Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Demystifying the conversations we're already here at RRE and with our portfolio companies. In each episode, your hosts, Will Porteous, Raju Rishi, and Jason Black will dive deeply into topics that are shaping the future, from satellite technology to digital health, to venture investing, and much more.
Raju: George Washington—FYI—owned and operated one of the largest whiskey distilleries of its time.
Will: Wow. He chose a great market.
Raju: I love that market.
Will: [laugh].
Raju: Any president who does tequila, I’m voting for. I’m going to vote for tequila president next.
Raju: I’m Raju Rishi.
Will: And I’m Will Porteous. Welcome to RRE POV, the show in which we record the conversations we’re already having among ourselves, our entrepreneurs, and industry leaders for you to listen in on.
Raju: Hello, listeners, and welcome to another episode of RRE POV. I’m Raju Rishi, and I’m joined with my partner Will Porteous. And today we’re going to discuss the potential impact of the new presidential administration on startups and venture capital. So, I’ve always said, Will, and you’ve heard me say this a number of times, in startup world, headwinds and tailwinds are important.
Will: [laugh]. Yeah, great point about a great topic [laugh].
Raju: I know. And what winds up happening is, when we look at startups, we look at a handful of attributes. We look at the team, which is always going to be the biggest characteristic that we’re considering. The second thing we look at is the market opportunity. The third is product-market fit.
And inside product-market fit is, are there headwinds in this industry or are there tailwinds in this industry? And you and I both know because we’ve been around the block a long time, that presidential administrations can absolutely have an impact, either from a headwind perspective or a tailwind perspective.
Will: I couldn’t agree more. And I think investors have a tendency to look for an opportunity and a catalyst that can accelerate that opportunity. And here we have a potential set of really interesting catalysts across a lot of different sectors that the innovation economy touches. You’ll have new heads of agencies, you’ll have new policies, you’re going to have a completely unified executive branch in Congress for the first time. In some respects, regardless of your place on the political spectrum, the opportunity for alignment has almost never been better for things to get broad government support that this administration decides to get behind.
Now, I think it is also, we’re seeing a lot of players from the innovation economy on the scene, people who have built companies, people who’ve been a part of the venture capital ecosystem, people who’ve been really accomplished entrepreneurs, in many cases, relatively young in their career, relative to people who might have been in these positions in past administrations, and bringing a whole set of lessons learned from their company-building experience to government. We’re going to see how that goes, but the dynamics for the startup ecosystem are certainly going to be interesting.
Raju: Yeah, I couldn’t agree more. And from everything I’ve read, and I spent a little bit of time thinking about this because where we invest and how we invest, it’s going to be contingent on whether it’s going to be easy or hard to get things done in that marketplace. So, everything I’ve read is that there are certain sectors that are going to be very positively impacted, and there are certain sectors that are going to be negatively impacted. So, I’m going to just start by picking out a couple of sectors that I think are positively impacted, and love your thoughts. I’ll share some of my thoughts as well, and we’ll just kind of keep this loose and easy.
So, let’s start with something that’s one of your favorites: defense and aerospace. You know, plans to boost defense spending, companies in the defense and aerospace sectors may experience growth as a result of that. Will, you’re the guy. You’re the guy in this space, so talk to me about this. Tell me about it.
Will: Well, I think from my perspective, this administration is poised to accelerate some great programs that were already put in place over the last four to six years, some programs that go back to the first Trump administration and were continued by the Biden administration. One of the most obvious examples of this is the Space Force, which was inaugurated by President Trump, our newest branch of the armed forces, which has grown in size. There are now 35,000 members of the Space Force, and they are increasingly taking over other missions from the Air Force, and from other parts of government, parts of the intelligence community. And what’s interesting is that because they started with a clean sheet of paper, they have been very aggressive in embracing commercial providers to deliver on their missions. And so, the insertion points for innovative companies, including some in our portfolio—in our space portfolio—with the Space Force have been incredible.
But we’re seeing that elsewhere in the defense establishment, and going right to the Pentagon, to the core of the leadership of the Department of Defense, outgoing Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin established something called the Office of Strategic Capital in his time there, which was that plus big acceleration in programs for the Defense Innovation Unit, and other programs like it. The defense leadership has essentially recognized that we’re going to be fighting really different kinds of wars going forward. The Ukraine War has shown us the importance, for instance, of technologies to evade GPS jamming; it’s shown us the importance of lightweight, cheap drone infrastructure; it’s shown us the importance of—reemergence of the importance of guerrilla tactical units and that sort of thing. All technologies that have been underinvested in by the Department of Defense, and they’re using things like the Office of Strategic Capital and the Defense Innovation Unit to embrace startups. They were doing this before incoming President Trump was reelected, and those efforts, I think, we’re going to see accelerate.
And I’ll just end by stressing the fact that the incoming head of NASA, Jared Isaacman, is an accomplished entrepreneur. You’ve got people like Steve Feinberg, a really accomplished investor, the founder and former head of Cerberus, who has a lot of investments in defense sector, coming in as the Deputy Secretary of Defense. So, you’ve got people from the innovation ecosystem moving into leadership positions around this, at a time when the U.S. Really needs to be embracing commercial.
So, I’m pretty bullish on this for innovative companies in our portfolio and for others. And there’s one great, frankly, magnificent case study that everyone points to in this regard, which is SpaceX. Because SpaceX today is our principal way of getting things in space as a country, and it’s a commercial provider. I think that is all the example that people need to justify this kind of engagement, both within government and within the commercial sector.
Raju: I agree. And you know what? There’s going to be increased spending, contracts are going to get unlocked here, so I think it’s good. If you’re a startup that’s thinking about defense and aerospace or you’re already in this space, I think this bodes well for you. So, anyway. So, next one, financial services. I’m happy to touch on it, if you want to touch on it, it’s fine with me. Either one.
Will: [laugh]. I want to hear your thoughts, but I think the general sentiment is the crypto world just came on.
Raju: Yeah. Well, I think it’s more than just that, you know, Will. I think there’s this administration has an inclination toward deregulation, you know, in general, and that’s going to benefit banks and financial institutions by easing restrictions. So, you’re going to see banks and, you know, financial institutions now being able to potentially invest in venture in a more aggressive way. That unlocks a lot of capital, right?
It also increases their ability to do certain things that were highly restricted in terms of, you know, just innovation layers that no one wanted to sort of take much risk in sort of the traditional banking infrastructure around. But the second big thing you mentioned is crypto, right? I think crypto, you know, the fact that Trump mentioned a reserve of Bitcoin, you know, that being one thing, and then all the various administration layers that he’s putting in place are going to loosen the restrictions around crypto and the way it’s characterized. And that will impact a bunch of crypto companies and also blockchain companies and, you know, a bunch of other capabilities, and allow a little bit more, you know, freedom from that standpoint. I don’t know if there’s anything else you wanted to add.
Will: Well, I think it’s important to see all the way through the very first point that you made, this kind of anticipation by market participants that there’s going to be less regulation going forward, that there’s perhaps—that the barriers to capital markets activity maybe you’re going to start to come down a little bit, that we might actually see some factors help accelerate the capital markets equation to getting companies public, to getting M&A transactions done, those sorts of things. I think just having people in the financial services ecosystem believe that is a meaningful sea change. And I think we started to see that in the market behavior after the election, and maybe we’re going to start to see it in some public announcements of some deals and some filings before too long. Because as you and I know that all trickles down through the ecosystem, right? When investors see their company is filing for IPOs, they start turning their attention more actively to new investments, deploying new capital, and the capital investment cycle starts to accelerate for all of us.
Raju: Yeah, and you got to bet Jamie Dimon is going to push the envelope here [laugh].
Will: [laugh]. Yeah. Yeah.
Raju: I mean, he’s loving this. He’s sitting there thinking, oh my God, deregulation of financial services institutions. I can start doing some interesting things. So, I’m looking forward to it.
Will: And in Howard Lutnick, you’ve got an incoming Secretary of Commerce who’s a public market veteran who understands the nature of capitalizing growth companies. I mean, a guy who’s had an extraordinary career on Wall Street, who’s been a part of helping build a lot of companies as a financier and as a board member is now going to be driving the agenda at commerce. And I think that can only be good for the overall capital markets equation.
Raju: I agree. Let’s move to manufacturing and construction. What are your thoughts, right? What do you think is going to—what’s going to happen in that sector?
Will: Well, [sigh] you know, my thoughts are—I don’t know that they’re that focused, but with rates coming down, I think we can anticipate, you know, costs of financing, costs of construction, costs of new building, and of real estate transactions coming down. So, there’s going to be more liquidity in the property market, and I think that could be a boost. It’s hard to kind of—you know, we have an incoming president with, you know, a long history and career in commercial real estate. The first Trump administration supported some deregulation around—and tax treatments—around partnerships that were incredibly favorable for real estate. And I think that can flow through to construction and also to manufacturing.
Raju: Yeah, I think so too. I think manufacturing in America, for sure. You know, if you’re doing manufacturing outside this country, or you’re working with manufacturers outside this country, I think it may be more challenging, but I think certainly here. And I think that there’s—I’ve read a bunch of initiatives on infrastructure development plans in this country that I think will go further, faster as a result of this as well.
Will: Yeah. Before we leave this, though, once we start to talk about manufacturing, I think it’s impossible not to talk about China, and about the relationship between our two supply chains when we’re talking about critical industries and manufacturing scale up, right?
Raju: Yeah, that’s the negative. I’m getting to that one. So, we’ll focus on the negatively impacted stuff in a couple of seconds. I’m just focusing on things that are benefiting, that are going to get benefits. So, we’ll jump to that in a second. How about the energy sector? So, I think this one’s mixed, but, you know, love your thoughts first before I chime in.
Will: No, you go ahead.
Raju: Okay. So, you know, listen, it’s clear, right? Emphasizing energy independence by reducing regulations on fossil fuels, that’s going to be good for, you know, space, obviously, in a good way, I expect it to favor oil and gas, and coal industries, you know, domestic production, and investment in those sectors. I think EV is a place where, you know, we could get a negative impact, right? Because less, maybe, tax credits for being green focused on, you know, sort of electric vehicle production.
That being said, the fact that we have Elon Musk sort of playing a role here, obviously involved in Tesla, I don’t know where that all shakes out around EV. But certainly in the energy sector, I think if you’ve got sort of a dependence on fossil fuels in whatever startup you’re working on, you know, that’s going to benefit you. You’re going to be less regulated, consumption’s not going to be tariffed, all of that kind of stuff. EV sector, I think, is TBD from my standpoint, but I don’t know how you feel about it, Will.
Will: No, I think that’s right. I think there’s a natural anticipation worldwide that, kind of, the restrictions that were imposed on the oil and gas sector during the Biden administration are going to start to come off. We’re going to slow the pace of the overall EV transition. It will be most visible in vehicles. And we may, frankly, fall behind some of our global counterparts in this regard. You know, Tesla is an outlier and an important data point in this.
I think it’s worth thinking about what we’re not seeing in the U.S. Which is a lot of government initiative pushing towards green production of everything. You know, MIT’s Tech Review, which you and I are both fond of, highlighted Sweden’s commitment to building the first green steel plant in the world, which uses reconstituted hydrogen that is far more energy efficient in the transformation of iron to iron ore than a traditional steel process. And meanwhile, we have one and probably the Trump administration behind the Biden administration blocking the U.S. Steel/Nippon Steel merger, trying to basically hold on to a legacy industry that actually needs to be transformed. So, lots of questions about how forward-looking our policy is going to be, I think, in the energy sector and in related manufacturing sectors, to tie us back to the—
Raju: I agree. I agree. But you got to sort of go with what’s on the table, right? And so, those folks that are looking at this sector and kind of want to, you know, play, I think you got to really think about, sort of, the next four years. So, one of the things we haven’t talked about is that, you know, gestation of venture capital firms—venture-backed companies—tends to be long, tends to be a few years of sort of just incubation and early selling. And then you might have a 10, 15 year horizon on your hands.
So, presidents ebb and flow, right [laugh]? You’re going to have new administration in their mid-cycle sometimes. So, you know, I wouldn’t suggest to an entrepreneur don’t get involved in a category because you’ve got headwinds because of this administration, but you just have to be practical on how you’re going to make your early sales, and you know, what types of customers you’re selling to, and how much, you know, sort of support you get from the administration versus restrictions. And I think energy is going to be one where people are going to make money. I think that there are a variety of—and you know, the one good news about the energy sector is I think Trump’s administration is very favorable around deregulation, so pulling from different pockets of energy sources could be an interesting play here. But I think if you’re focused on something that’s, you know, a pure EV play that’s saying I’m going to do X, Y, and Z, you may not see as much support, I think, as an entrepreneur.
Will: Yeah.
Raju: Okay. I’ll move to one last positive category, or what I believe is positively impacted, and then we’ll move to some of the negative ones. And we’ll talk about that, including the global impacts and, you know, sort of the impact of the Chinese and the U.S. Relationships. But the last positive one, I guess, is industrials.
And I’ll just start here, but corporate tax cuts are anticipated. I think we’re going to have some favorable trade policies [laugh] for certain types of stuff. And trade’s going to be interesting because you and I are going to touch on that in a second. So, I think the capital goods sector may see a bump here because very heartland-oriented, you know, made-in-America-oriented, you’re going to see some corporate tax cuts that are going to allow those companies to blossom a bit. And so, startups that are selling into those industries may see more opportunity because they’re not going to be as constrained due to some of the corporate tax cuts. What do you think, Will?
Will: I think that’s possible. I think there may be real insertion points for startups because of that. I do think the corporate tax cuts that are anticipated would certainly be a boon and possibly a boon for investment, and partnership that would really trickle down and benefit a lot of smaller companies. My biggest concern around manufacturing and the supplies to industrials and other categories is the importance to this administration of the made-in-America message versus the reality of our global supply chains. And I think that there’s a lot of questions about the sort of how far Trump intends to go with this tariff agenda, and I think that there’s a stark reality at the supply chain level that so many products that are either made in America today or that we hope to be made in America are heavily dependent on foreign-sourced unit-level components that have to be made in those other places [laugh].
And the fact that they’re pretty cheap in those places or that assembly is already done in those places is fundamental to the margin structure of a lot of our most important companies. And so, I feel like he’s kind of striking at the profitability equation for a lot of American companies in assailing Asian, and particularly Chinese, manufacturing at the same time that maybe they’re going to get a meaningful tax boost. And that seesaw scares me a lot.
Raju: Yeah, it scares me too, but… this is where true entrepreneurs kind of thread the needle and navigate well. So, let’s move to the negatively impact things, items. And I’ve just got three on my list here. One is tech hardware. I mean, we know, right? You and I work with a bunch of hardware companies that are startups that have grown beyond the startup thing, and imposition of tariffs on imports, particularly from China, are going to see increased production costs for these tech companies that are reliant on the global supply chains. We know that.
And going in knowing that, at least I’ve been working with some of my companies to figure out how to diversify the supply chain. And there are other locations. Obviously, you know, you can go to Korea, you can go to Vietnam, there’s, you know, other, even India has some capability around this, where you can navigate the waters. Sometimes these issues when they kind of punch you in the face force you to build a more resilient business. And—
Will: Yeah.
Raju: —you know, I’ve been talking to some of my companies about multi-supplier models for years because being reliant on a single source tends to have a cost impact down the road. And it certainly has an impact if the supply chain can’t get to you for whatever reason. So, in some ways, you know, forcing ourselves to look at these other countries for some of these parts creates a little bit more resiliency in our company. That being said, it is going to impact costs. It is going to impact costs, and it impacts how quickly we can move in some of these companies. But what do you think?
Will: I have my one company that was manufacturing in China moved to Malaysia a few years ago and has had a really favorable experience. And I think globally de-risking your manufacturing strategy is a big theme for anybody who’s making physical goods. But it should be a starting principle for anybody who’s starting a company, which is how do I isolate my production from geopolitical risk? Because the world is only getting more conflict, with the potential for a conflict in the South China Sea, for ongoing conflict in the Middle East, conflict that we’ve all obviously seen in Eastern Europe. It’s like, okay, where and how do we have multiple layers of resilience to deal with geopolitical tension?
Raju: A hundred percent. Okay, we’re going to go to retail. I think a lot of this is similar stuff, right? Retailers import goods from China all the time, and increased cost due to tariffs, resulting in higher prices for consumers and decreased demand. And that’s for the big box retailers. But we know a lot of startups, and you and I work with a lot of startups that sell to these retailers. That is one of their markets. And when you see an impact like that as a retailer, your margins are going down. And when your margins go down, you buy less.
You buy less technology, unless the technology can very quickly prove an ROI. And so, you know, my advice to those folks that are focused in this sector is, have an ROI and have that ROI be fast. Because if you’re thinking about something that takes a year to deploy and a year to collect data, and then starts giving you insights on how you should price your goods on a website dynamically, it ain’t going to fly, right? Because nobody’s going to have the money for that. It’s going to be, can you tell me where I can source a similar product for cheaper, you know, immediately? Then you’re going to catch somebody’s attention. But I think that ROI-driven sale is what entrepreneurs should be focused upon if they’re creating companies in this sector, at least for the next four years.
Will: I think that’s a great point, and really fundamental to how you have to think about retail. I believe that the Trump administration is going to raise questions about the future of retail that are really fundamental to the industry. And what I’m referring to is there’s very clearly already an articulation of skepticism towards big tech in general. And included in big tech is the biggest retailer in the world, which is Amazon. And you don’t have to look far to see the pressure that the Amazon model and that online retail generally exerts on traditional retail.
And so, what is the antidote to that is pursued by the Trump administration? Is it a breakup of certain large online retailers? Is it support for online retailers? Because retail is in general, I mean, it’s a brutal business that only gets tougher, and when you consider the cost side that we were just talking about on the inputs, and if you consider the impact of inflation on the US consumer’s ability and willingness to show up and spend money, you’re facing a pretty hard environment. And I’m not clear yet on how the Trump administration is going to support retail, but I think it’s going to be very dynamic.
Raju: Yeah, I agree. And expect a little flip-flopping here, so we’ll see. We’ll see where it goes. All right, the last one I’ve got, which I think is a negative, unfortunately, is agriculture, right? Regulatory tariffs from other countries, such as China, they’re going to be retaliatory, and that’s going to impact trade policies and decrease demand for American agricultural products, which is going to decrease their margins.
And so, like, I’m just trying to position this as companies that are selling into those industries because I’m not expecting a startup to, you know, like, oh, we’ve got 10,000 acres of land and we’re plotting—and, you know, like, they’re selling into that industry. And so, that industry is going to have a bit of a challenge as a result of retaliatory tariffs.
Will: Yeah [sigh]. This is a huge issue already, right, and I think it plays right into questions about what this administration will do for its political base. US agriculture has persisted for a long time with farm bill after farm bill to keep US agriculture competitive on a global basis, when in fact it’s, in many cases, not competitive. A farmer in Mississippi can’t compete with a farmer in India, or [unintelligible 00:26:10], on a price per pound of cotton, and yet we support a domestic industry. And so, you throw tariffs on top of that, and we’re even less competitive agriculturally. And this is going to strike right at questions of how this administration supports that base, that rural base, which provided a lot of the electorate for this administration to win.
Raju: Yep. So, a lot to consider over the next four years. Any other specific thoughts you wanted to mention, Will, before we jump into Gatling gun?
Will: What about healthcare?
Raju: Health care.
Will: [laugh].
Raju: I think that’s going to be an opportunity of a lifetime [laugh].
Will: [laugh].
Raju: I do. Listen, healthcare has been regulated for years. Forever. Forever. Since the inception of rules for doctors, and HIPAA, and all sorts of nuances. I think in some respect, we’re going to see some real interesting opportunities for functional medicine. I think traditional pharmaceuticals may struggle as a result of what’s happening, but I think it really depends on the sector that you’re focused on.
If you’re going down the tried-and-true route of working with payers, and clinicians, and pharmaceutical companies, I think there’s going to be some shakeup, and I think it’s going to be a little bit of a challenge. I think if you’re moving down a route of functional medicine, and self-pay models, self-care models, innovation layers on top of that, I think there’s going to be a lot of wide open space for the next four years. Challenge with healthcare companies is they’re never one-and-done in four years. And you’re going to start now with an open threshold around these things, and a lot of that stuff might get more tightly regulated down the road. So, in the end, my view on healthcare is, you build a good business, and then it doesn’t matter what administration is focused on because it just takes a long time to build a good healthcare business.
Will: [laugh]. In fact, that’s probably a really important thought for across all these sectors when we’re talking about startups, and how they’ll really be able to access these opportunities is, it may outlast—their trajectory may take them a good deal longer than the next four years.
Raju: Absolutely. Absolutely. So, I got a few Gatling gun questions, which we always have to end with because this is my favorite part of the whole podcast. Okay, so the first one, open-ended question for you, Will, and I’ll respond with my answer. So, which president do you think did the most for venture capital?
Will: Oh, well, that’s a great question. Whatever administration supported the QSBS legislation, [laugh] that provides such favorable tax treatment to our limited partners, and others in the ecosystem, that drove favorable tax treatment for the growth of startups in this country, essentially created the right incentive system to support our ecosystem. I don’t know who that was, but I should know the answer.
Raju: Yeah, I think that might have been the Obama administration, but I’m not a hundred percent certain about it. But I will say Reagan. He created the Economic Recovery Act of 1981, which reduced cap gains to 20%. And that reduction made high-risk investments much, much more attractive, stimulating venture capital activity. And I think that put a lot of this stuff on the map.
Will: Absolutely. Yeah, favorable tax treatment is all of it, in terms of igniting the ecosystem.
Raju: Yeah, cap gains. Okay, a bunch of presidents were entrepreneurs. Off the top of your head, do you know of one? Otherwise, I can name a few, but you can…
Will: Yeah, name a few.
Raju: Okay, fine. So, this is a question to myself, a Gatling gun to myself, a self-directed gun wound [laugh]. George Washington—FYI—owned and operated one of the largest whiskey distilleries of its time.
Will: Wow. He chose a great market.
Raju: I love that market. Any president who does tequila, I’m voting for. I’m going to vote for tequila president next. Abraham Lincoln owned—co-owned, actually—a general store. Herbert Hoover had a hyper-successful mining consultancy.
Will: Ahh.
Raju: Generated millions of dollars for him and his family. And obviously, Donald Trump had The Apprentice franchise. So, all good entrepreneurs. Okay—
Will: Certainly.
Raju: —best presidential movie or show of all time?
Will: Oh well, for me, that’s the West Wing.
Raju: Okay, I’m going to go with either White House Down or Olympus Has Fallen. [laugh].
Will: All right, well, in the Olympus Has Fallen genre, Escape from New York was one of the seminal movies in my childhood, and it’s set in—
Raju: Snake Plissken.
Will: Snake Plissken, and it centers on what happens when the president’s plane goes down in New York City, which in a future time is a maximum security prison. So—
Raju: Listen—
Will: —dark stuff.
Raju: —if some entrepreneur comes into my office and says… and I ask him his name and he says Snake Plissken—
Will: [laugh].
Raju: Blank check, Will. Blank check.
Will: A hundred percent [laugh].
Raju: It’s a blank check. I don’t even hear the idea anymore.
Will: Yeah. We’re going to back that guy.
Raju: Blank check. Okay, funniest presidential movie or show of all time?
Will: Mmm, what’s yours?
Raju: I’m going to go with Veep.
Will: Ah. Yes.
Raju: It’s not technically the president… it’s a vice president, but it’s close enough.
Will: Yeah. Actually, I was talking to someone who interned at the White House last summer, and I asked her what it was like on the inside and she said, well, you go in and everybody thinks that they’re going on the West Wing, but actually, they’re going on Veep [laugh]—
Raju: [laugh].
Will: Because that’s what it’s really like.
Raju: Oh, I believe it. I believe it. I believe it. Okay, last question. Funniest presidential moment that you can remember?
Will: Oh, mmm… you’ve got good answers for this.
Raju: I do. I have two, actually. But I think I’m going to vote for Bush Sr. vomiting on the Japanese prime minister.
Will: Always popular in this category [laugh].
Raju: Yeah. The other one I had, by the way, was Bush Jr. Dodging shoes that were thrown at him.
Will: Oh…
Raju: But that wasn’t actually funny. That was actually, like, a guy really—it was a serious moment.
Will: Kind of awful.
Raju: Yeah, it was kind of awful. But the vomiting thing, I’m going to go with that [laugh].
Will: Yeah. I don’t think I have a great answer.
Raju: Okay.
Will: That’s pretty good though.
Raju: I remember Dan Quayle having a couple of gaffes. Was it spelling mistakes? I don’t know, po-TA-to, po-TAH-to.
Will: Yeah, yeah. Spelling, pronunciation, and like—yeah.
Raju: Yeah. There were a couple. There were a couple. All right. Well, thank you, Will.
Will: Thank you, Raju. That was fun. It’s sure going to be interesting for our companies, for our listeners, for our investors. We’re excited to be back with all of you for 2025. Thank you for listening to RRE POV, and we’ll be back to you next week with our episode on the Consumer Electronics Show. So, thank you for tuning in.
Raju: Thank you for listening to RRE POV. You can keep up with the latest on the podcast at @RRE on X or rre.com, and on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, or wherever fine podcasts are distributed. We’ll see you next time.