Ted Audio Collective HBR presents Hi everyone, you're listening to After Hours.
I'm Youngmi and I'm here with Felix and me here.
Hey guys. Hey. How are you?
So we're running some nice wine tonight.
It's about time, yeah.
We have to live up to the name.
Yeah. So if you hear a little bit of clinking in the background, that's...
We're not taping in the bar.
That's what's happening.
So this is actually a little bit of an exciting week because as most of our listeners know, we are part of the HBR Presents Network.
And thus far we've been the only...
The only one. We've been part of the network.
But this week, HBR Presents is launching three new podcasts.
The first of which is Cold Call.
And so Brian Kenny, who actually is a colleague at Harvard Business School, interviews HBS faculty about a new case they have.
And Cold Call, of course, comes from the method that we often use in our classroom to kind of ask students to get started on a case.
Against their will.
Against their will.
But in each episode he takes a faculty member and they go through a particular case.
Yeah, deep dive, right?
And they go kind of deep into it and they talk about the substance of the case, but also how it plays out in a classroom.
It's really, really fun.
Interesting. And I think it will be a great listen.
A second one is one of the really big topics these days, artificial intelligence.
So this is with Azim Ashar.
It's called Exponential View.
And the idea is let's think about artificial intelligence from lots of different ways with this interesting set of guests.
If you have any interest in artificial intelligence and how to think about the likely consequences of using it, this is your podcast.
Fantastic. And then the third one, I think it wins the award for best title.
It's called FOMO Sapiens with Patrick McGinnis.
A FOMO, of course, standing for fear of missing out.
And what Patrick McGinnis does is he talks to successful leaders about how they make choices and how they make trade -offs in their everyday lives.
So we encourage all of our listeners to sample some of these other podcasts.
Yeah, we have great neighbors.
Exactly. So for our podcast, Felix, I know you brought in something you want to talk about.
Yes, I would love to talk about the really interesting topic of corporate debt.
Yes, the finance person is in heaven.
And then we should also talk about last week Apple had that big event.
We have got so many emails from listeners asking us what we thought about it.
So we should get reactions to the big Apple.
Okay, so Apple had its big event last week.
And it's interesting because on this podcast we've talked about Netflix a bunch of times.
And lurking in the background was this understanding that at some point this year, Apple was going to make its big announcement.
So finally, last week, they came out, ta -da, with their big announcement.
And I'm dying to know, first of all, did you guys see it?
And what did you think?
What were your reactions?
I was a little disappointed.
I have to say, let me take one of the announcements.
The Apple News Plus is basically texture.
It's basically the company that they bought last year.
And much to Apple's credit, there's some small changes around the edges.
But is this the next big thing in reading and news?
What was your sense, Meir?
You know, honestly, I loved it.
You loved it? I just ate it all up.
And I know you're...
Oh my God. I just loved the whole thing.
I loved it. I loved the News Plus.
I loved the Apple Card.
And I love Apple TV Plus.
I ate up the whole damn thing.
And I'm proud to say it.
I know I'm a sucker, but I actually really think they're solving problems.
Like, I want to sign up for that.
I want an integrated approach to all my news media.
I want Apple TV Plus.
I want to get rid of Netflix.
And I am delighted at the prospect of getting further and deeper into the Apple ecosystem.
And I'm unabashed about it, and I'm sorry for that.
But I just... I love the whole...
Felix and I are looking at each other.
What didn't you like about it?
What's not funny? So I was so disappointed I went on Twitter, and I just...
My first tweet storm.
I did. I was so, so disappointed.
And by the way, I am a diehard Apple lover.
And it was so disappointing to see them continue to use this language of exceptionalism.
Oh, we're about to present this super innovative, different thing.
And then the whole event was basically an imitation of everything else other people are doing.
I was actually so stunned by the half -baked nature of the video announcement.
There's no pricing.
I agree. There's no bundling.
By the way, I was stunned by the event itself.
It was, in my opinion, the most tedious Apple event they've ever put on, where they just had...
I'm sorry, like Steven Spielberg, like these people from another generation coming out and speechifying about the glory of film.
And it was like watching the worst moments of the Academy Awards, you know?
What did you want from them?
So here's what I wanted.
So I wanted to see...
Look, this is one of the most heavily penetrated brands in the world with incredible user loyalty and a user base that is dying to be inspired by them again.
And what I wanted to see was then use all of that heft to come up with a really creative bundling or packaging of these things, which they still could do.
They still could do.
Okay. But for example, am I going to pay $10 for a bunch of tired old magazines, $10 for games, $10 for music, $10 for video, $40 a month?
What I wanted to see was we are announcing a new Apple program where if you sign up for this much a year, you're going to get Apple Care, Apple Music, Apple Video.
We're going to send you an Apple card.
I wanted to see something...
But that'll come, young me.
That's what we saw the beginning of.
I mean, you're right.
It was premature. They didn't announce all that.
But can't you see that happening now?
I think the fundamental problem is they're now entering a fixed cost business where scale determines everything.
And we know how that movie works from, interestingly, the movie industry.
Once the movie industry globalized, the only producers that were left are the really big countries, all the small countries.
Movie production has concentrated in the last 20 years in amazing ways.
Why? Well, if you're a Belgian movie producer, the kind of explosions that you can afford are not going to impress anyone.
And so there's this fundamental problem of having a product at very high prices and as a result, smallish market share, global market share in an industry where global scale really matters.
They have a billion users.
And by the way, I think I don't know if it's true for you all, but it's solving a problem for me.
I don't want to have multiple subscriptions with multiple providers.
I want somebody to manage that for me.
Do you even remember what you're subscribed to?
I recently went through it all and I deleted it.
I got out of HBO because I'm tired of like an endless...
You're going to miss Game of Thrones.
I've never watched Game of Thrones.
I'm going to miss Veep.
Oh my God. The separate problem.
I'm going to miss Veep.
It's a different problem.
I'm just saying that I think it's solving a real problem.
But how many people will sign up for Netflix and sign up for Disney once Disney comes out with their offering?
And then also Apple, what are they calling it?
Apple TV Plus. Apple TV Channel.
By the way, Apple has completely lost its naming mojo.
Can I just tell you?
Yeah, the Plus. This is the company that brought us beautiful names like the MacBook Air and the iPod, which was the gorgeous naming.
And now things are...
I mean, the thing is Plus.
But I would get rid of Netflix and Disney.
I'd want to go through Apple.
I'd be delighted to go through Apple.
And by the way, what they've done in financial services with Apple Pay, just think about that alone.
They're doubling their transaction volumes.
The Apple Card by itself is a spectacular product.
So this is the one area I agree with you on.
The most interesting thing in the entire event was the Apple Card.
And it was a little glimpse of the old Apple because it really, truly is a reimagination of the user experience.
I agree with that. I agree.
From top to bottom.
And I know that a lot of competitors will say, oh, but we do that and we do that.
But it's a top to bottom reimagination.
That's the one to keep an eye on.
But they can do that same thing with everything else.
It hasn't been as fully imagined in these other spaces, young me.
But it will happen and it will come.
And it will be profound.
And once they do it well...
He's so optimistic.
I hope you're right me here.
I'm usually the cynical guy.
But with Apple... I know.
And I guess part of the question for you both is, what did you want?
They have to pivot to services.
No, I told you what I wanted, though.
I wanted to see a strategy.
You want to see a fully thought out strategy.
And they didn't deliver it when young me.
I totally agree with that.
But I saw the glimmers of something that could become really thoughtful.
But here's where it worries me.
The kind of thing I was referring to requires some creative ingenuity about how we're going to put something together.
Yeah. Where the sum is greater than the parts.
I was thinking about this today as I was coming here.
I was thinking, arguably, the most successful new consumer electronics product of the last couple of years are the Apple AirPods.
You can't go anywhere without seeing people in those AirPods.
And so there are a couple of things that went through my mind.
Number one, they probably sell about 50 million of them a year at a, what, $150 price point?
It's crazy. Any other company...
I mean, that's like...
What is that? Like between a $5 and $10 billion business for them?
Any other company that would have produced something like that...
That's like the consumer electronics success story of the decade.
For Apple, they're so big.
It's nothing. It doesn't even move the needle.
The second thought I had was, there are so many ways to think about those AirPods as such an incredible on -ramp to voice interface.
I mean, the AirPods are 10 times more interesting than the Amazon Echo, in my mind, or Google HomePod, for example.
And yet there's no indication that there's someone at Apple that's thinking about all of these little pieces of the ecosystem that are super interesting and trying to put them together in a holistic way that creates a reimagined consumer experience.
Maybe it's happening and we're going to see it in a year or so.
But I think this is what I do agree with you about, which is I think there is this problem where when you shift from being a product company to a services company, they need new talent to do that.
And it's not clear to me that Tim Cook is that person and it's not clear to me that any of the people who they have are the right people.
It was the first time I saw something and I thought, wow, is it blasphemous to wonder if it's time to think of transitioning to a new CEO?
Really? The transition to services is so different.
And by the way, you know, I mean, it was really tough for IBM.
It was really tough for HP.
I mean, it's a hard transition, right?
And so that made me wonder whether they have the talent to do it.
And maybe it's the right time to transition away.
And the logic is really hard because the logic of the product was produce a high end product that is, you know, for a verified group of people.
And that worked beautifully, beautifully, beautifully.
And now the service business is a business where you have to have great reach.
The North American movie industry totally dominated the North American market.
And then they decided it's much more profitable to produce a movie that appeals to 18 to 25 year olds globally speaking.
That's just a much larger group.
I wanted to see something that says they understand that contradiction.
But to me that redounds to the benefit of Apple.
But why do you say that if you go to China, there are no one?
It's not all about China, man.
No, but if you go to India, there are no one.
If you leave North America, there are no one.
They're not no one, first off, in these markets.
They have the elites.
And that's a very powerful market.
And it's a billion users globally.
It's not small. But there's no way in which that is a small number.
My counter argument is a little different.
And I actually don't even know that we're disagreeing.
But the difference between me and you is so much of your argument, which I want to believe is right.
Depends on what they're going to do.
But they can do this, and they can do this, and then they can do this, and they can bundle this together.
And then they can stitch together this incredible ecosystem.
And if you're right, I'll be so happy.
It's just my optimism isn't there.
And part of the reason the optimism isn't there is that when they present themselves as a company now, I don't see the creative ingenuity that used to reside in that entire senior leadership team.
That's interesting.
I mean, Tim Cook is essentially a technocrat, right?
And maybe that would have been fine in another era.
But in this particular era, I wonder if you need somebody with a different kind of dynamism.
Can I ask you one last question?
Sure. What did you tweet?
It was a pretty fantastic tweet storm.
This is why you have to get back on Twitter, Felix.
It was pretty great.
It was 25 pieces. I'll tell you, it was 25 pieces.
I ran out. I was going to be longer, but then Twitter has a limit.
Because I watched it, and I sat down, and it was just going because I had just seen it.
And I was a little fired up.
I think you're right, young me.
I think it was more about what I saw that was possible as opposed to what I saw.
And I think you're restraining yourself to what you saw.
And I'm extrapolating.
But God, it got me excited about that potential future.
And if they had the right talent in place, maybe they could realize it.
They do have some fascinating pieces to this ecosystem.
They really do. So we'll see.
Okay, Felix, you wanted to talk about corporate debt.
So frankly, I don't really know.
Should I have sleepless nights or not?
In part, I wanted to get your advice to see, oh my God, is something really terrible brewing somewhere in the economy?
Or should I be all quiet about it?
And the reason is that...
Wait, so you don't have the answer?
I thought you were going to get the answer.
I don't know. Whenever I'm really clueless, I think, oh, don't worry.
You have two really smart friends.
And they happen to be in after hours.
So you can just ask.
So here's the big story that I think gives me some reason for concern.
You remember the Great Recession, the last big crisis?
How's old debt played a really big role?
And as a result, we had this pretty dramatic meltdown.
Since the Great Recession, if you look at U .S.
households, they have essentially repaired their balance sheets.
And interestingly, what's happened is that on the corporate side, we have this pretty massive run -up in debt.
And I'll give you a sense of the magnitude.
If you go back and you look at historic data, you would see that in the 1950s, corporate debt was about a third of GDP.
And then from 1950 to 2000, it essentially doubled.
And since 2000, we gained another 14, 15 percentage points.
So it's accelerating quite dramatically.
And what I don't know is, is that OK or is there something deeply, deeply wrong with the picture?
Yeah. Are we on the verge of a crisis or should we all just relax?
Essentially, right?
I mean, that's the question, right?
What does it mean? I mean, here you go first.
So in some sense, there are even more distressing parallels, which is, we've seen a wave of securitization that parallels what happened in household debt, which is the repackaging of these loans and the slicing and dicing of risk in ways that led to the financial crisis.
And we've seen a deterioration in credit quality.
And even in the terms that people are being willing to lend out.
And this is the so -called leveraged loan market.
On corporate debt, the risky stuff is usually called junk debt.
Those are bonds that are publicly traded that have lower ratings, like double B or single B or triple C.
Leveraged loans are similar to those, but they are not publicly traded.
They're not SEC registered.
They tend to be just lent by banks and they tend to be floating rate as opposed to what's called fixed rate, which is they move with interest rates.
They tend to be just more of an over -the -counter market as opposed to junk bonds, which are publicly traded.
And then collateralized loan obligations is where they end up residing in effect, which is these structures which then buy all these leveraged loans and then slice and dice them into higher quality rating streams that are bought by insurance companies and sometimes lower quality rating streams that are bought
by hedge funds or by others.
So that's the process of securitization that happened with mortgages.
So that sounds exactly like the run -up to the mortgage crisis.
Except, isn't there much better visibility into the viability of these particular debtors?
So with CDOs, it was so obscure.
Everything was so obscure.
We didn't really know.
We didn't know. In this case, we know.
That's exactly right.
And I think that's why it's different.
It has all these hallmarks of being the same, but in fact, actually, I think it's substantively different.
And it's different because the point you made, young me, which is there's visibility on who the borrowers are.
And there's a little bit more of monitoring happening by the lenders than would happen otherwise, and then certainly what was happening in the real estate example.
And on top of that, we don't have the same concentration of risk inside banks, and banks are better capitalized than they were back in 07, 08 because of the regulations that have happened since then.
That's a way of saying when the recession comes, which it'll come, it'll be worse than it would be otherwise because of this.
But are we talking about a systematic crisis in the same way?
I don't think so. And then the final thing, of course, to say is, profits have been amazing.
And so that... Interest rates low.
And interest rates low.
And so that combination...
Why wouldn't you? Why wouldn't you borrow money?
Exactly right. And so, and this kind of goes to even our MMT discussion, right?
Which is why not borrow?
Now, of course, in this case, we know they'll retract and recession will come and it'll make it more painful.
But are we talking about the systematic freeze up of credit, the really dramatic thing that happened 10 years ago?
I don't see that problem in the same way.
And then, Meheer, isn't it also true?
I mean, I take comfort in the fact that to some extent, you begin to see companies self -regulate a little bit, right?
So even in recent days, so GE is really working hard to pay down its debt.
Kraft Heinz is really trying to pay down its debt.
AT &T, really trying to...
So there are these companies that now are deleveraging.
Am I wrong in thinking that that is a really positive signal of corporations and their ability to self -regulate?
I didn't really think about that, but I think that's exactly right.
I wouldn't know if I would say self -regulate, young me, as much as I would say, in contrast to the housing setting, where you don't have a borrower who's going to be paying down debt as quickly or as digress to me, who can?
Who cannot, yeah. And the reason why you have a mortgage is...
And GE can sell assets, right?
That's what they're doing.
And so, and you're right, they have a longer term vision and they know how to manage that debt in a positive way.
Now, it may be tough to do that.
It may be hard. There may be fire sales associated with that.
But all of that is much more doable than it is in the household setting.
And I hadn't thought about that, but you're right.
We're going to see these responses and we already see them.
And in a way, this is the good news from continued low interest rates, which is if people can repair their balance sheets in a little bit, as opposed to kind of swinging for the fences.
That's really good news.
Yeah. So let me ask you about regulation.
In 2013, U .S. regulator issued guidance.
It wasn't a formal regulation, but it was guidance essentially saying that that shouldn't exceed six times ABD.
That kind of a rule?
Would that make sense?
Yeah. I'm a little down on that.
I'm down on that because it's there's so much heterogeneity that you're trying to kind of capture with that.
And six times is a large number, actually.
It's a large number.
Just to be clear, that's a debt to EBITDA number.
So that's like the amount of debt relative to your cash flow, roughly speaking.
My real concern about that is that kind of a ceiling, it can almost become a floor of sorts, right?
Which is meaning everybody goes up to six times EBITDA.
And so I worry about kind of setting norms like that.
So why would that? Well, because then it's kind of like every...
So, you know, your industry should be at like three times EBITDA.
My industry should be like eight times EBITDA.
Okay. Let's just say kind of relative to what its underlying industry risk is.
Meaning I live in a super safe industry.
You're in a risky industry.
Well, so I'm brought down to six and then you're like, well, I got a green light to go to six.
And that's problematic.
And I just don't think those...
I prefer Young Me's idea where both firms and lenders start to kind of understand that we are having some problems.
So one last thing that I find actually very interesting.
You might ask, so what do companies do with all the capital that they have, right?
And so, you know, the optimistic view, like I would have loved to see, oh my God, they have amazing investment opportunities.
And there's all this technology and it's just like a dream come true.
That's exactly right.
No, what they do essentially is that almost all of it is just a change in capital structure.
So they basically do share buybacks with the increase in the level of debt.
And I know we talked about share buybacks on after hours before.
Does that give you pause?
Does it somehow change how you think about the desirability of share buybacks?
We're due for a backlash for sure.
And you're beginning to see that.
A political backlash.
Yeah, absolutely. I think it's really interesting, right?
So the backlash is coming, right?
Yes. So Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer have a proposal which effectively says no buybacks unless you pay $15 an hour and you give healthcare, which is an interesting way to kind of think about this problem.
I mean, my instinct about this is, like with everything, there are people doing buybacks for the wrong reasons and there are people doing buybacks for the right reasons.
And so these kind of very coarse rules are really problematic.
But you're right, I mean, the numbers are staggering.
Something like $2 trillion to $3 trillion in aggregate have basically been a bunch of new debt that has been used to retire a bunch of equity.
Now, one way to rationalize this, and I'm not saying it's right, but let's just try it out, which is, well, think about the American economy as a maturing, lower growth economy.
We went from a period that was high growth, lots of technological innovation, and now we hit the new normal, right?
Yeah. Okay, well, what would you expect to have happen to the capital structure of that economy?
And the answer is, well, we morph into a utility.
So if you think about the aggregate American economy, we're morphing into a lower growth, steadier 2 % growth from something that was higher growth and more variable.
That would be a way to rationalize what is happening.
So think about the pharmaceutical industry, right?
What's happened to the pharmaceutical industry over the last 20 to 5 years.
They've gone from R &D intensive industry to one which is much more likely to be spinning out cash flows and looking like utility.
What have they done in the process?
They've levered up.
All of these pharma players are basically levered up, and they are dividending out cash, and they are buying back stock, and they are borrowing a lot.
And that's okay if you think they're kind of more like a utility now.
They're not as dependent on some big technological innovation, and maybe it's okay.
Now, the problem is it can become a self -fulfilling prophecy, right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And you end up in a low -innovation world.
And also, the problem is that it collides against this counter -narrative.
And the counter -narrative is that we are living in a moment of extraordinary change.
That's right, yeah.
Where things like artificial intelligence and automation and new changes in the way companies need to operate, it's all around us.
So you would expect to see a wave of innovation.
In addition, there's this, at least in the West, this fear that China is moving too quickly.
If we don't keep pace, we're going to lose our status as the world's leading economy.
So the dominant narrative right now is that this is a moment – The opposite, right?
Yes, this is the moment for business.
I have always thought this has always been so interesting for me.
Any executive you speak with, people will tell you change has accelerated in incredible ways.
And my first intuition is always, oh, I know how to tell how much change there is in an economy and how much better we get at doing things.
I look at economic growth and I look at changes in productivity.
And then you look at those numbers and there's nothing.
I think this disjunction you're both pointing to between the espoused rhetoric of really turbulent change and the data.
It's real, right? It's a weird mentality that we've gotten ourselves into where it's become so normative to extract value from these companies, even in moments when there are so many opportunities to invest.
But there is a part of me that thinks this espoused rhetoric that the world is so turbulent and changing so fast has been ginned up and is leading to the kind of the political things we talked about last week, while the reality is much more mundane.
So I have to say, when I go out and I write cases and I observe people in companies, I have to say it doesn't feel fake.
I think it is true that just like the availability of information, the speed at which things happen, the global connections that matter to so many organizations, it's that individual sense of rapid change.
I think it's more than just, oh, you know, we like to pretend we're super busy.
I think it's real. I gotta tell you, the backlash is really coming.
And the rhetoric is pitch perfect, right?
It does a very nice job sort of pointing out reinvestment opportunities.
And as you know, we have colleagues who have argued that in part of what's wrong with how we think about companies today is that we're not thinking about the long term value of organizations.
Yeah, as well as the larger set of stakeholders.
To be revisited hopefully before the next recession.
Okay, guys, I have a really good pick for you.
The book is called Station Eleven and it's by Emily St.
John Mandel. And if I tell you it's a post -apocalyptic novel, it takes place.
I know the expression on your face.
You immediately start thinking of zombies and all of that nonsense.
White walkers. It couldn't be further from something like that.
This is a gorgeous book about humanity and art and friendship.
And so what's amazing about it is it takes this low culture genre and it's a high culture book.
It's so beautiful. It's one of these books that, at least for me, the minute I finished it, I went back to page one and started reading it.
No, really. It was really that good.
So sketch out what is the post -apocalyptic novel?
So there's a virus that wipes out most of the earth.
There are these remaining survivors.
But again, I almost didn't want to describe it because I think when you describe it, you immediately start thinking of the walking dead.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's not like that at all.
It's really, really fascinating.
I also actually read another book.
Are you going to do two recommendations?
I am, but I'm just going to sneak it in.
And this one, I know, but this one was so good.
Okay. And it's called How Finance Works.
Yeah. It's so good.
But for our listeners, Mehere has a book coming out later this month.
You should go on and pre -order it.
Everybody should pre -order this book.
It's called How Finance Works.
We're going to spend some time on an upcoming podcast talking about it.
That's very kind. It's so good.
All right. Well, I have a recommendation aside from my own book, which is I have seen the future of fast food.
You have. And it has arrived, and it is fantastic.
And it is called Bang Bar.
It is David Chang's new fast food outlet in the Time Warner Center.
It's outrageously good.
If there's some VC foodie person out there, call them up, write them a big check.
There's only one outlet right now.
It's a shwarma -based sandwich, and it's pork and chicken, and they have dips.
And the taste profile is amazing.
Go get the rights for the hot sauce because it's going to be the next tri -racha.
It's just spectacular.
I'm getting hungry listening.
So it is. It's really simple.
And the menu is very simple.
And I'm telling you, the taste profile is spectacular.
But when you say the future of fast food, it's just a good sandwich.
Yeah, that's what they said to Ray Kroc, OK?
That's what they said to Ray Kroc.
This is amazing. And the price point is amazing.
So Bang Bar. There's only one location now.
We'll meet in ten years.
But it will be millions.
Felix. I have a recommendation.
Do you guys, maybe I'm late to this.
But have you guys heard of Netflix codes?
So essentially, when you search, you need to know the title of the movie, right?
But say if you wanted to watch a subgenre that is really...
So I give you a few examples.
20th century period pieces for hopeless romantics.
Australian supernatural horror movies.
Cerebral sports documentaries.
How would you find those on Netflix?
Super hard to do. The trickiest, there's a code.
Wait, so you type the code into the search bar?
It's a little complicated how you have to do it.
So you go on the web and you go to one of the lists on the web already.
And then you click on that subgenre and it takes you to your Netflix account.
And then for some bizarre reason, first you get an error message.
Then you have to click reload.
And then it gives you all the films that they have in that particular subgenre.
So is this a Netflix device?
Do they want you to do this or do they?
Yeah, exactly. We don't quite know as this becomes more popular.
Maybe they're hiding it, maybe they're changing it and they each have a number.
So what you will see, it's always Netflix .com and then there's a particular number and that's the number of the subgenre.
And then you see everything that you wouldn't...
I have seen movies and shows that I have never...
The kinds of things that I think I like.
Here, you're just thinking about your British cover shows.
I'm going to have to break them over, taping right now.
I can't say that. So the only strange thing is you have to enter from the web and then you get this error message and then you have to click reload and then you see what you can watch.
I feel like you've hacked Netflix or something.
I feel like you hacked Netflix.
That's a great recommendation.
That's a great... Yeah, in fact, changed my life.
That's an idiot. So I guess that's it.
That's it. That's it, okay.
Thanks everyone for listening.
This is After Hours from the HBR Presents network.
Thanks a lot.
