Ted Audio Collective Hi everyone, you're listening to After Hours.
I'm Youngmi and I'm here in Dubai with Felix.
And we are speaking with Mihir, who is holding down the fort in Boston.
We are working hard just to let you know.
What are you guys doing?
Well we had a fun day today because we did a back -to -back thing that's related to last week's podcast.
So I started off the day and I taught Amazon.
And then I handed it off to Felix and he taught Walmart.
So it was really fun.
Oh, that sounds great.
You know, it's interesting how people have just really strong intuitions about these famous companies.
Some people were so convinced that anything that Amazon touches, they're going to win.
Some people were completely on the side of Walmart where they're such an iconic company.
They've been doing so well for such a long time.
So it was a very lively conversation.
And I can't say, you know, if you sat in and you listened, you can't say who actually had the upper hand.
Oh, that's great. Don't get too comfy, come on home.
We will come back, don't worry.
So Felix, I know you brought something interesting to talk about today.
I would love to hear your views on abusive leadership.
Abusive leadership.
Abusive leadership.
I know. It's interesting.
Happens to be a hot topic.
Excellent. Sounds great.
And then I want to talk about what I've decided to call IPO feed.
Oh, yes. That sounds great.
So I'm going to start with a question.
What do the following companies have in common?
Uber, Lyft, Pinterest, Airbnb, Slack, Postmates, Casper, Peloton, Palantir, Robin Hood, Cloud Fair, I could go on and on.
All these IPOs, right?
Really interesting just how many companies want to go public.
And not just how many, but how many big companies want to go public, right?
We're talking about massive tens of billions of dollars valuation going public.
And this is following a bit of a slump in tech IPOs.
And so I want to get your sense of what's going on.
You know, the more general context for this is the number of public companies overall is maybe half of what it was 20 years ago.
And there are pros and cons associated with being a public company.
What do you think is going on?
It partly reflects kind of the relative heat of the valuations in the VC market and the IPO market, which is a way of saying up until about a year ago or a year ago, plus the VC market was very hot, and it was great to be raising money privately.
And frankly, not only was it the traditional VC market, but you had this mega VC trend we've talked about.
And on top of that, there also have been mutual funds playing in that market.
So all of that kind of led to people staying private longer and you had big valuations.
So now the VC market comes down, gets less hot, and the equity markets are still hot, putting aside these last four or five months.
And so it's kind of opportunistic in a way to kind of say, well, VC market down, IPO market hot, let's go do it.
So there's an aspect to this, which is, I hate to say it, just opportunistic timing.
And then the related point, of course, is some of these companies have genuine needs, right?
So some of these companies need capital to grow.
And that's what we would expect people to do, which is go public when they have genuine capital needs.
The other piece of it, which is less concrete is, well, first off, employees have had a large amount of stock for a long time and they're looking to potentially divest.
And similarly, you have these funds who have invested, especially these later stage mutual funds, who also want to kind of get liquidity in their positions and get a real price.
And so all of that's kind of converging, I think, to a very big season of IPOs with very big, interesting companies.
It is such a good summary of these two motivations, which I think then just makes me nervous about this wave of IPOs because it's very hard to distinguish what's the set of companies where you're at a size, you have fabulous growth prospects, and you just really need the capital.
And then tapping public markets will actually set you up for this wonderful growth trajectory.
And what is the set of companies where you think, yeah, probably not quite as profitable as we assumed at some point in time, where, frankly, the motivation to go public might be a little less noble and definitely in the group of companies that you listed, young me, there will be some where I'm supremely
confident that, yes, there is a real story here why you need more capital.
And then there's a bunch of other companies where I'm much less certain about that.
I actually think getting liquidity for investors and getting liquidity for employees is not bad because that's the cycle that we're supposed to be going through.
But the problem is if you're being super opportunistic about it, right, which is you're timing it and you're saying, well, wait, I think there's going to be bad news later or we're really at a top and I should do it now.
That too is not terrible, but it is hardly uplifting.
The really nasty stuff is, and Felix you alluded to this, which is actually I think it's going to get worse later because I have private information.
That's really gross.
And so I'm really being opportunistic in that sense.
So there are shades of gray here.
I think the final piece here that is unique to this time is the valuation levels.
So we're not talking about companies that are a billion or $2 billion of valuation, we're going public.
We're now talking about $50 billion companies and $20 billion companies going public.
And so then the scale and scope of these decisions just takes on an entirely new level.
And the related point, of course, is a lot of these valuations are misconceived.
So that's the other thing that's going on here, which is it's a fever pitch because the stakes are not small.
The stakes are enormous.
I think it's going to be fascinating when some of these filings start to become public up until now, because there has been so much money for these late -stage startups and the valuations, as you guys have noted, have become so unprecedented in many ways.
And so the real test is going to come when we can take a look at some of those filings and see what's behind it.
If you guys could offer advice to these companies, and they came to you and they said, OK, we're thinking about going public.
We're trying to figure out, is this the right moment?
What are the pros and cons?
What's the best advice you would give them?
So I think the first thing to say is focus on the fundamentals, focus on what you need for your business and focus on your employees.
And if you feel a pressing need on those dimensions, then it's a great decision.
Second, focus on your investors.
It's OK to focus on your investors, but don't give in to very short -term needs because you're going to end up opening yourself up to a whole avalanche of new investors.
And then finally, it's a very deeply introspective moment.
If you're a founder, you really need to ask yourself what you want out of the next decade.
And so there's an element to this, which is look inside at your heart and figure out whether you really want to be a public company CEO and everything that entails.
I would emphasize this last point, life as a public company, life as a CEO of a public company is just profoundly more complicated than the time when you're private, in the sense that this skill of managing capital markets, this skill of managing expectations, is just something that, if you have never
done it, I think no one is born being very good at it.
Sometimes when I write cases, I would often look at transcripts, calls with analysts and the back and forth.
People who do it well, it's such a skill.
And there's definitely a steep learning curve.
To build on yours is I think a lot of companies go public and they think they have some sense of how much scrutiny is going to come crashing down on them.
The regulatory compliance, the quarterly pressure, managing shareholders, it's an unbelievable amount of scrutiny.
And I think that the tendency for a lot of companies that go public is to tolerate the scrutiny.
I guess the first thing I would advise any company, if you're ready to go public, then you have to be ready to not tolerate the scrutiny but embrace it, to use it as an opportunity to instill real discipline in your company.
You have to make sure your financial controls, your regulatory controls, your governance controls are in top shape to really view it as an opportunity to level up your company in many ways.
And the second thing I would say is to focus on the long term.
There is, and I think it's a little bit of a myth that investors are always going to push you into short -term thinking.
And the reason why it's somewhat true but it's also somewhat of a myth is investors tend to self -select.
And so if you are really diligent about making sure that everybody in the market understands that the way you're going to be running this company is to create long -term value, you do have an opportunity to influence the composition of your shareholder base.
I think that's exactly right.
And certainly the latter point, and this is true for public company CEOs, which is they don't realize that they can pick their investors.
It's conceivable that you can try, by the way you talk about the company, to actually select the investors you want to select.
And then the first point you made is really interesting to me because you're right, everybody looks at this as if it's a necessary evil.
And it's like every transition in life, which is the more you look at it as a necessary evil, the more likely you are to fail in that transition.
But if you look at it as something to embrace, then it's much more likely you're going to set yourself up for success.
And I think that's exactly what goes wrong with these founders, it's like oh geez, they're these stupid investors, I've got to deal with them, and it's a necessary consequence of this stupid game I'm playing.
That's just a disaster waiting to happen.
It's even true for this idea of short -termism.
Often what capital markets want to see is some sense of predictability that you're really in control of your operations.
And then, of course, predictability just comes from how far out the window are you leaning when you make predictions about the performance of your business.
And if you're overly optimistic, you get a lot of variance in the degree to which you meet expectations.
If you're a little more conservative, then of course you get more predictability.
So even the predictability part of the conversation that I think many people struggle to manage, in a way it's much more influenced by the choices of the CEO and by the choices of the company than people realize.
One of the most impressive CEOs I know is someone who has just really a remarkable track record.
And I remember asking him one time, what's your secret to success?
And he said, whenever I speak with investors, anybody who wants any piece of my company, I say to them, are you looking for off -the -charts growth?
And then I say, if you are, this is not the right company because what I'm here to deliver is on -the -chart growth.
My goal is consistent growth that's on the chart.
If you're looking for off -the -chart, go somewhere else.
And I thought that was such a thoughtful way to think about how to manage the company going forward.
But before we run out of time, I got to ask you about this list of companies that I read out.
I'm going to read it again, which is the company, the one or two company that you're really going to be paying attention to.
Uber, Lyft. And just to be clear, young me, I have to give the finance caveat, which is this is assuming valuation is correct or something, right?
Meaning it's not about relative value, it's just about the business model.
Uber, Lyft, Pinterest, Airbnb, Slack, Postmates, Casper, Peloton.
So I'll take a pair that I feel differently about.
I'm optimistic about Airbnb.
And I think it's almost the poster child of a company where you see why they need extra capital.
The company that I'm maybe most nervous about is Pinterest.
I should say I'm a Pinterest user.
I love Pinterest. But what I see is just a replay of the Snap IPO where Snap announces that they go public.
Instagram copies the Stories feature.
And then, of course, now Pinterest is going public.
What's the Instagram announcement?
Oh, the Collections feature that they have, which is now a private feature on Instagram, is going to get public.
In which case, one more time, right when you go public, we're copying the key feature that allows the company to grow.
So I'm quite a bit nervous about that one.
So I'll go next. One company is Casper.
I got to confess, I'm really down on Casper for a whole host of reasons.
The other company that I'm keeping my eye on, not because I'm down on them, but because I'm curious, and that's Slack.
Slack is a fascinating company, super sticky, amazing, amazing retention.
The companies that they've infiltrated, they have become deeply embedded in the culture of those companies.
But now they're starting to try to penetrate this enterprise base where Microsoft is very, very strong, which is not to say they're not going to be able to do it.
In many ways, I'm rooting for them, but it's just going to be very, very difficult.
So I'll be keeping my eye on that one.
Is that a negative call on Slack or a positive call on Slack?
No, it's not. No, it's more if I'm keeping my eye on them.
What about you here?
What are you keeping your eye on?
I'm a little bit more black and white.
Young me, not so subtle as you, which is, I think, so I think on the positive side...
You mean like in life or just with this one question?
Yeah, possibly in life.
So I think on the positive side, I think Slack and Cloudflare, they're less sexy.
They're enterprise plays, and I think there's a significant likelihood they get taken out at some point, and they are super sticky.
People love them. Cloudflare also happens to be run by some former students of mine who I think very, very highly of, but those are both really interesting.
And then on the opposite side, it's these consumer -facing companies that the value proposition is very hard to understand.
So both Postmates and Peloton.
Postmates, because I think the unit economics are crazy, and I don't know how they make sense, and Peloton has the feel of, you know, somebody who does not have a technology company but has basically like a capital -intensive product company pitching themselves as a technology company.
And I just don't know how deep the market is.
Oh, we've got to talk about Peloton.
Oh, but I think Peloton is like a fab.
Yeah, we've got to talk about Peloton.
Okay, you've both drunk the coolant.
I'm sorry to hear that.
But even this conversation has made me think, wow, we're going to have a lot to talk about in our podcast in future episodes.
All these companies go.
Yes. There you go. There you go.
So Felix, you wanted to talk about abusive leadership.
Yes. The reason why I wanted to talk about abusive leadership is that it's been in the news lately.
Mostly I think instigated through the behavior of a member of the U .S.
Senate, Amy Globuchar, and all these stories about alleged behavior that just seems like mistreating staff.
There's this very famous comb story where people talk about the fact that a staffer brought salad and the staff person did not bring any utensils to eat the salad.
So she used her comb to eat the salad.
And then after she was done, she made the staffer clean the comb.
She allegedly threw a binder at a staff person.
And so just like all of these stories, they go, oh my God, what is going on here?
And of course, you know, once you think a little bit about it, it's not just politics.
It's in the C -suite.
We have lots of people.
Bill Gates famously mistreating people.
I think his co -founder Paul Allen left Microsoft after only six years, describing the time with Bill Gates as living in hell and that he could no longer tolerate the browbeating.
Larry Ellison, I think, is the guy who's famous for his temper tantrums sometimes last for up to an hour or so.
So what do you make of this?
Why is it that we see so much abusive behavior, and then is this all bad?
Is there some sort of justification that I don't know about?
What's going on? Well, so, yeah, so I think a couple things are going on.
So, you know, clearly it's hard to stand up for bad behavior and temper tantrums and anger management problems.
But, you know, there is something underneath it which is valuable.
These, at their best, because at their worst, they're just anger management problems.
At their best, they're manifestations of somebody creating urgency in organizations that are prone to complacency.
So in organizations that are pretty sclerotic where things are not happening, someone has got to raise the roof and yell fire.
And in part what you're seeing with these kinds of CEOs is a sense of urgency that they need to do things differently and they need to do things fast.
And I can respect that.
And, of course, it would be better if you were able to communicate urgency in a kind way.
But I think the reality in some of these organizations is it's not that these people are nasty and mean.
It's that they understand that urgency is so important that they want to do that.
What do you think, Yang -Li?
You know, I do. It's harder than ever to be a CEO.
And as Mehear said, we demand such high performance now from companies on so many dimensions.
And we not only demand high performance, but we demand it at a velocity with a kind of urgency that has only accelerated over time.
And I think that puts an enormous amount of pressure on these folks.
Having said that, I think it's completely unacceptable.
It's completely unacceptable.
And I think historically we have not done a good job of reining that kind of behavior in.
And because we have said, you know, there's this gray area between being tough and being essentially a bully, we've let it slide particularly in the cases where the CEOs are performing at an otherwise high level.
And while it feels like we are imposing yet another requirement on these leaders for whom we already require so much, indeed, there is now this additional requirement that you need to behave yourself.
You're getting paid a lot of money to lead this organization, and you can do it with toughness, but you don't have to be abusive about it.
The strange part about the conversation is the premise of the conversation I don't think is quite right.
The conversation often goes like, is there a level of success?
Is there a level of effectiveness that explains or that allows the CEO to get away with abusive behavior?
And I think the premise that abusive behavior results in better performance is just plain wrong.
If you look at the people who have done this type of work, based on surveys, based on experiments, based on simulation studies, what they will tell you is abusive behavior just does not work.
In fact, we know it undermines morale.
It drives away the very best people in these organizations.
Actually, Amy Klobuchar is a great example.
She has the highest staff turnover compared to anyone else in the Senate.
So rather than thinking about how much performance do we want to see in order to excuse your abuse, we just need to get rid of the myth that abuse works in the first place.
But I think what's going on is more subtle.
I think what's going on is, well, underneath it all, these are people who are trying to create urgency in very difficult settings.
Of course, I'm not defending abusive behavior.
I want to be clear.
No one's defending abusive behavior.
But I think if we make it too simplistic and we say, well, abusive behavior is bad, you shouldn't do it, that's also kind of crazy, which is it's a manifestation of something which is an important managerial trait, which sometimes goes over the edge, and sometimes people interpret it as going over the edge,
and they just don't happen to like it.
My intuition is that you have to build up to the point where you begin to throw binders.
In companies with good governance, you don't let it get that far.
And at some point, someone needs to intervene and say, this is unacceptable, and here's why it's unacceptable, but young me, I want to challenge this in a way, which is because I find myself in this uncomfortable position of defending abusive behavior.
What's the counter view?
The counter view is that all of this is a manifestation of people with feelings that are too brittle, and pretty soon what would be normally considered effective management is going to be considered abusive behavior.
So for example, let's do a hypothetical.
So young me, you're my boss, and I come to you and I give you a presentation, and it's terrible.
And you say to me, this is garbage, and it's completely unacceptable.
And take it back and do it again.
And I come back the next day and I give you something else, and you say, it's garbage, to my face, and then you fire me.
Is that abusive behavior?
Is that unacceptable?
I don't think it's inappropriate to say to someone that's unacceptable.
When you start to say that's garbage, I mean even your choice of words there is very interesting, right?
Garbage really matters.
Garbage is different than saying it's unacceptable.
Now, is it a fireable offense?
No. I don't think so.
But this is how it starts, right?
It starts with people not being civil to each other.
It starts with people to get a little bit too loose with how they speak with each other.
The tension though is what I would be potentially doing in that setting is I'm trying to send signals about performance, right?
I'm trying to send signals through the organization about what is performance.
And I think the concern I feel surprisingly kind of welling up inside me is this all sounds great, Lovey Dovey stuff, but just the reality is that there are times when one has to send very crude signals through an organization.
Is it Lovey Dovey for me to say, that's unacceptable, I need to go back and redo it, and then you come back.
And I said, that's still unacceptable.
Go back and do it again.
Well, what about firing you, young me?
What about firing you?
The firing question is a hard one to do in the abstract because if it's clear that you can't meet the standards associated with the particular role that you're in.
You've given me a second chance.
I'm not... Then I think at some point if you go through the proper steps of performance evaluation and so on and so on, yes, eventually you're probably not going to last at that organization.
And I think you begin to develop a reputation as being a really tough boss, which is different than developing reputation as being an abusive boss.
For me to have a conversation with you and say, look, I give you three chances to get this right, and I'm beginning to question whether or not this is a good fit.
Because it seems like you're not happy, you're not meeting the performance standards that we have set in this organization.
And as a result, I think we need to go our separate ways.
You know, that's tough.
For sure that's tough.
Yeah. This goes to the tension, though.
I think that is really hard, which is, yes, abusive behavior is bad, but abusive behavior is on a spectrum relative to being tough.
Right? And we don't want people to be abusive.
But we do want people at times to be tough.
If the point of it all is to show that you really care, that you're passionate, say, about the quality of the presentation, I can think of a million ways to express passion.
And in that conversation, I don't really know that there is a need or there's room for uncivil conversation.
There are magnificent leaders out there that really walk that line.
They show emotion, they raise their voices, but they stand the right side of appropriateness.
And then I think there are leaders who cross the other side.
And I think if you've worked for one or the other, you absolutely know the difference.
I think one of the interesting things about what you're saying, young me, is we know where is that line.
And I think what I'm taking away from this is, in part, whenever you personalize that passion and you make somebody the object of your fury in any way, it's problematic.
But to be furious about the state of the affairs is perhaps okay.
I guess what I want to try to do is preserve the urgency, but also stop the pain that people are feeling.
There's really interesting academic research that is exactly what you say me here.
So lots of people look at when you have a leader who shows abusive behavior, when are the consequences more devastating, say, for team morale or team performance?
And one of the consistent findings that they have is, if you scream or if you abuse a group of people, that is far less damaging to everyone, as opposed to a tactic where you single out a particular person.
And I think the intuition is exactly the way you described it.
The one more thing I would add there, though, is that I started out by saying that I find the behavior unacceptable.
This is one of those areas where I feel strongly about, but I don't think that when that kind of behavior is manifest, your first instinct is to fire that person.
And the reason I say that is, these are social nuances that are really difficult, and you have to have a certain level of EQ, I think, to be able to walk that line.
And I think people deserve a chance to kind of come back a second time and try it again and then get better at it over time, as long as they're showing improvement.
And then the other dimension, of course, is that our perception of these things is so highly gendered.
Yeah. Mm -hmm. And that's why you would hate to see the first reaction to this kind of behavior to be of, okay, well, this person is not fit for this role.
I don't think that's true.
I just want to take you up on the gendered aspect of this.
Presumably, I think what you're saying is that women are going to get accused of abusive behavior at a lower threshold.
Yes. Right? Which is, I think, the gendered aspect of this is men can do a lot of things and get away with it, and women cannot.
As soon as they pass a line that men could pass, they're going to get accused of being abusive.
This is all the more reason to be cautious, though, right?
Meaning, this language of abusive then really serves a counterproductive purpose.
But I don't want to be in a place, too, where we say, well, therefore, it's acceptable.
Yeah. Mm -hmm. So, for example, in the case of Klobuchar, we started out by talking about the senator who's running for president, and the question that's been asked about her is, is it disqualifying the fact that she has this temper?
I find that behavior absolutely unacceptable.
Is it disqualifying?
Well, it depends. She's obviously gotten a lot of feedback in recent days that it's had a really pernicious effect on her staff.
And the question is, is she going to begin to eliminate the behavior?
So, I recognize the gender dynamic.
At the same time, if you have the highest staff turnover of everyone in the Senate, doesn't that give you pause?
Aren't you thinking about, oh, why are people leaving me at a far greater rate than everyone else?
And again, I don't want to defend it.
But I can imagine her thinking, yeah, I've got really high turnover because, you know, I'm tough as nails, and I'm in this group of people where we have high turnover.
I mean, I don't know well enough what her social intelligence is.
I don't know how sensitive she is to the effect that she has on the people around her.
These are things that I just don't know.
I think the other angle on this in the political sphere for Klobuchar is, the problem is not the anger management.
I think the problem is what it reveals about someone's ability to empathize with people who are lower down in a hierarchy and to understand what they're going through, right?
Does she understand what it's like to be serving a boss and to live that way?
And does she have broad enough empathy to actually function as a politician who's going to embrace people who are not like her?
But think about her background.
So, does she know what it's like to be on the other end of it?
She worked in law firms.
She's worked in the toughest, toughest environments imaginable earlier in her career.
And my guess is that she was on the other end of that kind of behavior.
I mean, again, don't want to excuse it.
But, you know, I do think it's a moment, though, where it'll be interesting to see whether or not she's able to change.
I think, young me, this is an opportune time for Felix and I to discuss with you a little bit your style in this podcast.
Was it when I threw the stapler at your head?
Was that at the turning point?
My problem is trying to raise your standards.
I need to raise your standards.
Okay, so you guys have pics for me this week?
We do, as always. I have this experience now that in many products I begin to see just the power of artificial intelligence.
And the little app that I wanted to recommend is called Hopper.
Hopper has been around for a little while and essentially gives you predictions about flight prices.
You know, you fire up the app, you're given the destination, and it has a beautiful visualization of dates when you might be able to travel, and then the level of prices that they predict in a beautiful color code.
And the last few times when I used it, I just thought it was amazingly accurate.
Literally they nailed the prices almost down to the dollar.
And you would see that even the differences between days are so couple of dollars up, couple of dollars down, where you just think the accuracy that the algorithm provides is really quite astounding.
So it's an app called Hopper.
There are other prediction apps.
This is one that I particularly like.
Nice. Ooh, okay. That sounds great.
Mehear, what about you?
So I'm always looking for ways to transition from the virtual world to the physical world because I feel like too much of my life is in the virtual world.
And in particular, I am going to give a pitch to photo books.
So in the last several years, the best gifts I've given or received have been photo books, which are effectively just taking your photo's library and then flipping them into printed books.
You can just take a bunch of photos, let's say, from a vacation and then organize them into a book.
And in fact, the software is good enough now that they will organize it for you in a book.
And because of the time stamps, they'll get it temporally correct.
And so within a few minutes, you can get a designed book with pictures.
And the kids actually love it.
And actually, the kids love designing it.
And in particular, I want to give a pitch to Motif, which is actually the extension I use within photos.
So you remember when we were in high school, and every year at the end of the year, you would get a yearbook, a physical yearbook?
Oh, yeah. So what you're basically saying is you could actually create a family yearbook every year if you wanted to, just a little keepsake for your family to capture all the year's memories.
That's so nice. It's such a nice idea, actually.
You take your 50, 80 favorite photos, and then you just upload it to Motif, and you say, make a book out of it.
And by the way, you get a nice Howard -bound book for $35, $40.
You know, shipped to you.
Oh, that is very nice.
Anyway, so that's my pitch.
Okay, so my recommendation this week is a movie that I watched on the plane, and the movie is called Shoplifters, and it's this movie from Japan.
Oh, I've seen that.
It's wonderful. It's so good.
Yeah, it's so good.
So it's this movie about a family that's living on the edge of poverty, and shoplifting is a way of life, essentially.
And what's so amazing about this movie is it paints a picture of modern Japan from a perspective you don't usually see when you're in Tokyo.
And the story is so satisfying, it's so intelligent, and the details are rendered in such a meaningful way.
It's one of these movies that you watch, and then it just sort of stays inside you for a long time.
So I saw it on the plane on the way over, and the whole time I'm here, it's still sort of with me.
It's really amazing, right?
Felix is like that, right?
You know what stayed with me for a while is this under the most difficult circumstances you can imagine, how people can be so incredibly generous with one another.
It was so touching to see people being incredible in their generosity under really extraordinary circumstances.
Yeah, so what a great recommendation.
Yeah, it won the big prize at the Cannes Film Festival, and then it was nominated for an Academy Award, I think, in the foreign film category.
Didn't win. They never choose the right one, but it's really...
Ah, Mihir, you would love it.
It sounds really good.
Are you sure it's not British?
Sorry, it sounds great.
It sounds fantastic.
But it's the other country you love.
That's true. That's true.
This is the other country I love.
Anyway, okay, we gotta go, we gotta go.
It's so late. Thanks everyone for listening.
This is After Alex.
I'll see you next time.
