Ted Audio Collective.
HBR presents. Hi everyone, you're listening to After Hours.
I'm Yang Mi. I'm Mi here.
And I'm Felix. So we are taking this episode in the 11th hour.
It is very late on Tuesday night because we have decided to devote this entire episode to the fallout from the coronavirus.
Now, we know we have listeners from all around the world, including countries that have been hit very hard by the virus.
And we're sensitive to the fact that getting a handle on the spread and taking care of those who are ill, nothing is more important than that.
Having said that, on this podcast, we've decided that we aren't quite comfortable talking about the virus itself.
It's just not our comparative advantage, let's just say.
There's so many better sources for that as well.
And I think we also feel like there's a whole other side to this about the way it impacts our lives, businesses, the way we lead, and what we should be doing from an economic perspective.
That's where we potentially have more to offer.
Right. So we are going to talk about some of the economic implications.
But before we do that, one quick housekeeping note.
Many, many of you signed up for our mailing list, so thank you all for that.
And we want you to know that we sent out our first test email a couple of days ago.
If you did not receive it, check your spam folder.
It's probably in there with a little welcome note and instructions for how to submit questions to the podcast.
If you signed up, check your spam folder.
OK, you guys ready to go?
Yeah, we are. Let's do it.
OK, so let's get into it.
And let's bear in mind that this is a fast moving situation.
So because we are taping on Tuesday night, there's a possibility that some of what we discuss will be outdated by the time you're listening to this.
But nonetheless, the big economic news over the past couple of days has been, of course, the dramatic downward movement in the stock market.
Now, we understand that the stock market is not the economy and it's important not to overreact, but it's not meaningless either.
So my first question to both of you is how alarmed should people be?
And more broadly, assuming we can expect lots of market volatility in the days ahead, how should people be absorbing the headlines both up and down and reacting to them?
Yeah, so that's a great set of questions.
And maybe we should just begin by thinking about in general what stock markets do and then think about why it's gotten so crazy and then what to do.
So I think it might be useful just to begin by thinking about what markets do, which is they try to look into the future, predict the future and then think about how risky the future is.
Now, you can imagine what's happened over the last several weeks is that that level of uncertainty about what the future looks like has just expanded incredibly.
That's going to give rise to what we've seen, which is just this remarkable level of movements, both positive and negative, very, very large movements.
We had a down movement of an 8%.
We had an up movement of 5 % on a couple of different occasions.
And so that is a function of people's expectations changing, and you combine that with some irrationality and some sentiment, and you're going to see that happening.
So when you have these very novel outcomes where we don't know what's going to happen and it can range from a mild situation where some people get sick, but we cure it to really global pandemic, you're going to see a ton of volatility.
And so that's what we have got to get used to doing.
You add a little bit of a crazy war between Russia and OPEC about oil supply.
You add a collapse of bond yields, which means that expectations of future growth have kind of come down a lot.
And you end up with a crazy situation, both on the upside and downside.
And in particular, think about it even more deeply.
You say to yourself, well, gosh, there's a whole bunch of potential supply shocks here.
There's a whole bunch of potential demand shocks here.
One has to remember that markets are trying to process a huge amount of information in a very uncertain time.
And what you're going to have is a continued spate of just remarkable volatility as a result of that.
If I can add two things, I think the market movements also reflect, anticipate a policy.
So is the Fed going to step in and if it does, how will it do it?
Is the government going to pass a big stimulus package?
And in particular from the government, we haven't had the clearest of signals, how they think about the current crisis.
And as a result, that adds to the movements that you just described.
Exactly. I think one of the main difficulties in figuring out what all of this means longer term is that you can think of two kinds of decisions.
I was going to buy a car and now, because I'm uncertain what the future will bring and maybe my model is not available because some parts are not available.
I'm not going to buy the car now, but almost for sure I will buy the car sometime in the fall.
That is a big part of the economic response is just shifting expenditure over time.
And then there is a second type of response where actually expenditure doesn't happen.
It's the flight that I don't take is the South by Southwest festival that doesn't happen this year.
And you can't get that back.
And you can never get that back.
And so in a way, if we calculate the likely losses, one of the difficulties is always to figure out what's really just transitory.
Yes, yes, not going to happen this quarter, but it's going to happen sometime later this year.
And what is permanent?
A loss in income and not just permanent in the sense of loss of income, Felix, but just maybe permanent in the sense of changed ways of doing business.
Right. So will we actually not demand products in the same way?
Will people not fly around the world in the same way?
So that's even in some sense, just permanent changes in behavior, which could conceivably arise as well.
Yes. Although there I think the profitability consequences of those kinds of.
So say we were always skeptical about video conferencing.
Now we figure out, oh, my God, video conferencing actually works far better than we anticipated.
And it's also cheaper than having people fly around.
So, yes, we might change our behavior and some of those might actually feed into longer term profits.
I think it's also important to remember that so much of the uncertainty that you see in the market comes from the fact that investors have lost a lot of anchors that tend to provide confidence.
So, of course, we've lost the economic anchor because of the uncertainty around the virus.
But we're missing other anchors as well.
So we're missing the leadership anchor with people lacking confidence that our elected officials and our federal agencies are fully on top of the situation.
We're missing the policy anchor with people unconvinced that the specific actions that have been taken, like the Fed cutting interest rates last week, is right or sufficient.
If we could begin to restore some of these anchors.
So imagine a super aggressive public health response akin to what's happening in Korea, along with a super muscular fiscal response that would almost certainly make a difference.
So we have to keep in mind that part of this is trying to forecast the future, but there's a huge psychology game at play here as well.
And so some simple actions could really begin to bring at least a semblance of stability.
Now, having said that, when people see the market going up and down, should they react?
Should everybody be selling stocks and loading up on bonds and buying gold?
Given our conversation right now, one of the things to remember is that pretty significant movements in the stock market are actually not that unusual.
So every month, there's roughly an 8 % chance that the S &P 500 falls by 5%.
You should think that the S &P 500 will fall by 10 % about every year and a half or so.
So yes, the kind of volatility that we've seen in the last couple of days is unusual.
But the fact that the market moves in quite dramatic fashion, if you are invested in the market, I really, really hope that this is not news to you.
And in particular on that, we have lived through this remarkable bull market.
We have lived through the last 12 months, which prior to this kind of sell -off was absolutely amazing.
People are looking at, oh my God, I lost so much money in the last six weeks.
And the answer is well, maybe.
But you know, the stock market, certainly the NASDAQ, is up relative to where it was a year ago by 7%, 8%.
And even the S &P 500 is kind of flat relative to where it was a year ago.
So the world has not come apart.
This is not 2008. But to answer your question, what should people do?
And I think for the vast majority of the people, the answer is do nothing different.
Maybe with two caveats.
First, I think it's a really good time to just look at your overall asset allocation and make sure it's where you thought it was.
And the reason I say that is the market has run up for such a large amount over the last 12, 13 months that you may well be over -invested in equities.
And you may want to think about shifting assets around.
And now, not because of this dislocation per se, but it is a good time to check in.
Similarly, many people had come to feel like they were hugely under -invested.
You know, like they had cash sitting on the sidelines and I don't know what to do with it.
Well, it may be a good time to reassess that.
So it's just a very useful juncture to like check in on your asset allocation and think whether you are comfortable where you are.
You do not want to move into a space where you're checking the market all the time or responding to it going up or going down.
But just use it as a juncture to say, wait a second, like what actual fraction my retirement assets are in stocks and in bonds?
Is it the right fraction?
Am I roughly in the right place?
And then kind of apply that strategy and then forget about it again.
I think one of the questions that I always ask myself is seeing the point that you made earlier me here that were roughly back where we were last year around this time.
And just ask yourself, how poor did you feel last year?
And if you didn't feel particularly poor, if you didn't feel particularly unprepared for retirement, or if you didn't feel particularly stressed about anything having to do with the finances, there is really no reason for you to feel differently.
Other than thinking, well, if I'm invested in the stock market, I know it's going to go up and down.
And am I really the kind of person with the kind of wealth, with the kind of income that can easily withstand the turbulence?
And in that sense, it's a good moment to rethink your asset allocation.
But even if you decide my asset allocation is too aggressive, I should cut back on the risks that I'm taking, the answer is not sell now.
The answer is you may want to adjust over long periods of time.
Over many months, what you typically see with high volatility is that people sell too late and they miss the turning point.
That should be your expectation.
Even if you think you're going to see when the turning point will be here, you will not see it.
And then you get into the situation that you have a lot of cash in the sideline, and the point to reinvest is never quite right.
So regarding your point about just knowing what your asset allocation is, I saw the most hilarious tweet.
And it was this young millennial tweeted out, everyone keeps telling me not to look at my 401k as if I know how to look at my 401k.
It was very funny. Anyway, the question on everyone's mind, of course, is, does this mean we are headed toward a recession?
What's your answer to that?
I think most of the evidence now today is, yeah.
And the reason that I think that is in part because the best predictions, people pay attention to the stock markets, but the best predictions of things like recessions are actually the bond markets.
And bond markets have seen this just remarkable collapse in interest rates and yields.
What does that mean?
You know, roughly what those interest rates reflect are expectations of future economic growth and to some degree inflation.
So the collapse of those rates means that now the consensus is we are heading for a recession.
Now, that was almost predated a chunk of the corona stuff.
And so that has already been kind of what the markets have been saying.
And now, of course, we have, at least I think is a baseline, six months of tremendous uncertainty, which I think makes it more likely than not that yes, we'll see a recession on top of obviously being 10 years into a cycle that is really very long in the tooth, you know, more generally.
I agree. I think it's likely that we're going to see a recession at the same time.
I don't think we should think of the Great Recession of 2008, 2009 as sort of the model of what to expect.
But it's definitely a contraction.
And just think about how long it will take businesses to repair their supply chains to make sure we're roughly where we were right before the coronavirus hit.
And so that is not going to be something that can happen overnight.
Yeah. And just a quick reminder, the definition of a recession is pretty arbitrarily specific.
It's two quarters of negative economic growth.
And so if you just look down the horizon and to Felix's point, think about how long it's going to take for businesses to begin to reboot and restart their supply chains and for demand to begin to pick up.
You could easily imagine that taking two quarters plus.
Right. Right. Okay.
So let's take a quick break.
We have a lot more to talk about when we come back.
We'll talk about what the federal response should be.
So let's talk a little bit about what the federal policy response should be.
Let's begin by talking about monetary policy and then we'll talk about fiscal policy on the monetary side.
The Fed did an emergency rate cut last week.
What was your response to that emergency rate cut?
The Fed is signaling that there might be additional rate cuts to come.
So what are your reactions?
So, you know, look, I think it makes some sense and let's just think about why.
So monetary policy at these times can be useful, not because it will alleviate the pain of somebody who might be out of work in a very specific way, but because it signals to the wider world that the government is willing to do something dramatic to stabilize markets and to provide liquidity to people.
And I think that can be a powerful thing.
So it's not like so specific, like a very coronavirus targeted stimulus, right?
But it is a broad sense in which we signal to the world, please expand your activity, please borrow, please invest, go and do those things.
And we're willing to kind of underwrite that in some general sense.
The problem is, first, we've been living with very low interest rates for a very long time, and we are at a point now where we're kind of pushing on a string, and there is not that much quote unquote ammunition left if things get worse.
And so the trade off is, should they have done it now or should they have waited?
What has happened is markets have gotten so addicted to these interest rate cuts and so addicted to low interest rates that I think the Fed had to do it.
Is it going to be hugely stimulative?
No. And will it actually help address kind of the concerns in the market?
Only maybe. And maybe worst of all, it's going to kind of forgo our ability to use that as a tool in the future.
So I'm altogether quite ambivalent, you know, meaning, yeah, they did it.
It's fine. It's not going to help a huge amount.
But importantly, we lost that tool in the future.
I think one of the interesting changes is in the last 20, 30 years, the Fed has become much more responsive to changing economic conditions.
If you go back to the 40s and 50s, it would basically take forever for anything to happen.
And then I think there was much more aggressive management of the economy.
Now, I think one of the key challenges is that it's asymmetric.
Every time anything happens, we're cutting rates right away.
So what was the response to the trade war?
Oh, of course, we cut rates.
And so in a way, one of the big questions is, well, if you're so quick to cut rates, isn't the appropriate policy response to then also say, well, are we going to increase rates relatively quickly once we see that things go OK?
And that's the part that the Fed hasn't done.
Yeah, we've had this amazing expansion.
But, you know, there's a reason why house prices increased by as much as they did.
And that has a lot to do with the super, super low interest rates.
If you keep interest rates almost permanently low, we're ending up with these asset bubbles that have dramatic, dramatic consequences for people who save, have dramatic, dramatic consequences for people who don't own real estate.
I think you've put your finger on the reason for my ambivalence, Felix, which is, yeah, it's OK, fine, we're going to do it now.
But God, it feels like we lost this opportunity over the last five, six years to renormalize interest rates.
And the consequences of that have been so problematic for your point, Felix, which is the way risk is being mispriced, the huge amount of wealth that has kind of showered down on people who are asset owners.
And by the way, the kind of enormously punishing time that has meant for people who are regular savers into like CDs, who don't get anything.
And then people who are not asset owners who have to rent houses, have to kind of compete with the purchasing power of people who are asset owners.
I think you guys both said it so well.
The one other thing I will add is that the small segments of the population that will immediately take advantage of the cut in interest rates are the people who need it the least.
I mean, Youngmee, are you telling me you got a call from your mortgage broker?
Like you're getting ready to refi?
Absolutely. The mortgage broker is too busy to call anyone because his phone rings off the hook.
Yeah, but this is the irony, right, Youngmee, that you're referencing, which is as these rates collapse, and that's not just the Federal Reserve, it's the declining bond yields more generally, who are the big beneficiaries.
It's the asset owners and it's people refinancing.
Okay, so then let's talk about fiscal policy.
Before we get into the details of any of the specific policies that are on the table, we should say that, of course, the highest priority response should be the public health response.
The most healthy thing we can do for the economy right now is to simply get a handle on the virus.
If we had a super aggressive plan for controlling the spread, making sure everyone who needs to be tested can get tested, providing care for people who've been infected.
These are actually the best possible things we could be doing for the economy right now.
In addition to that, there are a bunch of other things on the table.
So, for example, the president right now is talking up a temporary payroll tax cut.
I'd love your response to that, as well as the myriad of other policy options on the table.
What do you guys think?
Well, I think you want to measure any sort of response against how quickly does it happen?
Can it help the people who are targeted?
I don't think the payroll tax cut will do either of those.
It might influence how you think about labor versus other kinds of investments, labor versus capital and so on.
But it's not going to help, in the short run, people who really need help.
In a way that maybe not everybody's thinking through the public health response and the corporate response are not so divorced from one another.
For instance, if you have temporary workers who only get paid if they show up at work, you're in this terrible dilemma that you have to choose, do I get income or do I stay home?
And, of course, it's in the very best interest of the companies to make sure that people stay home if they don't feel well.
For instance, as Microsoft and Amazon and others have done, by promising that you will continue to pay people even if they don't show up at work, that is both, I think, the right thing to do from a corporate point of view.
But it's also a public health response because you don't want people to show up at work if they don't feel well.
That's right. And I think the neat thing about that example, Felix, is that can become a policy response if companies who are less, perhaps, able as Amazon or Microsoft, less financially able to kind of make that commitment to workers, they should get reimbursed for those wage costs when workers choose
to stay at home, meaning they should continue to pay their workers and the federal government can reimburse them for those costs.
So I think that's exactly the right way to think about it.
And in general, Felix, I think you're right to be skeptical about the payroll tax.
I think you want to be targeted and you want to be thinking about speed.
And in particular, you want to be thinking about things like simple things, deeply expanding kind of unemployment insurance and making it a richer thing so that people who are not able to work are going to be getting some help.
So much of our food assistance is predicated on working.
And so we need to really rethink food assistance.
And by the way, when schools close, we should understand that there are many poor families for whom school is very important for both nutritional purposes and just for organizing their lives.
And so we really need to be thinking about food and nutritional programs and health programs that would maybe otherwise be happening through schools.
Because if there are widespread school closings, that is a huge kind of safety net problem.
I think more broadly, unfortunately, the stuff that is targeted is going to be relatively small from a fiscal perspective.
So if you want to think big, you have, I think, three choices.
One is a payroll tax, which, Felix, for the reasons you said is kind of sloppy.
And kind of everyone gets it and it's kind of slow and it doesn't make a ton of sense.
The second would be mailing checks to people, which would be like a thousand dollar check to a family or for with kids.
The final big possibility, which is the one I'm a fan of, and it relates to these very low interest rates, is to do something really big on infrastructure and use this as an opportunity to say, well, wait a second, bond yields are really low.
We don't have to have a pay for it bill on infrastructure.
And we know the returns to those investments are going to be large and we do a big deficit financed infrastructure bill.
So you either go small and targeted, which is interesting, and we should definitely be doing that.
And we mentioned a couple of those ideas or you go big and it's not really that frankly associated with coronavirus.
It's just about doing something really smart and thoughtful.
Although I would push back just a little bit on the idea that if you do something targeted, it has to be small.
I think there's a way to make it really clear that the focus of any kind of stimulus package we put together is on the most vulnerable companies and people who are most vulnerable.
And I think it's possible to be creative here.
So, for example, Italy has suspended all mortgage payments and household bills during this crisis, which sounds crazy, except that can make the difference between people going under and being able to ride this thing out.
Let me try to be a little bit of the stick in the mud on the Italy thing because it's so interesting and it's really radical, right?
I mean, so in a sense, it's not targeted, which is it goes to everybody who has mortgage payments and who has household bills.
And it has the potential to lead to kind of a lot of weird follow on effects, which is it's going to have a huge fiscal cost.
It's going to be hard to reverse.
It's going to be hard to unwind that policy.
I don't think so. Why should that be hard to unwind?
The moment the virus is gone, you say now you have to make your payments.
And you could even target it.
And I'm not saying we have to do it the Italian way.
I'm saying we need to be somewhat creative.
It's interesting. I think ideas like this make people cringe because it feels like such a handout.
And I get that. And it's probably worth saying that during healthy normal times, handouts can be a very bad thing because in a free market system, you don't want to be propping up irresponsible consumers.
You want the system to reward the most competitive and capable companies.
But and this is important, that logic does not apply during a crisis.
The logic doesn't apply during a natural disaster.
If a hurricane hit, a tsunami hit, then all bets are off and we don't suddenly apply some kind of litmus test to determine whether or not you deserve a handout.
We just we do it. One of the things I learned as a result of the Great Recession is this tremendous cost of restarting the economy.
Now, granted that recession was in a class of its own.
It was much worse than what we're going to see.
But still so much of what we do, we provide unemployment help.
We provide targeted social assistance is sort of after the fact, after it has gotten really bad.
Namely, the business came to the point where they said, well, we just cannot sustain current activities and we have to let people go.
And reversing that actually turns out to be hugely costly in terms of the experience of being unemployed, the experience of then trying to find a new job.
So there's a lot of scarring, I think.
And I would love for us to be much more proactive, engage with the private sector before lots and lots of people lose their jobs.
So, for instance, I'm a big fan of providing really inexpensive liquidity to businesses that find themselves in trouble.
And I don't want to say these are the small businesses or these are the big businesses.
I want to say these are businesses that face a liquidity crisis.
You know, we can look at your audited financials.
We know what a liquidity crisis looks like.
And if we can step in and then prevent all the unemployment that never exists in the first place, longer term, that can actually turn out quite okay for the government also.
If you think about the TARP bailout, we spent about 650 billion dollars.
And then the inflows, both refunds plus revenue from interest rates and so on, was about 120 billion dollars more than we spent.
So I think these investments in the end, they're good investments.
It's good to be proactive in these desperate times.
Felix, I think you said that so well.
The cost of not providing assistance right now will almost certainly be much greater than the cost of providing it.
If we act aggressively now so that people don't fall into bankruptcy, so that people don't become homeless, they don't lose their homes, they don't lose their credit ratings, then the cost of buttressing this part of the economy right now will almost certainly be less than the cost of trying to make
up for it down the road.
So it's not just the humane and compassionate thing to do.
It makes the most rational sense as well.
I think we can all agree that there's some low hanging fruit that is targeted to the people who need it the most, which we should definitely be doing.
Yes. And it feels like this would be such a terrible lost opportunity if we didn't do those things, because those people are hurting, and it has all these fantastic public health consequences.
They can stay home if they need to, and it has all these positive economic implications.
I think what's harder is to know if this is a moment to do something bigger, and if it's bigger, how to do that bigger thing.
And what I particularly like about the idea of paid sick leave, maybe that's not the worst policy in general.
Exactly. The crisis has gone away.
That's actually an idea we might just keep for the longer run.
Yeah. I do think we all agree.
I mean, I do think the first order of business is simply reassuring the most vulnerable segments of our society that we're going to take care of you.
And then I think you're absolutely right.
Then the question is, what do we do in terms of the larger stimulus that is probably going to be needed to begin to jumpstart the economy in a more long standing kind of way?
Okay, great. Thanks, guys.
Okay, picks. So we all brought in picks related to this topic.
So Felix, you want to go first?
Yeah, I can go first.
So my recommendation has to do with the observation that people who live in the worst affected areas, they are often calmer.
They're often more collected than people who are really, really far away.
So I have had this experience now over the last couple of weeks, because I have a lot of friends in China and have a lot of business contacts in China.
And almost every day, I find myself I talked to one or two people in China.
Of course, we always talk about what's the situation like, can you get online orders of food and so on.
What really strikes me as interesting about these conversations is I walk away and I feel reassured.
I feel, yes, people are scared.
People are careful.
People know it's really serious.
But at the same time, they're managing through it.
They're being thoughtful about what they do and what they don't do.
Talk to friends who have Chinese family, or talk to friends who have family in Italy.
Talk to someone who's close to what the experience is actually like.
And in a strange and interesting way, I think almost always, it will be reassuring.
Maybe it's reassuring because what you realize is that people are just figuring it out, too.
People also have a remarkable willingness to help during times like this.
And what makes us most anxious is not knowing yet what you should or shouldn't do.
One of the interesting things about all the Chinese schools that are closed is, people sent me all these pictures with kids in school uniforms.
So even though the school has moved online, for many families, the habit is to dress their kids as if they were to go to schools.
All of these pictures where you see small Chinese children in school uniforms saluting the flag that is, of course, on the screen of your laptop.
Wow, fantastic. Okay, me here.
What do you have? So I have a very specific recommendation, and then a very general one.
So my specific recommendation is, Felix, there's this thing called Twitter, and I follow this woman, young me moon, and she's really cool.
I am? Yeah, she's really cool.
Oh my God, you think I'm cool.
That made my day. Yeah, and she had this great thread about leadership at a time of this great uncertainty.
And so I think everyone should check it out.
Oh, thank you. So that's my specific recommendation.
And then my general recommendation...
You know, the rest of humanity who's not on Twitter.
This is all just an elaborate tease to get you on to Twitter.
Oh, thank you. And then my general recommendation is, I think these next six months are going to get potentially quite complicated.
And it is going to become quite easy to get swallowed up into a cocoon of anxiety and concern about the stock market and about the coronavirus and about the election and everything else.
And so I think one really wants to think very consciously about how to use the next six months and this new way of working and this new way of living with kids at home and with potentially working out of the home and potentially having a lot of free time that we didn't think we were going to have.
So, for example, Felix, you know, we were supposed to be in China this week.
That's right. And so I think one really wants to turn these next six months into a big to -do list of the projects and the things that you want to make sure and get done.
And they can be family tasks, things you want to do with your children, things you want to do at work, writing you need to do, things you want to learn, new online courses you want to take, like you want to learn how to craft something at home.
Fill your life with productive activity, as opposed to getting lost in what I think is going to be a miasma of anxiety about things that you can't control.
I'm not suggesting you don't pay attention to the world, but I think you really want to cordon off that and really create a list of productive activity that will make you feel like every day is well lived because otherwise six months can slip away so quickly.
And I fear they may.
Yeah, that's a great recommendation.
Are you talking about the young me moon recommendation?
Well, both of you had such positive recommendations.
So there is a little bit of an underbelly to this entire experience, and that is whenever something like this happens, all of these quack ideas about the virus and about the science behind the virus just start to spread.
So the World Health Organization has a really nice website.
They have created a page called Myth Busters, and it's about coronavirus.
And what they do is they just bust all the myths.
It's interesting. It's useful.
So, for example, taking a hot bath does not prevent coronavirus.
Whole weather and snow cannot kill coronavirus.
Should you be worried about receiving packages from China and things like that?
So that's my recommendation.
We'll post a link to it, but it's World Health Organization, their MythBuster site on coronavirus.
That sounds great. Okay.
And of course, we'll be back next week.
But this is one of those times where because we have listeners all around the world, just feel really, really grateful to be connected with people around the world right now.
So a very, very special thank you to all of our listeners.
We will be back next week.
Thanks, everyone, for listening.
This is After Hours from the HBR Podcast Network.
Thanks for watching.
