William Blair macro analyst Richard de Chazal and consumer analyst Dylan Carden delve into the implications of the recent U.S. election results on tariffs, the specialty retail sector, and broader economic trends.
Podcast Transcript
00:24
Chris T
Hi, everybody. Today is November 21st, 2024. We're back for another episode of Monthly Macro. This time, though, our resident macro analyst, Richard de Chazal will be joined by Dylan Carden. He's a William Blair Equity Research consumer sector analyst who focuses primarily on specialty retail. Dylan released a report earlier this month appropriately titled Tariffs Primer, which lays out the historical precedent and context for any future tariff discussion as it relates to specialty retail.
I thought it'd be worthwhile to have him alongside Richard this time around. Who can kick this off, I think, by providing a quick post-election macro analysis for us and then provide more context around what, if any, incremental tariffs could be enacted under the second Donald Trump administration. And from there, I figured you two can talk through the implications for the specialty retail sector and so forth. So with that, Dylan, Richard, thank you for joining Richard. Feel free to take it away.
1:21
Richard D
Sure. Great to be back, Chris. And, great Dylan to, have you on the podcast here. I'll try and be brief, because there's clearly a lot we can talk about from the elections. I guess first thing we could say is, thank goodness it was not a contested election. You know, that I think was a big sigh of relief whether you know, you're happy with the result or not.
But I think we can all be thankful that, it hasn't devolved into lawsuits and, you know, accusations of voter rigging and, all sorts of things. So thank goodness, thank goodness for that. You know, what we have is, obviously Trump will be in the White House president-elect, and he's won, Congress, or the Republicans have won Congress, both houses there.
So he's got the power to, fulfill his mandate, which he seems to have been decisively given by the American people. So, what's at the top of the list? Well, the things that he was campaigning for, clearly tax cuts, the extension of those is going to be a major priority. Those expire for households, later next year. I think really, you know, that's kind of a done deal. The question is, what kind of gets attached to that package? Do we see, corporate tax rates coming down further? So that's going to be a big question for the market. Remember, when he was first elected, he brought the corporate rate down from 35% to 21%. He's talked variously about moving it to 20% to maybe even 15%. So that's, that's a clear discussion we're going to have next year. And then how to how does that get paid for? I think the second big thing on his list was immigration. So obviously he wants to tighten up the borders. And, you know what really could have the biggest economic impact is the whole issue around deportation. So, taking out millions of illegal or undocumented people in the states, that could have big implications for growth and inflation as well. So, we'll see how that plays out.
Deregulation is another big one on the list that could be helpful from a disinflationary, point of view. I think in reality, it's kind of actually hard to remove actual existing legislation. I think you sort of have to back it through Congress the same way you kind of put it through Congress. So, it's hard to get rid of actual legislation. But what he can do is de-emphasize, regulation. So, in a world where personnel is policy, he simply appoints, you know, to the various cabinet positions, people that might just sort of want to downplay regulations in their various sectors. So, you know, that that could be in things like climate change, obviously, and good for energy, finance.
I think the most controversial, though, and certainly from, you know, a markets or a global economy perspective is tariffs, which I think we want to talk about today. Trump is clearly a very big fan of these. He's been talking about these, you know, since being on Oprah in the 1980s.
What he's been proposing has been variously 10 or 20% across the board tariffs on, you know, every other country. And then China is singled out with at least 60%, tariffs. And I think given his mandate and given how serious he is about these things, along with his track record of actually doing a lot of the stuff that he says he's going to do. You know, we should take these pretty seriously.
So I think, you know, looking into next year, we're definitely going to see some tariffs coming forward. So what I want to do is maybe just highlight from, I guess from my perspective, some of the biggest questions that I typically get around tariffs, because I think it is such an important issue.
And a first one is really is there really a problem that needs fixing and is tariffs the best solution to that? And I think you know, the answer certainly from, China’s perspective, is that there hasn't been a really a level playing field there. I mean, quite clearly China has been subsidizing a lot of industries, you know, forcing companies or U.S. companies to hand over their intellectual property and I think there was kind of this unwritten deal when China joined the WTO, that we in the West would kind of tolerate an undervalued exchange rate to allow China to emerge into the developed world, grow its economy, grow its consumer base, and then pay back would be later on when once it's done that, sort of flip from, investment led, export led growth world more into a consumer demand driven one, you know, with a more open economy. And Western economies would then be able to do more business there. And you get kind of the payback going there. And I think what's happened is we haven't really seen that yet at least. China is still pushing through this sort of growth angle of investment and export led growth that hasn't really switched to a consumer led growth. And it's still being quite difficult in terms of, what it allows in and, and, and doesn't. And then underpricing a lot of its goods, solar panels and things like that that we, we see on in the global economy.
So I think that's what Trump particularly wants to do. I think sentiment on that is actually very bipartisan. I mean, I think the Biden administration was very much on board with that point of view as well. And, you know, Trump wants to attack it with tariffs. Biden kind of did it through industrial policy, the Chips act, the IRA, all that kind of thing, which I think Trump is on board with as well.
But he wants to throw tariffs on top of that in combination with a new regulatory regime and other incentives, you know, including infrastructure and things like that. So, you know, is tariffs the best way to do it? It's maybe not the best, but it's certainly one aspect, but it does have economic repercussions.
Is it just a negotiating strategy? I think that's what the market was kind of hoping it would be. And we did have a comment from one potential Treasury secretary or candidate for the Treasury, Scott Bessent. He basically said, yeah, it's just a negotiating strategy. You know, don't worry about it.
I think the thing with that is Trump comes out and says no. And obviously, if you do say it's a negotiating strategy, that kind of takes the punch out of, you know, going to the negotiating table. So of course, Trump is going to say that. I think, you know, with China, it's not I think, maybe tariffs are sort of an end in and of themselves. I think Trump is not necessarily expecting big changes. They're maybe hoping. But whereas I think, you know, for Canada, Europe, maybe it is more of, a negotiating strategy. I think, you know, the EU is going to say something like, well, we know you're right. You know, we haven't lived up to our commitment for 2% of GDP on defense spending. You know, it's outrageous that we've been totally reliant on the US to kind of take care of all that defense spending. So, you know, we're going to step up with some big contracts on defense. You know, we kind of need that these days. And also natural gas. Biden will import a lot more LNG from the US too please. So that will try and help to repair the deficit there. But maybe you also get some retaliation. You know, in the past, EU has retaliated through sort of iconic American brands and items American tractors, motorcycles, bourbon whiskey. You know, this time around with sort of blanket tariffs that could be could be much wider.
Two more questions I think I normally see is one is does he have the legal authority to unilaterally do this. Doesn't he have to get approval from Congress? I think you can kind of fudge this. Generally, he uses or in the past they use section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which basically says he can impose tariffs for national security or defense purposes.
I think that is, could be difficult to have sort of that for blanket tariffs. I mean, if you're putting tariffs on Canadian maple syrup for, you know, national security reasons a little bit questionable.
There is another one, section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. And that says, you know, he can basically put on tariffs for unfair trading practices, which I suspect sort of can encompass a lot.
And then again, Congress really has the power over this, but I think they devolve a lot of that to the president. If he has Congress at his back, I don't think you're going to have much, pushback there.
Are there going to be exemptions? There have been in the past, we had sort of favored nations like Brazil, Canada or Australia did get exemptions. Maybe this time around, now that Trump is kind of buddies with Argentina and Javier Milei, we do see some exemptions there. I think, you know, it would be very difficult not to have those. So, you know, if you have I was thinking like if you have Tim Cook, you know, saying, well our iPhones, we produce them in Foxconn with, you know, Chinese labor of $2 an hour or, you know, if we're forced to bring those back to California where it's $15.50 an hour minimum wage, you know, that $700/$800 iPhone is going to cost a heck of a lot more. So can we have, you know, some sort of exemption here? Can you cut off some slack here?
I suspect there'll be some sort of fudge. Let's see. I think there's a lot of uncertainty here. But, you know, let's see what happens. And I think, you know, from an economic and markets point of view, the biggest question here is what happens to inflation and what does the Fed do about that.
And I think tariffs if you read the popular press they say they're immediately inflationary. I think it's a little bit ambiguous. I think in the very near term they are inflationary. I think if you push that out a few years it's a little bit more, ambiguous. I mean, basically what you're looking at or sort of it's a one-off price increase that's done by the, the government.
You know, it could be sort of a supply shock, could be potentially stagflationary. And remember, it's the importing company that pays these tariffs. So it's a US company, not a, Chinese or a European company that has to fork over the money and absorb those, that company can and try and negotiate maybe a lower price with that exporter. Maybe they can hope for a stronger dollar to increase some purchasing power there. You know, if it's a really competitive market, maybe they'll be forced to absorb the cost and then take a hit on margins. Or more likely, what you'll see is kind of trying to pass that off to consumers as much as possible. And then, you know, what does a consumer do? Well, it goes and asks their employer for higher wages because they're faced with, you know, higher pay, higher inflation there.
So, I think in the near term it's somewhat inflationary. What it's not is it's not, you know, too much demand chasing too few goods. This is this is basically a tax increase, you know, and it's a relative price change, remember.
So, it's not an increase in the general price level you're charging, or the government is, is putting a price increase on, Chinese or European goods. And consumers will have to pay more for those if, if they want to continue buying them, you know, and if they do, then they might have to pay less for dinners out or, you know, trips to the cinema or discretionary stuff.
So, it's a sort of it's not a general increase. In, in the price level. I think the second thing is that because it's kind of a one-off step up in price, that sort of base year comparison sort of rolls off in a year. So, in a year from now, that year over year comparison will already feature the tariff. So inflation does come down later on.
So how does the Fed see this. In the past the Fed would kind of see this as a one-off price increase. It sees it as a tax on consumption. It's probably not something that would cause them to raise rates all that much. You would tend to sort of look through them.
What's potentially different, this time around is that we've just come out of a pretty big increase in inflation and the consumers inflationary sort of sentiment, I think is pretty fragile at the moment. And what typically allows the Fed to look through these increases is if a longer-term inflationary expectations are really well anchored. And if we see prices moving up here, that could be somewhat, destabilizing on top of the fact that Trump's putting or, you know, or says he wants to put, blanket tariffs across all imports.
So, again, it's not sort of just a select few. I think that could be interesting. And what's also maybe slightly different, and I'd like to bring Dylan in here is maybe in the past, and I think why politicians have sort of liked tariffs, is particularly when you put them on things like steel or aluminum. They're way down the supply chain.
And by the time it's sort of gets further up to the end retail consumer, it's less obvious that sort of price increases. They feel it. They feel it less.
So, the question for Dylan is Trump. The last time we had him in 2018, you know, we did have some tariffs come through on the consumer. Did companies your companies benefit your retail? Did they feel that they you know, they had some pricing power and get some extra margin, or is there really sort of pushback from the consumer there? You know, basically, you know, if I'm an apparel merchant looking down into next year, am I sort of happy with tariffs, you know, like a steel maker might be or is something, you know, the opposite of that happy.
16:07
Dylan C
Yeah. No company certainly is celebrating the potential tariffs that I've spoken to. And it's it's absolutely sort of the topic du jour of earnings calls right now, even before we actually have any sort of real data. I guess, you know, one thing that we tried to call it in our report is just sort of the murky nature of what we've just been through. Right? And so you kind of rehash some of the history here, the office of the, you know, Trade Administration or representative did a essentially a deep dive into China's trade policies under this sort of Section 301 that you mentioned, and sort of came to the conclusion that, again, just to your point, that they're sort of unfairly negotiating or unfairly dealing with the United States.
And so, they layered on a series of tariffs effectively on most all Chinese goods, some total of $550 billion between 2018 and 2019. The piece of that that reflected apparel wasn't put into effect until September of 2019. And at that point, it was sort of a 15% tariff on all basic finished apparel coming out of China.
The way that the industry works and the way that lead times are, you know, six or more months, by the time you're selling goods in America that had tariffs associated with them, you were knee deep in the pandemic, right? And all bets are off. Right. And so then then you roll into the latter part of ‘20 early ‘21, you absolutely saw inflation take off. And to the in the parallels between ‘21, ‘22, ‘23, you're looking at sort of mid-single digit inflation in the space. Now is that tariffs or is that the fact that people got, you know, close to a, you know, $800 billion in stimulus. Right? It's hard to disaggregate.
Now you've seen inflation in the apparel space really kind of come back down to earth. It's about 60 basis points this year. So, I think absolutely, if cost increases, the instinct would be to pass that through. There's a couple caveats to that. One is that in large part because of what happened in 2018, China now represents you know, roughly, you know, a little bit less than a quarter of all apparel imports. That's down from about a third, before 2018.
So, you know, to the extent that this is isolated to China, which I think at the very least, it's going to start with China that's, you know, relatively good news.
The other thing too, and I would actually kind of love your opinion on this inflation in discretionary categories in the United States is effectively non-existent, right? I mean, that the pricing power of most discretionary goods is not. And inflation in the United States is largely housed in non-discretionary categories like housing, healthcare and education. Right? So, if you think about the apparel space is incremental capacity to take price, we give it relatively long odds kind of coming off the inflation that they've already seen.
So, you know, that's sort of, I think at least the basis for how we need to contextualize what potentially could happen here, which we'd spell out in the report.
19:06
Richard D
Yeah, I mean, I think I mean, on the inflation, that's exactly what we're seeing, that Powell likes to break it up into his three buckets. And what we've seen is goods prices have, you know still backing fully into deflationary territory. And the bulk of what we're seeing is a bit of services but mostly, housing related shelter, is where the inflation is coming through.
You know, one other question I think for you is tariffs, I think are generally seen by economists as being quite regressive. They tend to hurt lower income consumers more than higher incomes. Lower income consumers tend to rely more on cheaper imported goods than the higher income ones. You know, is that something like you're sort of seeing in the mix of companies that, you look at higher end companies geared towards higher end consumers are less worried and lower income ones, a little bit more worried or?
20:03
Dylan C
Yeah, it's really interesting there. You're absolutely right that as inflation broadly in the United States was ramping, the companies that saw both the initial pain and the most profound, deepest pain were lower income.
But now you've actually started to see luxury sell off, right? European luxury houses. the demand for some of these brands is down, you know, to the nature of 10%, 20% in some instances. Right. So I think inflation does ultimately catch up with everyone, depending on how greedy you are in taking price in the first place.
So I would think initially, yes. But longer term it would be a problem for most everyone, particularly the incremental on what we've just been through. Right? I mean, it would be one thing just to be talking about this in isolation. It's a whole other thing to think, you know, all these companies have already sort of spent the last five years, four years rather, you know, really aggressively taking price.
To add on to that, in the context of sort of the discretionary pricing power of the United States, is difficult to kind of do.
20:59
Richard D
Do you see companies already trying to get ahead of this? So basically, you know, looking at their warehouses and thinking, geez, we need we got to fill these things to the rafters before, you know, to get ahead of these things, get ahead of these tariffs. Is that something you’re seeing? So basically for the economy, you know, the way I look at it and sort of saying, you know, thinking that Q1 or, you know, in the next few months we're going to get a bit of a surge in inventory demand that's going to spike GDP growth as companies do try to do that. I mean, is that something we're already, seeing.
21:35
Dylan C
Anecdotally, yes. You're absolutely hearing, and I don't know how much of that is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, but you are hearing companies trying to get ahead of that. It works in some places more than others, right? I mean, for apparel, again, you're trying to game out trends, right? So, to think they can just sort of blindly fill your warehouses for the coming year, you could get caught with the wrong color purple. So you can take such a measured approach to it. So I think there's some even futility in doing that.
But the one, the biggest repercussion probably, and this is obviously what Trump probably would welcome is just the continued migration of production out of China. Right? So, you know, again, you've gone from about a third of all apparel items being made in China, to about a quarter, a little bit less than a quarter in a relatively short period of time.
There's some complications with that. China is such a high importer for good reason, right. Most countries outside of China are sort of 5% at most of our imports. There's a sort of a deep-set skill set in China. But a lot of those companies are moving out to Vietnam. Famously, Mexico is even being considered. So, you know, I do think you'll see more of that trend.
And again, that's where it gets complicated. As far as if he puts a blanket 10 to 20% tariff on everything else, you know, that that strategy could have, you know, limited benefit, potentially.
22:57
Richard D
One of the other things that I think is particularly concerning from, again, from an economic point of view, is this potential policy around immigration and deportations. The numbers I've seen is that there are about 11 million undocumented workers in the in the US right now. Trumps talked about deporting anywhere from 8 to 20 million. I think the numbers kind of jump around quite a bit.
You're talking about a labor force of 160, 170 million workers. So that's a pretty big chunk that your, potentially going to take out. The immediate impact would be to lower demand for from these workers. I mean, if you're taking a million, 2 million, 3 million out of the labor force, or out of the country, per year, I mean, these are people who buy clothing, they buy food, you know, do you know, housing, etc. You know, from that perspective that might impact any of your companies or from the labor perspective, you get this sudden shortage of labor, which in turn raises wages.
I think maybe the dirty secret of the fed and, and the Biden administration has been over the last few years is this huge influx of labor has been a significant factor in, in not only boosting demand, but also lowering wages and lowering inflation. So, you know, is this something that your companies already worry about? I mean, we're already in a structurally tight labor market, and sort of removing workers within that context could be quite a significant concern, I would imagine, for a number of companies.
24:44
Dylan C
Yeah, it's a fascinating I mean, so on the other side of that, I absolutely have companies that have gotten questions as to whether or not they're benefiting from the influx of migration, right. Companies that have bigger exposure off price retailers have had big exposure to California, a company that sells Western wear and sort of ranch wear that has a lot of stores in Texas.
So, absolutely, you would think that, you know, and there's been some acknowledgment of a of a real kind of windfall there. So, the flip side of that, I think absolutely would hit demand in certain regions. The other interesting point that that brings up is what's the end goal here? Right? I mean, if Trump is to be taken at his word and tariffs are to be some sort of tool to get production back into the United States, and you're simultaneously removing a lot of effectively, you know, the workforce, those are at odds with one another.
The other side of it, too, is we are at some point in the Western world going to have to reconcile with the fact that our birth rates are now for most countries below replenishment, right? So, if you talk about ballooning entitlement programs, you know, you're going to if you're going to cripple the workforce, that's going to be an issue. Right? So, there's all sorts of complications with what these policies are ultimately going to do. But yes, in the very immediate term, I would think there be a very simple demand and balance, again, on that lower income side of the equation, just by the nature of who we're talking about removing here.
26:11
Richard D
Yeah, I think, I think that's the difficulty is, is there's a lot of, you know, one policy has these kind of implications, and in the other policy, you know, might have the reverse. And, you know, there's a lot of conflicting potential outcomes there or inconsistencies across the policy board. And, you know, it's going to really depend on what gets implemented when. And it could be quite choppy how everything ultimately plays out.
I mean, one area where I see this playing out is, is the dollar. I mean, that's presumably going to impact your countries. I mean, I think typically when you see tariffs going in, you would expect to see a stronger dollar. Right? So, you have foreigners, domestic people buying less foreign goods. So more dollars stay home instead of get getting sent abroad. And you know you get a weaker growth abroad. So maybe more money flows into the dollar and various reasons. And then maybe you have more deportations and more inflationary pressures. That puts pressure on interest rates. That puts more pressure on the dollar. So, the dollar is typically in currencies.
Floating currencies are typically a great buffer or cushion for economies. They're kind of the excess valve that allow inflationary pressures or other pressures in the economy to kind of be released. So, a stronger dollar would be helpful. It would help to tighten financial conditions and then maybe put less pressure on the Fed to have to respond by doing fewer cuts or even raise interest rates in the face of those, inflationary pressures.
But where Trump's potentially coming in and messing things up there is forcing countries into revaluing their currencies upwards or lowering the value, of, of the dollar through some kind of new Plaza accord, maybe a Mar-A-Lago accord or something like that. So again, it's a classic sort of conflicting nature here. I mean, you seeing much of that, I mean, do your companies quite concerned about the exchange rate impact here?
28:27
Dylan C
Well, I think it just it speaks to just the broader uncertainty in all of this. Right. And so best case scenario, you know, you're campaigning and you know, actually getting into the business of politicking are two very different things. And so yes, one hope would be that there's been a lot of kind of, you know, sort of saber rattling.
But when it comes down to it, you will start looking at sort of some of the consequences of what we're talking about here. Right? And they'll take a scalpel and say, okay, we're going to try to onshore steel production or AI chip production, but not apparel per se, because that's just not feasible. Right. And so, the conversations I have with companies and clients bend towards, oh, well, he's really not going to do that. Right? And so, you know, we'll see. Right? I mean, part of the reason that we called our report ‘Primer’ is just that there's not anything necessarily at this point to react other than to sort of laying the groundwork for what any theoretical policy would be, you know, put on top of.
But no, I think the conversations I have with companies in particular are more just kind of dizzying in trying to sort of game out any sort of basic scenario, all of which effectively lead to higher costs, lower margin. Right? That's kind of where companies, all these people actually putting real money to work, in their supply chains or kind of placing their bets at this.
29:46
Richard D
Yeah. I mean, you have to think certainly for your area, apparel. Yeah. I mean, it's not, you know, a national security issue that we need to we need to make more apparel in the US. We need to make more t-shirts and jeans, in, you know, or boots in the, in the US.
AI chips or steel, weaponry. Yeah. That kind of thing. Yeah. Fair enough. So, you know, I guess maybe, you know, your, your companies are, you know, right to maybe try and downplay that a bit, but who knows? I mean, I think ‘primer’ is probably right, is that there's just, you know, a heck of a lot of uncertainty here about how this is actually going to actually play out.
30:29
Dylan C
Well. And what I would say too, is, you know, while the end result of what tariffs will do, particularly in my space, is a big question mark. Absolutely we know what happens to stocks, right? If you look at trading from you know call it mid-2018 when these things became a reality to right up until the pandemic, most apparel companies were dead money. Right? Or at the very best volatile, skewed to the downside. You know that's the concern that I would have for clients in particular, is, you know, if you've got major exposure here to apparel or discretionary, I think broadly, you know, as these conversations roll through that could that that could be a very real risk in your portfolio theoretically.
31:10
Richard D
I mean, there will be clearly some areas that will benefit. Yeah. You know, within the market, maybe auto companies or maybe you're raw textiles or mining or oil or things like that, but you know, any, any areas you think will actually sort of relatively benefit or is it all just kind of…?
31:32
Dylan C
Off price? No, I mean, it's, you know, it's interesting you talk about how we don't need a parallelism, a strategic standpoint. I mean, there's even a broader argument here, right? Like we absolutely spend too much in our country as far as sort of per capita consumption on a lot of categories. Right? And I'm kind of speaking against the United States here. I appreciate, but, you know, one of the and one of the theoretical end results of a lot of what's been talked about here, if you go to, you know, the Elon Musk DOGE initiative or tariffs or whatever it might be, you know, limiting migration and all of it is a smaller, more concentrated economy, right, with less demand. Right?
And so, there’s something there to suggest then that, well, what would work if you want to rewind the clock back to the 1950s from a pure population or consumption standpoint, that's going to be extremely difficult. And so the categories that work are, you know, relatively hard to fathom, particularly in discretionary at that point, you know, I mean, you theoretically would want staples off price. And my coverage specifically tends to, you know, whether any storm. But that's where I think, you know, it really is best to kind of wait to see what the actual end strategy here is other than winning an election.
32:43
Richard D
Yeah, I think that’s the thing with tariffs. I mean, is it a, just a negotiating tool or are they an ends of themselves? We just throw them on and leave them there and you know, that's it. And I think it's going to be we're going to get a mixed response. I think.
33:59
Dylan C
Yeah. And it's also interesting that Biden kept them to and there's a reason for that. He added to them theoretically right? Electric vehicles more recently to your point, inflationary in the immediate term, not so much theoretically in the longer term. I think there's some very real truth to that.
33:12
Richard D
Yeah. We shouldn't pretend to know too much, just yet.
33:15
Dylan C
Yeah. Because so much, so much is sort of antithetical to each other. Right? As we've heard called out several times in the take the bluster, for what it's worth, be a bit defensive until we kind of see the light of day. But, you know, a lot of this stuff doesn't make sense as you start throwing it on paper. That's again, kind of what we want to sort of lay the foundation for, for people.
33:36
Richard D
Great. Well, I think that's a very interesting discussion. And, and great, great, great note from, Dylan. So, if you haven't read it, I would strongly recommend, having a look at that one.
33:43
Dylan C
Thanks for the plug and thanks for event. No, this is great to be here. Thanks for the invite.
33:46
Richard D
Thanks.
33:48
Chris T
So with that, Dylan, Richard, as Richard mentioned, that's all the time we have for today. It's been a pleasure being a fly on the wall for this one. Again, for those interested in reading Dylan's report, it's called Tariffs Primer. And then, more of Richard's analysis on the election can be found in his Economics Weekly Election Special, which is released earlier this month. You can actually request a copy of both by reaching out to us at williamblair.com/contact-us. Thanks for taking the time to be with us today.