Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
TBPN is a live tech talk show hosted by John Coogan and Jordi Hays, streaming weekdays from 11–2 PT on X and YouTube, with full episodes posted to Spotify immediately after airing.
Described by The New York Times as “Silicon Valley’s newest obsession,” TBPN has interviewed Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, Mark Cuban, and Satya Nadella. Diet TBPN delivers the best moments from each episode in under 30 minutes.
What a day in financial markets and technology markets. There is a ton of news today. Gur Gavin summed it up well. Huge day tomorrow. He's posting this yesterday.
Speaker 1:10AM Canada interest rate decision. 2PM. This is eastern time. USA interest rate decision. That is in Fed held rates constant.
Speaker 1:So sort of a nothing burger, I guess. Not the best news. I think some people were hoping for a cut, but everyone sort of expected this. It met it met expectations, but the news is that, just five minutes ago, the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates on hold at a range of 3.5 to 3.75% at Wednesday's meeting. And Jerome Powell is giving a speech in just thirty minutes at 02:30 eastern.
Speaker 1:Then at 4PM, Google earnings, Amazon earnings, Meta earnings, and Microsoft earnings. It is a
Speaker 2:massive No big deal. They only represent just under 20% of the total market cap of the S and P 500.
Speaker 1:Let's go. All reporting within But people are optimistic. Semi analysis put out a note this morning according to YC Yield Chad, expecting hyperscaler CapEx to be revised upwards and beat Street expectations as hyperscaler cloud revenue is accelerating, and they are seeing positive ROI on cloud investments. I can sort of go through my earnings preview. It's a tech earnings Quadkill today.
Speaker 1:And the big question is just how is the AI build out going? Obviously, the CapEx numbers were huge. We saw it for the first time ever we've seen a $200,000,000,000 number from Amazon last quarter. But everyone's up in the is there even a word for triple? It's like, what, 11 digits or something like that?
Speaker 1:A 100. Wow. It's digits. Everyone's spending at least a 100,000,000,000 these days, at least if you're in the Mag seven. But financial performance has actually been strong even in sort of legacy areas such as search.
Speaker 1:Google Search is growing, e commerce sales, Amazon core business is growing, enterprise software seats, Microsoft three sixty five, we're gonna have more news on all of that. Even though all of those businesses, they're working, they're chugging along, the big question is around durable revenue tied to AI infrastructure because you have this matching problem. You spend a bunch of money. There's depreciation. When do you actually get the cash flow back?
Speaker 1:How durable is this revenue? What are the moats around this revenue? What do growth rates and margins look like in this new era of something that looks maybe a little bit more like a railroad business, an oil business, as opposed to something like you build a website, people just show up, and it's 80% margin, which was the dream of the previous software era. We're going into an entirely different era, but it is very exciting, and we're getting a lot of data today. So everyone has seen cash flow from these hyperscalers to NVIDIA, to power companies, to data center builders.
Speaker 1:But everyone's wondering, what's the exact conversion cycle to higher revenues and higher profits? What's pathway there? Because you don't want to just be drawing down on cash endlessly. Eventually, you stop making money entirely. So let's start with Google.
Speaker 1:Google has the most fully integrated AI stack arguably. They have consumer distribution. They got model training, with DeepMind. They have custom chips with the TPU and a bunch of product services where they can stuff AI features.
Speaker 2:Google Workspace.
Speaker 1:Google Workspace. I rated it. Search, YouTube, Android, cloud, they can deploy solutions all over the place. And so the flywheel should be spinning very, very quickly. The key question that investors are asking is, does AI change the unit economics of search too quickly?
Speaker 1:Does AI do LLMs, do AI search overviews, Gemini generally? Are they able to monetize those results fast enough to offset any potential declines in search ad revenue? And so people will be looking for how is search monetizing, how are the new AI disruptors monetizing. But there are tons of places to pick up growth. Even if growth does slow down in the core search business, tons of opportunity in cloud.
Speaker 1:But the question again is AI overviews in Gemini, are they expanding search usage? Are they increasing ad ROI? Or are they compressing the model, the financial model? Microsoft is also coming off a strong quarter. Honestly, everyone's coming off strong quarters.
Speaker 1:Everyone's doing very well. Revenue is up 17% at Microsoft. With cloud, which includes Azure, m three sixty five, some LinkedIn stuff. There's a it's a big bucket. Cloud Microsoft Cloud is growing at 26%.
Speaker 1:But if you dive in and you double click on Azure, Azure is growing at 39%. And, of course, Azure is a bigger lever on CapEx, which is run rating around $150,000,000,000 not bad. The biggest number in the Microsoft earnings is RPO remaining performance obligations. Last quarter, it was listed at $625,000,000,000 up 110%. That was the eye popping number of the last earnings.
Speaker 1:About 45% of that is coming from OpenAI, but they have lots of other partners that have signed on for really long compute contracts. And that is starting to show up in the financials saying, hey, we're spending all this CapEx, but we have this RPO and we have these deals signed where companies are it's not just us that we're forecasting some really high growth here. The entire industry is forecasting high growth. And so we have done deals to justify the CapEx that we're spending right now, even with depreciation, which seems like a less of an issue than people thought it was since H100 still seemed to be monetizing just fine, but we can go into that. So Microsoft has the cleanest read on enterprise AI monetization, which I think is something people have been really looking for, looking for numbers.
Speaker 1:They know that subscription LLM chat apps monetize at a decent rate, that the margins at a lot of these companies are okay, the token, the APIs are working. But what does it actually mean to deploy AI into the American economy, into everyday businesses, into large scale businesses? All of those businesses are on Microsoft overwhelmingly, and so there are a ton of data points that can help you understand how AI is flowing through the global economy but also the American economy. So what are we talking about specifically? Azure growth.
Speaker 1:How much cloud hosting is going on? Gross margins for Microsoft Cloud, that's very important. Are you seeing cloud compression? Because if you go to your Microsoft Cloud provider and you say, hey, I'm going to this Teams thing, I'm paying a lot of money for it. I actually vibe coded something.
Speaker 1:You got to give me a discount. That would show up in cloud margins. Will it show up? I don't think it will, but we'll see. I think it's going to be fine.
Speaker 1:Copilot adoption and ARPU. How much are they actually rolling these out? Are they actually getting incremental spend? Are companies willing to send more of their hard earned dollars to Microsoft for better AI services, better features, copilots? Then M365 seat growth, that's a really important one.
Speaker 1:Are people adding more seats? Are they hiring? Like we've seen some layoffs in big tech, but how is the overall economy doing? How many more seats are being rolled out? Again, with the question of, like, does your AI agent need a seat and so you have more seats?
Speaker 1:Or does your AI agent replace 20 seats and then you only have one seat and you have about 20 agents that are all logging in through the same m three sixty five seat? These are, like, more long term questions, but we're getting an early read today. GitHub Copilot Momentum. This will all paint a picture of what is happening with AI adoption in enterprises broadly. Interestingly, Copilots at Microsoft, it hasn't been the most hyped product.
Speaker 1:GitHub Copilot early, very, very early to the party. Huge run rate. I got got you're rocking it up to 500,000,000 ARR very, very quickly. But the the the horse race has always been, you know, Windsurf Cognition and Cursor and and Codex and Claude Code, and, like, the battle has been the startups for the most part. Gemini has been in there.
Speaker 1:GitHub Copilot has felt like it hasn't been dominating the narrative. But we're going to find out, is it still growing? Because the market is really, really big. It's possible that everything's growing even if there's a horse race back and forth between the leading labs. There will be a bunch of other questions answered around how nuanced is the diffusion adoption question.
Speaker 1:So Microsoft has an incredible go to market team, an incredible go to market motion, enterprise sales motion. And so is there an advantage that they have that they can press GitHub Copilot? Even if it's not the sexiest product next to whatever's hot this week, can they get Yeah, you back look into into Slack and
Speaker 2:Teams, right?
Speaker 1:Same thing. Yeah, yeah. Slack was definitely like the hot one, the hyped one, and Teams wound up doing very well. And so we'll get a stronger read on what's going on there. And then, of course, that M three sixty five seat growth will tell us a lot about what does the future look like for seat based enterprise software, the SaaS model broadly, because if all of a sudden that's falling off a cliff, well, it probably doesn't look good for other seat based SaaS companies.
Speaker 1:For Amazon, everyone wants to see strong AWS acceleration to justify the MAG seven topping CapEx numbers. They guided to $200,000,000,000 in CapEx in 2026, so expect a lot of focus on AWS revenue growth and margins. Q4 was healthy, though. Net sales up 14% for Amazon, AWS growing at 24%. The sneakily huge ads business over at Amazon grew 23% to $21,300,000,000 They're almost making $100,000,000,000 a year just on ads.
Speaker 1:That's remarkable. And that's a lot of cash flow to fund CapEx and other AI initiatives. And so operating income overall was $25,000,000,000 for last quarter, and they generated free cash flow of $11,200,000,000 so still huge cash flows. They're obviously drawing down on those, and that $11,200,000,000 number was down because of increased AI spending. So if AWS accelerates, all the CapEx looks like buying scarce capacity ahead of demand.
Speaker 1:Like they will be GPU rich or just compute rich generally at a time when it's good to be GPU rich and compute rich, and they will look like geniuses. So people are hoping for strong AWS acceleration. Consensus for AWS revenue is around 36,700,000,000 with growth in the mid-twenty percent range. But the market's really hoping that it starts with a 3%. Everyone's hoping for 30%, something like that, at least this year at some point.
Speaker 1:Reacceleration would be a treat for the market. Lastly, Meta. Meta is an interesting spot. Super clean Q4. Nothing really to prove today.
Speaker 1:Despite all the FUD, all the fear, uncertainty and doubt around the talent wars, new team members, the new lab, the sometimes clunky model releases. They didn't get behemoth out. What different adoption of meta vibes, the video app. Like, there's been all these questions about the AI strategy. All of that needs to be put to the side in the face of just AI is already working for Meta Let's and their get ads that
Speaker 2:data on reels.
Speaker 1:Yeah. They're I mean, they're absolutely crushing it. So 3,580,000,000 DAUs, daily active users, and they grew the ad business a ton. And so the revenue overall grew 24% to almost $60,000,000,000 last quarter. Ad impressions rose 18%.
Speaker 1:Average price per ad rose 6%. Family of apps operating income was $30,800,000,000 which makes losing $6,000,000,000 at Reality Labs like quaint. It's just like, who cares? It's totally worth taking a side bet on the future of devices and maybe you get a platform out of that. It makes a ton of sense.
Speaker 1:And so CapEx was $72,200,000,000 last year. The guide this year is somewhere between 115,000,000 and $135,000,000 I think we might see that tighten up today because it's a little bit wider than some of the other hyperscalers that are targeting, but clearly, a near doubling, almost doubling of CapEx. What are you laughing about?
Speaker 2:There's one possibility where he goes he blows it out.
Speaker 1:Two fifty.
Speaker 2:We can't. Two fifty. Blow it out. We can't count that out.
Speaker 1:I mean, he's
Speaker 2:got They came out with a solid They came out with a solid model. Yeah. He's putting mirrors in space. Yeah. He wants to be a player.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, a lot of focus is on the new meta models, but all of that, just financially, at least in the quarterly earnings, like it will just take a backseat to what's going on with the AI in the ad placement, ad monetization funnel because that's where Meta makes so much money. And so the question is, how much more juice will AI bring to the ad business?
Speaker 1:Expectations imply revenue growth of around 31%. And the question is always the same. Is there enough incremental growth to justify the CapEx? An AI advancement delivers better ad performance basically immediately, and this is the good news for Meta. So improvements in AI move the needle at Meta incredibly quickly.
Speaker 1:Like a new model can come out and there can be some breakthrough in like thinking, reasoning, coding agents. And if you're in the enterprise software world, it can take time to do a deal, roll it out to different developers, different organizations, change management, understand the guardrails, the security. How does this actually flow through an enterprise to drive incremental demand? Not so at Meta. If there is a breakthrough and they have a model that is placing ads more effectively, they can quickly AB test that, run that across the entire family of apps.
Speaker 1:And you don't even notice it as a consumer. You're just like, oh, like I was shopping for a car, and I saw an ad for a car. I was shopping for a shirt, and I saw an ad for the perfect shirt. And the ads just got a little bit better, and just a little bit better means like another $20,000,000,000 in profit. So they just don't have a diffusion question.
Speaker 1:They don't have a diffusion problem. There's no, oh, we have this amazing model. If only we could get people that open Instagram to use it. Like, there's nothing there because they use it when they scroll and they see an ad. And so that's an incredibly fortunate place to be in.
Speaker 1:So every company is trying to answer the same question. Can you turn AI CapEx into proprietary distribution, higher customer retention, measurable revenue growth before the depreciation catches up. It's the Super Bowl for big tech, so get your popcorn ready. Everyone's excited. There are AI worries, AI jitters in The Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 1:AI worries have returned to Wall Street, now come earnings. And so everyone is going back and forth. On the OpenAI news, shares of Oracle, CoreWeave and SoftBank slumped, but CoreWeave is up majorly today, 8.4%. They they dropped at least 4% after hours yesterday, but then they're back up. That revived investors' worries that technology giant's massive investments in artificial intelligence won't produce the blockbuster profits many expect.
Speaker 1:The report was particularly jarring coming ahead of key earnings from major players, Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, all scheduled to report Wednesday with Apple following on Thursday. The ice is thin. The leash is very tight, said Dan Morgan, portfolio analyst at Synovus Trust. Any evidence, that would come out that would add doubt about OpenAI, Anthropic, or any of these companies is obviously gonna create a selloff. Morgan said he hadn't adjusted his positions on Tuesday and didn't think investor concern was broad based because companies, including IBM, Texas Instruments and Intel had reported strong earnings in recent days.
Speaker 1:Instead, Tuesday's losses centered on the companies with biggest stakes in OpenAI's business. OpenAI had forged close ties with these companies to secure funding and gain access to computing resources, which are essential for training AI systems and providing answers to queries and executing user requests. And so Oracle and CoreWeave, we talked about, fell. OpenAI has defended its financial footing and said its leaders are aligned on securing computing resources. The business is firing on all cylinders and the mood internally is incredibly positive, the company said in a response to the journal's article on Tuesday.
Speaker 1:Colin Tidard says, my children might not eat tonight if this doesn't go well because he is excited for all four of these earnings on Robinhood. And we have Vlad from Robinhood coming on the show later today.
Speaker 2:Kramer says
Speaker 1:Kramer says
Speaker 2:Intel such a horse.
Speaker 1:I have no bear case.
Speaker 2:I have no bear case.
Speaker 1:And Intel is up another 10% today?
Speaker 3:Yeah. Up 10% today. Wow. Mean 40% on the week so far.
Speaker 1:40% on the week.
Speaker 2:Is that good?
Speaker 1:Wow.
Speaker 2:Based on everything you've seen so far in your six month career, Tyler, is that good?
Speaker 1:Seems incredible.
Speaker 3:Looks pretty good to me so far.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Mean, there is a like the idea of a CPU shortage generally is just being digested by the market right now. Think it took I mean, I remember Nat Friedman and Daniel Gross going on through Techery and talking about after ChatGPT saying like, Yeah, NVIDIA seems like it could be important. And then they're like quadrupled in value. And this tends to happen as people digest the new reality of demand around certain pieces of the AI supply chain.
Speaker 2:And we have an interactive game set up? Is that
Speaker 1:We do. So there has been a viral I don't know. What is it? A brain teaser?
Speaker 3:Would you It's like a poll.
Speaker 1:A poll, but it's a thought experiment. It's a thought experiment. It's not purely a poll. It's a brain teaser. It's a thought experiment.
Speaker 1:And this has this existed before? Did this start with it did this didn't start with mister beast. Right?
Speaker 3:No. So I I started with Tim Urban? Yeah. Tim Urban I I don't think Tim Urban, like, created this either, but I think his post was the one that first went, like, really big. Okay.
Speaker 3:But I I I don't think this is new. I feel like I've heard about this before at some point. Yeah. But Tim Urban was the first one to make it, like, go viral this Yeah. Cycle of
Speaker 1:So he got 24,000,000 views on April 24, and then mister Beast, came from behind four days later with 10,000,000 views on a very similar question. Let's start with the original Tim Urban question, and we will ask everyone in the chat to participate and vote for what you would pick in this thought experiment. So here is the question posed by Tim Urban of Wait But Why. Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red button or a blue button. If more than 50% press the blue button, everyone survives.
Speaker 1:If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only the people who press the red button survived, which button would you press? What are you what are you pressing?
Speaker 2:So so the sort of like normie answer is you immediately just go blue because it feels like a lot of people would go blue, but like the safe answer is you just if you if you're hyper rational, you'd be like, obviously, you hit red because if everyone's just super rational, everyone hits red and then everyone's all good. You don't hit over 50%. Right?
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 3:Yeah. Because, like, no matter what so if I press red, no matter what anyone else picks, like, survive. Right?
Speaker 1:Yes. But Yes. There is a risk.
Speaker 3:But but, like, you know, if you want everyone to survive, then you need 100% of people to pick red. Right?
Speaker 1:Yes. Yeah.
Speaker 3:But okay. So okay. So originally, I was blue. Yes. I think I was, like, complete normie.
Speaker 3:Right? And then I went to Jordy's take.
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 3:I was, wait. No. That doesn't make sense. Like, even though I mean, we'll see what happened in the poll. Right?
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 3:Yeah. But, you know, I was, okay. If I'm thinking about this super rationally, should just pick red. Right? Then I save myself a 100% of the time.
Speaker 3:Yeah. But then, like, if there's some people that pick blue, then, like, they're gonna die for sure. Yeah. Like, I'm basically voting against them.
Speaker 1:Yeah. You're you're sort of
Speaker 3:Like, you know, you're complicit in everyone's lives. If you want everyone to live
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 3:And you're and you're going for red, you need a 100% of people. But if you're going for blue and you want everyone to live, you only need 51% of people. Right? Yes. So you need to convince way less people.
Speaker 3:Quickly. Let's I gotta jump in.
Speaker 1:Let's tell the chat how to vote.
Speaker 3:Yeah. So one is for red.
Speaker 1:One is for
Speaker 3:here, Ben here. And two is for blue.
Speaker 1:Two is for blue. So type a single character, just a one if you want to vote for red, and just a two if you want to vote for blue. Oh, do we have this up? Oh, we are tilted towards red. This is crazy.
Speaker 1:This is not what happened with Tim Urban's and mister Beast. Because Tim Urban, 58% said blue. Blue won. No one died. And with mister beasts, 55.7% went blue.
Speaker 1:No one died. It's not looking good for the blue team here. 33% of the chat is is gonna get cooked right now.
Speaker 2:It's possible a nation state is voting.
Speaker 1:Yes. That would be very, very high risk. Mike Solana says, For what it's worth and this is embarrassing, but I'm going to admit it. My instinct was blue, and I pressed blue. Then I thought about it for a moment, and the answer was clearly red.
Speaker 1:I can't make a rational case for blue, but understand where blues are coming from. Parentheses, they are wrong. So your final answer, you you you flipped. I think I'm
Speaker 3:still going blue.
Speaker 1:You're still going blue.
Speaker 3:Because I I think I you have to assume that there's gonna be some variance.
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 3:Like some there's some people will just pick the wrong one.
Speaker 1:Yes. Okay? And so
Speaker 3:The the correct one is red. If everyone is, you know, a 100% logical, everyone should be picking red.
Speaker 1:Yes. If 100% of people are rational, they will all pick red and no one will die.
Speaker 3:Correct. If Clearly, some Yes. People are not going to do If 90% of people are doing it Yes. 90% of people are rational
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 3:Then everyone should just be picking blue because you want everyone to live.
Speaker 1:Yes. Yes. And then and then the people that make the mistake, they go for the red. They are saved anyway. But there are some folks who are sharing different illustrations.
Speaker 1:Has one here. He says, If this was how the buttons looked, what portion of humanity would press blue? And he has two images pulled up. One is the red button, nothing happens. And the other one is the ultimate death gamble, press blue.
Speaker 1:You enter the ultimate death gamble. You and everyone who presses this button dies, unless more than 50% of people choose to press this button. And so that makes it pretty clear. I think this is the Mike Salado position as well. You got to press red in this case because nothing happens.
Speaker 1:But that's not entirely true. And so people have sort of flipped this around because pre rat here has the opposite, which is instead of the ultimate death gamble, it's the ultimate murder gamble. So blue, if everyone presses blue, nothing happens. Red is the ultimate murder gamble because you initiate the ultimate murder gamble. Everyone who press blue will die unless 50% of people choose red.
Speaker 1:And so it goes back and forth, you can see both of those. Do you want the blood on your hands from playing the ultimate murder gamble, Or do you want the risk of the ultimate death gamble? I I think it's underrated to just be a little thrill seeking and wanna press blue because, you know, you're you're bored and you want
Speaker 3:No. You can tell blue is the correct answer just because of the massive polls where over 50% of people picked blue.
Speaker 1:That's true. That's true.
Speaker 3:Pick blue because you don't wanna kill Yeah. You know.
Speaker 2:Once you're at mister b scale, this is like a real world simulation.
Speaker 1:It is. It is. Well, we're still we're still red. Cooked. Cooked.
Speaker 1:Simone Sayed says, red button pushers will leave their wives and children to fend for themselves in disastrous situations because their kids can't run fast enough. Mike Salana says, blue button pushers are literally leaving their wives and children behind to fend for themselves. Are they aren't guaranteed to push red? Yes. People are going back and forth.
Speaker 1:Red cells won't believe this, but some people make a distinction between nothing and mass genocide. So they see pushing the red button as effectively committing mass genocide because you are potentially condemning the blue button pushers to death in this scenario. Selfmaxer shares a version of the trolley problem where the red team is not on the rails, but the blue team is pushing the lever to save themselves. Is this an accurate description? Is a fair contextualization around this?
Speaker 1:It's obviously charitable to the red team, which, of course, the TBPN audience seems to be represented by standing next to the trolley lines and not standing on the rails. But you would be there, Tyler. You would be a blue button pusher pushing on the on
Speaker 3:the trolley. It's like I'm an idiot.
Speaker 1:Seems a little risky in that scenario. It does. When you have the option just to stand there and watch the trolley go by, you know, it's it's all about frame of mind here.
Speaker 3:No. But, like, you can tell that from the polls, from the big polls, you can just tell that blue is the correct option.
Speaker 1:Potentially. Do you know that beforehand?
Speaker 3:No, you don't. But those people who voted in it did not know beforehand. Yeah. And so if if 10,000,000 or how many hundreds of thousands people voted Yeah. I think you can just assume that that's
Speaker 2:The question is, like, if this actually was a real vote
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:Would people spend a little bit more time thinking about the problem and would that influence their Yes.
Speaker 1:Their answer. It is it is a very Because
Speaker 2:the social media poll are scrolling. They see MrBeast ask a question. They're just like curious. There's no real stakes. Yeah.
Speaker 2:And so they just answer quickly.
Speaker 1:But the blue is very much a it's a faith in humanity restored moment. Right? If everyone works together, nobody dies at all in this hypothetical. Yeah. David Shore says, we ask this If everybody to else large
Speaker 2:hits death gamble button together. Yeah. But there wins.
Speaker 1:There are there there are analogies to that in real life. You know, national sacrifice, community sacrifice, everyone pitching in for a greater good to save those who didn't even chime in to serve or save the world. The you know, you think about Armageddon, the sacrifice of going to the the the the asteroid to destroy it. The the these are heroic these are heroic stories. What what what is what's what's the chat saying?
Speaker 3:They're they're not a I don't think they they really
Speaker 1:They're not
Speaker 3:aren't big fans of my position.
Speaker 1:No. Well, you know who is? A large sample of nationally representative Americans. Blue won by a large margin, three to one margin, and everyone voted blue. Here, they asked a whole bunch of people To close out the blue red button discourse, they pulled 14,000 people cross tabbed survey responses by two zero four commonly used psychometric questions.
Speaker 1:The top four personality questions most predictive of button choice were displayed below. Tell the truth. The blue button pushers strongly agree. I tell the truth. People who don't tell the truth were still more likely to select blue, but a little bit more likely to select red on average.
Speaker 1:A very, very, very interesting social experiment. Have a great day, everyone. Leave us five stars on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Sign up for our newsletter, tbpn.com. We'll see you tomorrow.
Speaker 1:Goodbye. Cheers.