote work would be tolerated or given to workers. That margin I'm curious about and don't have super strong forecast or beliefs in, maybe a little bit more thinking that hybrid remote work would be the very durable kind and the fully remote might be more flexible. But I don't have a super strong certain stance on that.

Mark Zandi:                      I have one other question and this is on the speculative side and everything we do is on the speculate. We're speculating all the time, but this is a higher order of specula speculation and it goes to this distinction between hybrid work and fully remote. I have a hard time figuring out how to make hybrid really work. I suppose unless you're saying, "Everybody's got to be in these two days a week." Otherwise, there's this critical mass within the in-person where you're supposed to be and in-person meetings don't make sense. Because some people are out, some people are in and everyone just goes back to the Zoom meeting because that's the easiest thing to do. Does that resonate with you? I mean, remote seems like... There's nothing in between here. You got to have either hard hybrid, well defined hybrid, or remote. Or is there other ways of thinking about it?

Nick Bunker:                     So my personal experience definitely lines up with that. Especially within teams. They need to be distributed teams and everyone's showing up to the Zoom call in separate places or rooms. Or there's got to be some coordination of people being in the office. Because if you've ever been... I've been in meetings where it's like there's six or seven people in one conference room and then there's three people in different locations and maybe this is the sort of thing, technology gets better but it turns into a situation where it's the people who are the hybrid workers, who are in the office. It's just a different environment than if everyone was just one square in the Zoom.

Mark Zandi:                      Yeah, makes sense. Adam, let's discuss the impact of this remote work on real estate markets. And could you summarize the paper you did? I mean, it's very relevant to remote work, to current rank growth, house price growth, and ultimately to the inflation picture because cost of housing services depends critically on rents and that is a big component of inflation, particularly the CPI, it's one third of the CPI. Can you summarize the study and the results?

Adam Ozimek:                  Yeah, so obviously in the short run housing markets look extraordinarily tight. Price growth is really high and at the same time, remote work has increased substantially. And I think natural question is how much has remote work contributed to the decline of housing affordability? And in this paper with co-authors Greg Howard and Jack Liebersohn, we urge people to take a look at the long run and do our best to think about how the long run might be different. So you've got two components of housing demands that have changed. You have overall housing demand, which is to say any given remote worker is going to want more housing on average. They need the office space, they need the square footage, they want to consume more housing.

                                             Its harder to share a place with four roommates if all four of you are working remotely. It's like you have this positive housing demand effect. The other effect is the location demand, which changes where people want to live. And in the short run, we've had constrained supply. So how do we put all these things together and think about what the long run will be? And the two pieces of information that really underlie our estimates are cross-sectionally, you've seen rent growth be highest and population growth be highest. So the two signs of increasing migration, you've seen that in places where housing is actually more elastic. So the places where the housing supply normally grows more in the long run, that's where people are going, that's where housing demand is strong. And that should reduce house prices in the long run.

                                             So actually the motivation for this paper was a previous paper that Jack and Greg wrote, which was about how migration over the last two decades into inelastic supply cities was a major driver of inflation because it drives up the cost of living and people are moving into places where they don't build. So it's weird to think about this as a macro phenomenon. Normally, we think people movement within the US shouldn't be a macro phenomenon, at sort of first approximation. But if people are moving into the inelastic areas away from the elastic areas, that's going to reduce affordability and increase inflation. And I think now, we're sort of seeing the opposite play out. So it's positive for the long run that where we've seen strong demand as places where people tend to build. That should make rent growth come down. That's our expectation. Rents will fall in the future and it's a positive thing for affordability.

Mark Zandi:                      And what about the short run? Because I think there might be a distinction here between the long run and the short run. In the short run, you listen to the folks in the real estate industry. For example, we had Mark Obrinsky on the podcast, he's the chief economist of the National Multi-Family Housing Council, NMHC, I believe I have that right. And also John Burns, a really good real estate guy who owns his own firm that tracks new housing markets very carefully. And they're making the point that the flows of people from the northeast, Chicago, the West Coast, high rent areas, high house price areas, into the south like Tampa, over to Austin, Mountain West has really juiced up house prices and rent in the areas in which these folks are moving to. Because they're used to seeing high house prices in New York or in LA they come into Boise or Tampa and they say, "Oh this is a bargain." And they drive up the price. A.

                                             Nd it doesn't have much of an impact on the price or rent for where these folks are coming from because these are big markets and they lose 10,000 people, 100,000 people, it doesn't change the dial on measured rent growth and house price growth. And so the net of all of that, is when we saw the surge in outflows back up until a year ago for remote work, that significantly contributed to the house price growth and the rent growth we observed then. And moreover, in the last year we've seen remote work, it's still elevated. People moving due to remote work, it's still elevated but it's definitely down from where it was a year ago. That's helping to contribute to this kind of softening that we're starting to observe in house prices and rents in some of these markets. Does that square with your results, is that contrary to your results or are these folks thinking about it wrong?

Adam Ozimek:                  I think they are thinking about it wrong, because I think you need to look at the two channels, the housing demand channel and the location demand channel. If you look at the places that have lost the most workers as a result of remote work and migration patterns, it's not trivial now. I mean San Francisco, New York City, a lot of downtown high urban, large urban areas, lost significant population as a result of remote work and migration channels. And even there, we saw strong rent and house price growth. So what does that tell you? It can't just be about places receiving remote workers are seeing demand go up and that's the whole story. It's really about this increase in demand all over the... You have household formation everywhere.

                                             So even places that are losing population, household formation's going up strong enough, to cause tight housing markets there. And so, I think that's really a big part of the short term story is that strong household formation growth. And then in the long run, New York is a place that doesn't build a lot of housing. So does San Francisco, they have a pretty vertical supply curve. And so population loss, once you come for that household formation, population loss should bring house prices, relatively speaking. If we look at the relative difference in house prices, those should be relatively lower, these other places should go up, but these are the places that build. So I just think overall, if you take the US population and you move it around and you move it away from the inelastic places and you move it to the elastic places, that's going to be positive for affordability in the long run.

Mark Zandi:                      Cris, what do you think of this? Does that characterize John Burns and Marc Obrinsky's views correctly and how do you think about this in the context of Adam's work?

Cris deRitis:                       Yeah, well I think you characterized it correctly and we are seeing or have seen pretty significant price declines in the San Francisco for example, as people are moving around. I think there's an underlying demographic trend here as well that gets commingled with the remote work and migration that we experienced during the pandemic. So I want to be a little careful there in terms of understanding where the longer term trends are. Because by my mind, yeah, there's this wave of demand that exists, but that's going to fade over time and then we'll see where the pieces land. And just backing up to the previous conversation, I think we want to be a little bit careful when it comes to remote work as well.

                                             I think we're really focusing on services and financial services in particular, but clearly right, we're shifting to more reshoring of manufacturing. I think that fraction of the population that actually can work remotely is going to remain relatively low. At least to my mind. And that will have some implications on these real estate markets as well in terms of where these businesses are going to be formed, where these manufacturing plants for batteries and whatnot are actually going to be formed. So I think that may actually have a more significant driver in terms of future real estate demand than what we're talking about here in terms of remote work, which may have been more of a one time shift. Coming out the pandemic, I don't know if this is a sustained trend that we're going to see here. I threw a lot out there in a short period of time, so feel free to react.

Adam Ozimek:                  A point of clarification though, of course, when you say San Francisco prices have come down, you mean relative to their peak, you don't mean relative to pre-pandemic? They're still quite elevated compared to pre-pandemic.

Cris deRitis:                       Correct, that's right. But they are falling quite rapidly now and they didn't fall nearly as much as other areas during the pandemic or rise, sorry. They didn't rise as nearly as much as other areas.

Adam Ozimek:                  They've lost out. So I think you see that when you look at that relative change, that relative change in prices compared to other parts of the country. That's the fingerprint of remote work there, that San Francisco has become a less desirable place to live. But then you look at how all places have sort of risen in terms of house prices and housing demand, that's the housing demand channel, which is affected by remote work but also obviously strong income growth over that time period. And I think that that's kind of what we're seeing is household formation pulling back as interest rates go up and housing markets are being pulled back-

Mark Zandi:                      And to close the loop... Sorry, go ahead.

Adam Ozimek:                  The relative difference, I expect to be permanent. But this difference between Manhattan for example and the surrounding areas, you've seen this massive decline in the urban CBD weight, the price gradient. You've seen it everywhere and I expect that to be relatively permanent

Mark Zandi:                      And to close the loop on what it means for inflation. You actually, in the study, I think you came up the CPI index will be ultimately 1.8 percentage points lower than it otherwise would have been without the remote work dynamic. Is that right? Something along those lines?

Adam Ozimek:                  1.8% from here. And even a higher number would be to run the counterfactual increased urbanization, which would've continued pushing CPI up. So compared to... We sort of just looked at the change from here versus that, but yeah, 1.8. That's a long run estimate, but I think that if you think about urban area, these CPIs, it's an urban inflation index.

Mark Zandi:                      When you say long run, say 10 years, take 1.8, divide by 10, that's 18 basis points, 0.18 percentage points per year, that's consequential.

Adam Ozimek:                  Yeah, it's hard to say what the long run is going.... How fast we get to the long run for sure.

Mark Zandi:                      Yeah. But still, I mean it's meaningful, it's measurable. It's on the Fed's radar screen. Should be on the Fed's radar screen, right? Interesting. Fascinating. Well, our podcasts are getting longer and longer and I had hoped to keep this one shorter, but how can I do that? These guys are great. I mean the conversation is really good and particularly because they agreed with me. So how could we cut this one short? No possible way. But what it does mean is we got to have you guys back in short order here. And as I said, I think the moment of truth on this whole debate around the labor market is coming here pretty soon. So maybe we can have you back for that. But I want to thank everyone for participating and I was going to give throw out an open ended question, but it's always a very dangerous thing. So I'm not going to do that. I'm going to call it quits. Thanks everyone, it was a great podcast. Have a great Thanksgiving and we'll talk to you soon.