Hiten Patel: I'm delighted to welcome on today's show, Rob Mackay, the CEO of Regnology, and my co-host today is Sean Farrar, who leads a lot of our software work for private equity investors here at Oliver Wyman. Welcome both to the show.
Rob Mackay: Thanks, Hiten. Good to see you guys.
Sean Farrar: Thanks, Hiten.
Hiten: So why don't we start, Rob with a brief intro to Regnology and your role as CEO at the company.
Rob: Okay. Yeah. Regnology is a mid-size financial technology business. We specialize in a few areas. We help banks and insurance companies out with their regulatory reporting. We do the other side of that, which is we help supervisors out with their collections of regulatory reports and regulatory data that come in from those banks and supervisors. And we do the same sort of thing on tax reporting, both regulatory tax reporting and client tax reporting. And we do that again for banks and for tax authorities. So in both areas of our business, we've got these quite strong network effects that are nice, and we've got good social purpose. We act strongly, we promote financial stability in our regulatory reporting business and tax transparency in our tax business, all of which is good.
Hiten: Yeah. Well let's delve deeper into that market in a moment. But for the listeners, why don't we just rewind the tape a little bit and talk to me about your journey before you've got to this seat. You've had quite an interesting set of roles and a path from Algorithmics, FIS, a brief stint at Oliver Wyman, Itiviti, Broadridge. Talk to us a little bit about that journey, what some of the punctuation points were along the way?
Rob: Yeah, a brief stint at Oliver Wyman. I'm not sure the most successful stint at Oliver Wyman, but I guess we'll get to that as we go along. How far back do you want to go? Starting at leaving university? I wasn't going to work remotely in financial services. I actually, I was a biologist at university and I signed up for a job in the Kalahari Desert for a couple of years after leaving university and I was really looking forward to that. And just before I was about to fly out, the guy who was in that job for a couple of years before me decided to stay on. So I found myself suddenly without a job, without any money and needing to resolve all of those pretty quickly. So I looked in the university careers letter and this ages me a bit, but it was just after Barings, it was just after the Netscape IPO.
Hiten: So this was a physical, this was like a physical letter. This wasn’t then you scouring online?
Rob: Yeah, I think there was some sort of downtrodden building I had to go to read this thing. And you had to turn up in some university careers office back then and read some physical newsletter or something like that. Anyway, so I saw this advert for a business that was involved in derivatives valuation and went along for an interview. And despite, as with all of us leaving the university, you don't know much about anything. I got the job and started in it and turned out it was an offshoot of the London Business School. It was called London Business School Financial Software, now called Monis Software. They specialized in theoretical valuation of exotic derivatives, particularly convertible bonds. And I started in that and that's really how it all got going. Quite a bit of, I think a lot of us, when we reflect on our careers, there's a whole lot of luck and chance, especially in the early days.
Rob: And that's very much the case with me. Started there in sales, I was hopeless at it, completely hopeless, just couldn't do it, but stuck at it for a few months and ended up getting pretty good at it, and actually got very good at it. And it was a very different world to today. We used to, I had a laptop full of stochastic calculus and book up a meeting on a trading floor with someone in equity derivatives and do a demo with that person, hopefully get a contract signed and move on to the next desk and just sort of get references around these trading floors just from group to group. And it was all pretty entrepreneurial and very unstructured compared to the way things work now. There was no procurement, nothing like that. It was all sort of very decentralized, but a great way to learn.
Hiten: Yeah. And what do you think in that period that really allowed you to hit your momentum and find your stride? What was it that enabled that first period of success that you describe?
Rob: I think, there was a sense that you had to figure things out. I remember reading lots of textbooks and teaching myself a lot about stochastic calculus and derivative valuation and just reading all these books so that I could become in some way useful. And the other bit of actually learning how to sell something. It's completely hopeless here. To start off with, I was overthinking everything, but you sort of keep just cracking away at the same problem. You keep trying, keep on going and eventually it comes. I mean it took a few months, maybe six months to become good. And then just through repetition and a bit of bloody mindedness, I think I became very good at it. So what I learned from that, I guess I learned my way around a trading floor. I learned a lot about finance, and I learned how to sell, and I learned the value of persistence.
Hiten: Yeah. And what triggered then the transitions that then followed? What triggered the next stages?
Rob: I think there was often a sense that there's a bigger world. I got a call from Algorithmics and enterprise risk was very hot at the time. Algo was doing incredibly well, did very well with that business. That took me to New York, all of which was great because the business was struggling there. I got a call from Oliver Wyman, which was a company I had huge respect for. At the time John Drzik and James Lam were launching a business called E Risk, which was taking Oliver Wyman’s IP and turning it into an internet company. This was, late 98, early 99, something like that. And so, got involved with that, and unfortunately what turned out is they had a really cool model. So they're building out a portal with all of the Oliver Wyman risk management IP because you guys did, used to do it a lot, ton of consulting around risk management and then building out an internet delivered application for the measurement of risk. And then on the back of it all, an exchange for alternative risk transfer. And I thought this was just the most awesome thing I'd ever heard. Unfortunately, none of it existed.
Rob: So I joined that business to build a sales organization only to find that on the first or in the early weekends, I was actually there helping to sort of put together this portal and building out a website and stuff like that. I seem to remember I had two mortgages at the time when I realized that I had a whole load of equity in an internet business, but actually it wasn't going to pay a vast amount of cash. It didn't last a very long time and I think it got to the second half of 2000 and this thing looked distinctly less appealing than it had in the second half of 99. So I went back to more traditional things after that
Hiten: Will be the first time where we've had the right idea, wrong timing. Probably good five, six years too soon and probably underestimate the challenges to follow through on that. But it sounds like an exciting chapter nevertheless.
Rob: Yeah, it was good fun, met some good people.
Hiten: And then just talk to me later in life then you're probably one of the few people we get to speak to that straddle what we would call private FITS, public FITS, right, stints at FIS, little stint at Broadridge, as well as then running and leading what we call privately owned FITS technology software company. You kind of then had a period where you went through both of those. I'd love to hear kind of what you are, compare and contrast what the differences were across those and what some of the common threads.
Rob: Super interesting. It's actually one of the defining themes. So after Oliver Wyman, I went back to Monis and I ran the US operation and turned that around. That was really the first turnaround I did. And that's been one of the things I've focused on in much the rest of my career, as an example of that. And listen, these numbers I'll give you might not stand up to rigorous scrutiny, but their direction are kind of correct. There was a business, the US end of this business was selling software or the European end was selling software for something like 40,000 a seat. The US end was selling it for 4,000 a seat. And I came in and turned it around to the point where we went from selling for 4,000 a seat to 64,000 a seat. So even sort of allowing for a little bit of exaggeration there, those numbers probably aren't strictly accurate, but still, you get a sense of a pretty good turnaround there.
Rob: That business was then bought by SunGard, and SunGard as you know, was very acquisitive and used to acquire pretty much anything that moved and then not really do any integration. And that was a strategy that worked. This is in the early 00’s now. It was a strategy that worked pretty well until circa 2007, until the financial crisis and then sort of ceased to perform as well. SunGard was eventually bought by FIS and this is fast forwarding a number of years. Again, I think that was in about 15, 2015. And again, FIS had done very well from serial acquisitions, but perhaps done a less good job of integrating these acquisitions and really driving further improvements, in particular of investing in these acquisitions. And all of these, you referred to it in your question about working in large public financial technology firms. There's a pretty clear theme I think, and I'm probably not going to make many friends when I say this, but there's a pretty clear theme with these businesses that they've underinvested, they've grown through acquisition, they’ve done a poor job of integrating, and they've underinvested in everything that they acquire. And I read a really, really cool article in the FT, I think it was last weekend or the weekend before about it was called "The Enshittification of everything", right? You've probably read it. And it made me think of this, that these businesses with strong network effects or with strong switching costs, they end up exploiting their customers a lot. And I think the same sort of theme applied and continues to apply, actually, with a lot of these larger financial technology
Hiten: Yeah, very fascinating. No, I did read that. And there is always an upside and a downside when you see things like stickiness, high barriers to switching, and how do you navigate and optimize around that. So I think what you say resonates, but let's bring it to here and now. And I guess there is surprisingly a lot of interest in regulatory reporting, supervisory tech. I probably wouldn't have dreamt that 10 years ago, but here we are. It's a hotspot in the area. And Sean, I'd invite you just to explore this market a little bit more with Rob and just talk through what's going on. So I'll hand over to you, Sean.
Sean: Yeah, thanks Hiten. So I mean, I guess just as a starting point, Rob, you sort of mentioned at the start that Regnology is active in reg. reporting for the banks, but also serving the supervisors and so on. It'd be really interesting to get your views on the interplay of both, and the advantages of offering both of those to all the different parts of the ecosystem effectively.
Rob: So if you look at it from my perspective as a vendor, the situation I inherited with the Regnology businesses is, we had a stack that does reg. reporting for banks. We had a stack that does collections for supervisors and it does other stuff like licensing and a range of other things for supervisors. But let's think of it just as reg. report reporting and collections. What's the reg. reporting? You take data out of core banking, I'm going to massively simplify here, but you take data out of core banking systems, you normalize that data, you run a bunch of calc. engines on it to produce aggregated, calculated data across a bank's balance sheet. Things like risk weighted assets, or net stable funding ratio, whatever it is, some aggregated calculated data point. You then put that in a template and submit that to the regulator. And from Regnology’s perspective, historically that was an end-to-end process.
Rob: Of course it isn't end-to-end because that data is then picked up by the regulators and the regulators then look to make sense of it across the industry and through time and look at concentrations of risk and lots of good stuff like that. So the real end-to-end is across multiple institutions and it's from coming out of a thought system, a core banking system in a bank until it's really analysts and supervisors who are making sense of that within a regulator. And that's what we've built over the last couple of years is linking up the banks to the regulators with proper workflow between them where historically, and this surprised a lot of people, but a lot of that workflow up until now has existed in email and that's just no way for society to run such an important thing. This is one of the key mechanisms to ensure financial stability and at the heart of it you've got these really unreliable email-based processes and that's just not robust. So that's what we're looking to change pretty significantly at the moment.
Sean: Yeah, no, that's really interesting. And I guess I also found it really interesting to hear you walk through your journey and how the capital market software landscape has evolved over time from kind of its earlier days to maturity really today in many parts of it. How would you characterize the current state of the use of technology and where it is on its maturity journey more in the reg. reporting space?
Rob: So I think you've got to define maturity to start off with. And I'd say a mature setup in reg. reporting is a jurisdiction which is collecting data at a granular level on a pretty frequent basis. And so we've looked at this in sort of ranked markets by maturity and some of the most mature places like Germany and Austria where Regnology fortunately grew up and then you get less mature ones. And there's some surprising ones in there like the US for example, which is just a leader in so many areas, is actually surprisingly behind when it comes to maturity of their regulatory infrastructure. And then I think the second dimension in this is using technology that's outsourced to vendors and delivered through cloud. And so those are really the three bits that I'd use to define maturity. It's granular data consumption by the regulators and it's cloud delivered third party software that banks and insurers are typically using. And we see that this is something that Europe is pretty good at, and particularly places like Germany and Austria. And what was the second part of your question? I forgot the second bit.
Sean: No, well just really just trying to characterize the use of technology today, where the industry is or where your customers are today in their use of technology.
Rob: So if that's how we define maturity, then you can see some markets are pretty mature, places like Germany, Austria, fairly mature. You see a lot of markets are less mature, they still, they're not consuming granular data in the regulators and most regulators in most jurisdictions are moving towards it at pace. We see initiatives out of the European Union called IReF that gets there in the next couple of years. Canada's moving there fast and a number of other jurisdictions are as well. And then the second bit on the degree of outsourcing, that one's really interesting. Reg. reporting actually is surprisingly still dominated by in-house software and it's moving towards cloud, but it's in the early days. If you compare data normalization and the calc. piece of reg. reporting, some industry analysts have estimated that's about 15 to 20% outsourced compared to, say, core banking software which might be 60, 70, 80% outsourced or trading software 55 to 60% outsourced.
Rob: So a lot of this stack is still in-house, but it's moving across to vendors such as Regnology at pace. And that same pattern is replicated with supervisory technology as well. A lot of that is still in-house. So, I guess relative to previous areas I've worked, places like enterprise risk or trading systems, those are much more outsourced already. Reg. reporting is comparatively a bit of a laggard there. And also in the move to public cloud as well, we are driving that forward at pace. We've moved something like 200 banks to public cloud in the last, what is it now, about eight months. But we're very much in the early days of that with our customer base and in reg. reporting overall.
Sean: That's great to hear. On the recent progress on the public cloud side, I'd be interested in what it is that you think that's held the industry back historically from adoption of the public cloud but also outsourcing more broadly and what's changing that now?
Rob: Okay, so if you think back to what trading floors used to be like they were, they used to be far more human beings on trading floors, there was far less automation, and also go back, and this is maybe going back something like 30 years, relatively fewer technical people. You had your old school relationship, people were probably quite a bit more prevalent. And over time there's been really massive, very significant automation and driving of efficiency across the trading floors. Now think of where reg. reporting sits, it typically sits in a CFO organization and CFOs typically have access to pockets of budget. So if they've got a problem, they can typically find some cash to go solve that problem. Think of the nature of reg. reporting, which is you have to do it, it's not optional. You've got to report to your regulators on time and with quality. And so, CFO's response to this to make sure it happens has typically been to throw bodies at the problem, not to drive automation. And so what you find in these CFO organizations is that within banks, they're almost the last bastions of large empires and of this considerable inefficiency and processes dominated by lots of humans and lots of consultants.
Rob: And I think it's inevitable that that is going to become more automated, and leaner, and more efficient. And that's what we're focused on driving at the moment.
Hiten: Yeah, that reminds me, Rob, your description reminds me like consulting seven, eight years ago where if you wanted budget to get anything done, you've got to get it under a regulatory umbrella, and as long as it had a reg. flag it would get done. And I remember even at the outset, remember instances of there being multiple different service providers for the same task just to make sure it was doubly done right? There was just so much against redundancy failure
Rob: You can't get it wrong,
Hiten: Can't get it wrong, but it sounds like that needs to change now. It sounds like we need to, as you say, automation needs to come across to that element as well.
Rob: I mean to that point, I asked the CFO of one of the largest banks in Europe, how much he spends on regulatory reporting. He couldn't tell me, he knows it's too much, but he couldn't tell me.
Hiten: Yeah, yeah. Interesting, interesting. I guess Sean, it'd be good for both of you actually really to paint a picture for me in the future, Rob, like five, ten years down the line, where are we headed? What does it look like both on the supervisory, the reg. reporting side, where do we think we're going with this?
Rob: So I think I'll go first and see if Sean agrees with me. I think there are two really big trends that are going to take place. So first one, think of one of the structural problems with regulatory reporting, which is, in response to a new financial crisis and there will be more financial crises over time, regulators want to ask new questions of the banks. And typically the way that works is they'll say, give me some new data points or some new calculated value. And in turn the banks had to go pull a bunch of data out of their source systems and create some new analytics. And that all takes time and costs quite a lot of money. And so what the regulators are all moving towards and the driving force behind this is reducing the cost of regulation to the whole industry is moving towards consumption of granular data.
Rob: So rather than saying give me your risk weighted assets or alongside saying, give me your risk weighted assets, they say give me your whole balance sheet, show me, send through all of your deposits, all of your loans, all of your mortgages, all of your securities, all of your derivatives. I want a snapshot of all of the activities of the bank, and I want it on a regular basis. Because think back to March of last year. Now, with the regional banking crisis in the US, if you've got tens of billions of deposits flooding out of these banks intraday, then looking at quarterly data isn't going to do you a whole lot of good. So, you need to have at the very least daily, if not intraday balance sheet information. So to account for those two problems, the fact that regulators want to be able to ask new questions without imposing extra work and cost on the banks, they're all moving to the consumption of granular data so that if a regulator wants to ask a bank something new, they can go query that balance sheet that they've already got from the bank.
Rob: Okay, so that's the first big one. Again, we see that Europe's got a very high-profile initiative, IReF that's driving that, but we are working with both regulators and banks across numerous jurisdictions driving this and both banks and regulators are already spending money on this. And then the second one is because that all requires, the data volumes involved in granular data collection are so much larger, you can't do that with a legacy on-prem infrastructure. And so, this is then the second piece, which is that both the banks and the insurers and the regulators as well, both the regulated and the regulators both have to move to cloud to enable all of those volumes of data to be processed. And then of course you get an extra benefit coming from this if you've got very large amounts of granular data and if it's all being processed on the cloud, then of course you get the benefits of AI as well. And we couldn't have a podcast like this without mentioning AI at some stage.
Sean: Well, I'm glad you said it, Rob, so that I didn't have to. No, I totally agree with you. Maybe just adding another point or two, I mean you talked about it, the kind of cost and cost reduction point, but just to double down on that one, I mean I think we've estimated that banks globally are spending more than $50 billion on regulatory reporting processes and such a small share of that going back to your point around outsourcing is spent on technology today. So, the impetus to adopt more technology, automate more, and get that cost down, I think is pretty high for banks. And I guess the other piece would be around data quality and so on and use of not just on-premises legacy tools, but also things like Excel and so on and so forth. And in this day and age with data quality, data governance being so important, I think it is important and inevitable that banks start to use more technology, more modern technology, and ultimately more vendors I guess like Regnology to help them with that.
Rob: Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And if you think about it in a world where regulators are consuming granular data, then a lot of the conversation between regulators and financial institutions becomes about data quality and sort of coordinating that conversation in an effective way between regulators and banks. Well, guess what? You can't do it over email.
Hiten: Yeah, I guess what I'm taking away from both of your descriptions here is it's a bit of a win-win picture, right?. You can heighten the level of regulatory accuracy, increase the granularity of which regulators operating, whilst minimizing, as you described it, Rob, the drag, the cost. So I think there should be a win-win here.
Rob: I mean there's an unfortunate, well, fortunate, I'm talking up my own book a bit here, no surprise, but fortunate for vendors like me, unfortunate for regulated financial institutions is getting to that granular data point that does involve spending on infrastructure. And we've done some work and estimate there's probably a 50% increase in spend over the next couple of years that's going to come from this. But in the grand scheme of things, that's one time, but there's going to be a lot of work for the banks and for the regulators to move to granular data collection in the next couple of years.
Hiten: So invest to enable a more efficient future that basically benefits, benefits all. I think that's very helpful framing. Thank you for that. I'm going to switch gears slightly, Rob, and delve back into a bit more of your personal journeys and learnings. That's something I'd love to do with guests on the show who clearly been very successful in navigating their own careers. So I'd love you to share what's one of your most challenging situations you've faced in your career today, and what were the learnings you took away from that? Something that we think the audience would benefit from you sharing?
Rob: So I guess let's go back to something you raised earlier, which is the difference between these large public financial technology businesses and some of the smaller private ones. I'm fortunate in what I do now that a lot of it's about driving growth, which is cool. And I remember when SunGard was bought by FIS, it became abundantly clear pretty quickly that this acquisition was about driving cost saving and that was it. And listen, I mean SunGard was inefficient in many ways and actually taking some cost out of the business was an abundantly sensible thing to do. But the way you do that sort of thing, you want to do it sensitively and in a thoughtful way. And in particular you want to take cost out of the businesses that aren't growing. You want feed the businesses that are growing. And I'd always run growth businesses and suddenly I had to just go cut a very substantial chunk of cost out of these. And it was pretty depressing because it ended up killing off growth in some, what formally had been some great businesses.
Rob: And yeah, it's a fairly depressing thing to have do. I mean the heartening side of that is I see a lot of people who left those businesses then actually end up doing some really cool things in the green economy and stuff like that, which is great to see. But that was a pretty difficult situation to navigate. I remember also realizing that perhaps the leadership of that organization wasn't the best.
Hiten: What was your learning from that, Rob? What did you take away that you're carrying with you now that's enabling the next chapter?
Rob: I think it's that I’d far rather work in much more nimble organizations, much less bureaucratic places that are focused on driving change. And I think I look at running a private equity backed company versus a big public company. A lot of the people who work in these big public companies, they just want to keep things the same. They've got a big fat salary and they're comfortable in their position. They don't want things to change. And I look at the organizations I've run in the last five, six years, it's about driving relentless change to create value, to create better products to go sell to customers. And it's just an entirely different mindset.
Hiten: That's definitely something that resonates. I think we have the privilege of working with some people who have 10, 25 million in revenue, some people who have a billion plus. And there's definitely pros and cons on both sides. There's definitely a version, what I would call a cost of being large. And I think those who do it well minimize that cost of being large, but it is something that needs to be managed and scale unfortunately is not always necessarily an asset. It can often be a liability. So yeah.
Rob: It's interesting, right? Banks and financial institutions generally want to face off against providers who are at scale. It's easier for them to work with scaled providers, but because the scale providers have that advantage, there's often a deterioration of service that you get from those scaled providers.
Hiten: Yeah, yeah. Again, just taking it outside the day job, I'd love to hear about if you've got any hobbies, interests, what do you do outside of work? Is there anything that you're doing there that kind of helps develop the skills, decision making in the day job?
Rob: So I do less of it now and by less, I mean absolutely none. But I've spent a lot of the last few decades, I used to do a lot of rock climbing and I guess I've got memories of being halfway through a climb. And when you're climbing well, you can see everything around you, you can see the next few holds and it's all really cool and you're super relaxed. And then when things go to sh*t, they really go to sh*t and you can't see anything. Suddenly your brain starts panicking and you can only see a few square inches in front of you. And anything beyond that is just, it could be the most obvious next hold possible, but your brain's panicking and you won't see it. And I think, I don't know, it sort of forces you a) it forces you to focus intensely on what you're doing and not focus on some nonsense that's going on at work.
Rob: But b), I think that the importance of staying calm, no matter, there's always, I'm sure it's the same with what you do. There's always something that's going to go wrong. There's always things that are going wrong. And in the grand scheme of things, particularly when you're leading up sort of a larger organization, actually the things that are going bad, they're not that bad. The converse is the things that are going great, they're not that great as well. I think your job as a leader is really just to, or one of them is to instill a sense of calm and it's just bad things happen – that's okay great things happen, doesn't mean you can go relax. We've got to keep on pushing. That's one of the things.
Hiten: I love that. I love that. Hearing you talk there, it reminds me of a couple of things, just this idea of flow state, whether you're playing a sport, doing at work where that subconscious is really an action. I think there's a book, someone recommended me a few years about the inner game of tennis from the sixties or seventies that talks about self-one and self-two, but that idea that as you say, relax, stay calm and let that natural decision-making is probably one of the best.
Rob: Being in flow is critical, right? If you can just relax into what you're doing and doing it, I don’t know how old you are, but I've been doing this for, let's put it this way, a number of decades now. And inevitably you acquire a lot of skills and experience and the ability to figure things out pretty quickly. Obviously, I don't want this to sound flippant, but you can come to a number of decisions pretty quickly simply because you've seen so many similar situations before. And just being in that flow state and making those decisions effectively and as a team working in that sort of flow state as words, it's pretty cool.
Hiten: Again, bringing it back to our favorite bingo word. I guess that's something that the AI models will struggle to do with, that's probably one of the key value adds. But wrapping up, Rob, one of the things we invite guests to do is to throw and share the spotlights. I don’t know if there's an individual or a company that's impressing you right now that you would like the audience to look up and pay attention to.
Rob: So there is one, and it is a business that we are, we're putting a partnership in place with at the moment, and I really like what they're doing. So it's a business called Active Viam in the risk space. Sean, I suspect you know it reasonably well. What do I like about what they're doing? So first off, we we're working with them. If you think of, I was talking about all of the data that we produce and store in our systems, and often banks and regulators want insights off of that data. And I suspect Active Viam is going to be a pretty effective way to do that. One of the things I like about what they're doing is it was founded by a bunch of guys, a team who were at Summit, the trading and risk system back in the day. And I liked that they looked at the shortcomings of these trading and risk infrastructure, and particularly the analytics shortcomings, the fact that over time users of these trading risk systems tend not to use the analytics.
Rob: So they sort of evolve into becoming, this might be a little bit of an extreme statement, but they sort of become dumb and very expensive databases over time that are super integrated into banks infrastructure. And so the Active Viam folks, what they've done is they built analytic frameworks that are now banks and other financial institutions to use their own in-house pricing models within risk infrastructure. And it's super performance and it's really cool. It actually reminds me in a way, of the way that core banking systems, you see them get hollowed out and actually more functionality comes out of these core banking systems over time. I think what Active Viam is doing with trading and risk infrastructure is pretty similar. So really nice technology, really cool business. Yeah, definitely recommend people take a look at it.
Hiten: Super. Thank you for sharing. It definitely sounds very, very, very interesting, intriguing, so great. But Rob, thank you so much for taking us on your journey. It could have been a different show. It could have been about the Kalahari desert and rock climbing if life planned out differently, but you're at the frontier of regulatory tech and supervisory tech and I appreciate you sharing your perspectives and taking the time today with us.
Rob: Very cool. Good to see you guys. Enjoyed the conversation. Thank you.
Sean: Thanks Rob.
Hiten: Cheers.
