Summary

01:15 – Matt’s career and the birth of Scarcity Partners
Matt shares his career journey, from Colonial First State to Magellan, and how the desire for continuous growth led to launching Scarcity Partners in 2023.

04:40 – What GP staking really means
Explaining the model of investing in fund managers (not just their funds), Matt outlines how GP staking aligns capital, capability, and growth in high-margin businesses.

07:20 – The philosophy behind scarcity
Why “capital isn’t scarce” and how value now comes from strategic partnerships, operational leverage, and hands-on growth support.

10:50 – Selecting and supporting managers
How Scarcity identifies exceptional investment firms, applies “kill factors” to avoid bias, and builds long-term alignment through minority stakes.

17:30 – Competing in a crowded market
Matt compares GP staking globally - highlighting Scarcity’s niche in Asia-Pacific and its contrast with multi-affiliate and listed manager models.

23:45 – The private markets opportunity
He discusses tailwinds driving private assets, from superannuation growth to rising investor sophistication, and why specialization is the new advantage.

29:40 – Lessons in leadership and growth
Matt reflects on building from zero, lessons from Magellan, and the importance of discipline, curiosity, and long-term thinking in private equity.

33:45 – What’s next for Scarcity Partners
From early investments to future expansion, Matt shares how the firm plans to scale while maintaining focus on specialist investing.

Paul O'Connor:

Morning all and welcome again to another installment of the Netwealth Portfolio Construction Podcast series. I'm Paul O'Connor and my role at Netwealth is as Head of Investments that includes responsibility for the investment menus and the products Netwealth issues as a responsible entity.

On today's podcast, we have Matthew Webb from Scarcity Partners who will discuss private equity and specifically general partner or GP staking. Given the significant increased interest in private equity, we thought delving into a more specific private equity strategy such as GP staking would be of interest to our listeners. GP staking businesses have operated in the US and Europe, but to my knowledge, I'm not aware of any other Australian businesses focusing on this sector.
Scarcity Partners is a Sydney based specialist private equity firm focusing solely on the investment management industry, as I've mentioned known as GP staking. This model seeks to give investors access to the economics of the owning fund managers rather than just the funds themselves.

Scarcity Partners' business models is based on identifying successful investment management businesses who have not yet fulfilled their growth potential. Scarcity then takes a minor investment equity stake and engages with those businesses to assist driving growth and developing further opportunities for the founders and investors.
Scarcity was established in 2023 with most of the founders previously working with the Pinnacle Investment Group. Pinnacle is, I guess, a lot of our listeners are aware, have been in extremely successful multi-affiliate firm taking stakes and providing non-investment functions for a number of investment managers in Australia that assist in growing their funds under management and compounding shareholder wealth over time. The founders also have direct experience at some of Australia's fastest growing asset management firms, including Hyperion Asset Management, Magellan Asset Management, and Paradise Investment Management.

Matt co-founded Scarcity in 2023 and is a member of the Scarcity Investment Committee and Board. He also sits on the board of January Capital, a Singapore based venture capital and growth credit firm. Matt has been in the asset management industry for over 25 years, initially spending nearly a decade at Colonial First State, now First Sentier Investors in a variety of senior roles across various locations, and finished up as a National Manager of Investments in Sydney.
In 2007, he joined Magellan as a founding member of the distribution team and was integral to Magellan's growth from a startup to peaking at over eight Australian dollars, 100 billion in funds under management in 2021. In his 15 years at Magellan, he was instrumental in the establishment of the intermediated wealth business in Australia, initiated and managed the Australian institutional business, initiated the development of the North American business and also managed the Asia Pacific business. Matt is a CFA charter holder and has a Bachelor of Economics from the University of Western Australia.
The first Scarcity fund available to wholesale investors through an information memorandum is the Scarcity GP Access Fund, which is available on the wholesale IDPS menu, but is currently closed to capital with a final close expected to be in H1 2026. We're in the process of adding a cash feeder version of the GP Access Fund to the wholesale menu.
Like all private equity investments, underlying positions are liquid and thus they should be considered a long-term investment. However, the fund does have a 5% redemption window every six months available to investors on a best endeavors' basis, and that will open up from mid 2026 and onwards. So more investors are allocating a portion of their diversified portfolios to private market strategies, including a core allocation therein to private equity. And the most popular PE strategies typically have been the broad based diversified strategies that effectively invest in many companies across many different industry sectors and regions.

GP staking offers a very differentiated strategy by taking equity in funds management businesses, and I guess many listeners would be aware of Scarcity's successful investment in the Evidentia Group that was subsequently on sold to the Generation Development Group. So maybe to start the podcast here, Matt, can you provide the listeners with a few comments on your career journey and how you now are involved in Scarcity in GP staking?

Matthew Webb:

Sure, Paul. And look, thanks very much for the opportunity to have a chat today. I am delighted and really enjoyed your podcast previously. I'd kind of describe my career journey as one of seeking constant growth. So notwithstanding the fact that I was at Colonial First State, now First Sentier Investors for 10 years, I was in three different locations there, I was across five roles. And then as you alluded to my time at Magellan, whilst I was there 15 years, established a wealth function. Co-founded that with Frank Casarotti in 2007.
So what really sought to grow distribution inside wealth here in Australia, grew that out to Insto here, then kicked off the United States realized that the lifestyle compromise was far greater than the Freak and Friar clue points. So found a group up there that we subsequently used at Magellan to distribute into North America. That was a really successful business that ended up being about $16 billion in AUM at its peak. And then kicked off Asia because that time zone was a lot friendlier, so kicked off Asia.

So constantly look for challenges. I don't like standing still, and that's why I like the partners at Scarcity will suffer from that affliction that we're collectively, I guess, and colloquially growth junkies. It's something we have in common. We all want to build something. And notwithstanding the fact that we've been reasonably successful in our careers in investment management in 2023, we decided to effectively start again from zero because growing from zero is the ultimate in growth. Growing for 100 billion is a lot less fun because the delta there is less significant.
Really, when we considered our options collectively, GP staking was really the purest reflection, or purest expression I should say, of what we thought we collectively brought to bear. And as you alluded to your introduction, it's as simple as private equity for investment management firms. It's about participating in that growth. We've all made our wealth has benefited from being part of investment management firms, and this is a way of offering that access to individuals to wealth firms, whereas previously that access has really been only into the funds managed by asset management firms.
Key to our GP staking strategy is allowing the principals to continue to control their business with our assistance in helping them grow. And as you mentioned, interestingly, we're the only firm that does this in Asia Pacific. That won't last forever, but it's certainly a great competitive advantage here and now, so we're pretty excited about the opportunity ahead.

Paul O'Connor:

So no other PE businesses focusing on GP staking in the whole Asia Pacific. I assume there may have been a few, but I certainly wasn't aware of any in Australia there, Matt.

Matthew Webb:

If you look around at I guess tangential participants, you've clearly got Pinnacle and Fidante. They've done a wonderful job. They're multi-affiliate models. And as you mentioned in your opening stanza, they're providing services to managers alongside equity.

You've got groups like HS Group in Hong Kong who effectively seed hedge fund managers, so they'll put dollars, investment dollars into startup managers. And then alongside that, they'll want to take equity in the firm. You've got groups locally here like Regal and HMC and the like that are establishing new firms, but no specific and dedicated GP staking competition. So it's kind of a nice space.

Paul O'Connor:

I mentioned in my intro some brief comments on GP staking, but can you provide the listeners with a bit more detail on actually what GP staking is?

Matthew Webb:

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So look, it's got a fancy title. So GP staking short for general partner. This is industry vernacular for the investment manager of private market asset. So in the case of Australia, we'd refer to groups like PEP as a GP. In the case of the United States, we'd refer to Blackstone and KKR as GP. So general partner staking is the term.
For the avoidance of doubt, we aren't staking your local doctor. We're focused on investment management firms, but there are a couple of different types of GP staking firms, but they really all go to the same underlying industry thematics. And that is exposure to an outstanding industry that's not readily available.
The dirty little secret investment management is its gross margins are really consistently third globally to healthcare and SaaS. So it's a very, very high margin business. And alongside that, you have enormous operating leverage. Now, what I mean by that is as revenues rise, costs barely move. And if I put that into perspective with a relatively simple example, it basically doesn't cost a fund manager any anymore to order $100 million worth of stock than a billion dollars worth of stock, but you're getting dramatically more revenue.

So there's huge scale in these businesses. Introducing scales really, really important. And when you put that against a backdrop of the superannuation system that we have here, it's incredibly attractive together with growing middle-class wealth and investment acumen in Southeast Asia. You've got a lot of opportunity in near neighbors. Most importantly for investors, it gives them the opportunity to invest into the manager, not just their funds. So if you believe private equity is going to grow, private markets are going to grow and investor portfolios and the funds isn't going to give you any participation in that, but only the managers are.

If we look at a relatively simple example. So if you come across a private equity manager that's punching out 20% IRRs, that's top quartile, that's what highly regarded established firms in Australia like PEP would do. You're earning on average for those top quartile firms, a multiple of your invested capital of just over three times. So for every dollar you put in, you're going to get more than $3 back. That's a really satisfactory return over a 10-year investment horizon. But if you compare that to owning a stake in those private equity firms, it's far more lucrative.
So if you assume a manager grows assets under management by four times over a 10-year period. And clearly, a firm that's punching out 20% IRRs to its investors is going to be attractive and likely increase its assets under management. So we don't regard that as particularly heroic and your double costs. So we're allowing for doubling of costs over that period of time. You're going to be getting an IRR of 29%, which doesn't sound much more than 20. It is significantly more of course, but it's not that far away.

But more significantly, your multiple invested capital because the benefit of compounding gets up to about nine and a half times, you're making a lot more money investing in the firm. And that's clearly what our collective experience is done at Pinnacle. Pinnacle has delivered its shareholder 17 times capital. If you invested in Magellan in day one, you'd be up about $10 on the share price, about $15 in dividends, about 25x. So you make a lot of money investing into the firms as opposed to the funds themselves.

Another underappreciated benefit of GP staking is that you get exposures across multiple vintages of that manager with one single check and you actually get past the J curve exposure. So you're buying a private equity fund or a venture capital fund today, you should expect three or four years of relatively modest, if not zero returns. The benefit in buying stock in the HEDCO as we do at Scarcity Partners is we get immediate exposure to those funds that are already up and running past their J curves because we're participating in growing management fees and growing performance fees due to the more mature nature of those funds. So you get a bit of diversity around vintages and around different types of managers too. So we hope to give our investors and indeed intend to give them diversity across asset classes on underlying basis as well.

Paul O'Connor:

You've painted the picture well about the attraction of investing in funds management businesses there, but if I'm a fund management, well, if I own my own funds management business, and why would successful growing fund managers seek external GP staking equity with partners like Scarcity?

Matthew Webb:

Yeah, I think it's a good question and by and large, it's challenging to get capital into these businesses because of all the things I already mentioned. They're capital light businesses. They actually don't have a significant need for capital. But there are really two particular situations where GP staking makes sense. And the first, and really the most obvious one from a capital perspective and the model that's adopted by larger GP staking firms is to fund what's called a GP commitment. So that's where the fund manager has to commit funds into a new fund to encourage investors to invest. That's fair enough, because as an investor, you expect the manager to be invested alongside you in the fund.
But as fund managers get larger and larger or GPs get larger and larger, those GP commits become more and more onerous. So picture you're a very large private equity manager and you're raising a $10 billion fund, and this is not unusual in places like the United States. Now, if we think about a 5% GP commit, that's $500 million. That's not an insignificant sum of money. And clearly, when the partners talk to each other around a boardroom table asking who's got 500 million, not a lot of people put up their hands.

So you need to come up with a solution for that, and that's why businesses like Blue Owl have formed businesses focused on funding those GP commitments. So that's at an extreme end. Funds management does become quite capital intensive when you're raising those mega funds.
The space that we are focused in is quite different. So the space that we're in, the space that some of our peers are focused offshore is to assist mid-market managers with growth. So focused on firms with exceptional investment talent but haven't yet scaled. And being an exceptional investor is not necessarily the same skill set as growing a successful investment management business. And that's where we come to the table. So we earn our positions on their cap table due to our depth experience and our success across all the non-investment functions to help the firm's principles achieve success faster and/or with more certainty. So we bring a lot of value.

In a sense, we kind of date these managers for an extended time. We then determine we're going to get married to them. And then the capital we invest on behalf of our investors is in some sense a form of prenup. So it does mean that we get highly attractive entry multiples into these businesses. So I'd say there's two quite distinct methods of GP staking, and that latter model is really hard for investors to access because capital isn't scarce. There's literally trillions of it around the world. And when businesses are capital light, they'll only entertain equity from partners who make a meaningful contribution to their growth. And that's really where we come into our own in that regard.

Paul O'Connor:

Yeah. Well, I guess in my experience, Matt, looking at the industry that I've come across some really good investors, but I guess they don't have the broader skill set to be able to raise funds under management. I think you quite rightly point out that it's a completely different skill set. Being good at investing versus growing an investment management business. So it certainly makes sense what Scarcity can bring to the table certainly on that front. And also assistance with seeding, of course.

Matthew Webb:

The analogy I'd use is that the people that build rockets inside NASA don't need to sell those rockets. It doesn't make them any less clever, but it's a different skill set as you know.

Paul O'Connor:

You've mentioned there's not a lot of competition across the Asia Pacific in GP staking, but what about globally? What about in the US and across Europe?

Matthew Webb:

Yeah, so it's a big business. So GP staking is really large in the United States. So firms like Goldman Sachs, Blackstone and Blue Owl all have GP stakes funds. Interestingly, indifference to my colleagues and the outstanding team at Pinnacle, Pinnacle has been staking managers for longer and has delivered materially superior returns to any of those. But many of these firms focus on more mature businesses like that GP commit piece that I was talking about previously, so therefore have more of a yield focus.

We don't have any direct GP staking competition here. Even if the US companies wanted to come here, they're too large to deploy. If we think about businesses like Blue Owl, Blue Owl's latest fundraise, it's 12.9 billion US dollars. If they're looking at staking over-simplifying 10 firms, that's $1.3 billion into each firm. Taking a minority stake of 30%, you're looking at a firm that's worth close to 4 billion US today. So these are big, big enterprises.
Hopefully, if we're successful with our stakes, we'll be looking to sell to firms like Blue Owl and indeed we're building partnerships. Or I shouldn't say partnerships, building conversations with firms like those to understand that they're potential exit ramps for us down the track as we're successful in growing these firms up to the sort of scale where someone like those Goldman and Blackstone and Blue Owl may look at taking stakes down the track.

As we spoke about earlier, local multi-affiliates, Pinnacle challenges Fidante and Perennial are theoretically competition, but it is a very different model. They've got shared services which the managers plug into and pay for as a discrete payment for those shared services. Our model is pure equity where we look to build those critical non-investment functions within each firm. So they effectively become self-operating. They don't rely on any external parties other than for largely commoditized parts of their business. So this is a little chalk and cheese in terms of what the managers are looking for.
There'll also be trade purchases and GDG's full acquisition of Evidentia, as you alluded to before is one example. We find that these are generally full acquisitions, often with script and the acquiring entity involved. And the motivations aren't necessarily return-based, they're often more diversification, diversifying away from the existing core capability and very different to what we're doing. Our main game is the principals remaining highly incentivized to grow their business. We may take majority stakes from time to time, but critical if we do that is keeping the principals highly aligned. It's not in our model to take full control and have the principals remove alignment by removing their stake entirely.

Paul O'Connor:

It certainly makes sense there. You must keep the people that are generating that alpha aligned and I guess committed to their business' long-term there. Is there a specific type of manager that you focus on? And how big is the investment universe? Is it significant, or is it very niche?

Matthew Webb:

Yeah. So look, we're focused on mid-market firms. So if you think about that as a firm that's running a few hundred million but have the capacity to run a billion or more with limited incremental costs, firms that we look to acquire stakes in will typically have enterprise values of between 50 and 200 million. And our holding is typically sitting around 20% to 40%. As I mentioned, we will go to majority but only in special circumstances.
We are looking at private markets primarily that are led by founders and/or long term principals. The opportunity set is very significant. Since our firm was established in mid-2023, the cadence has been very high in terms of reshaping opportunities. We've consistently seen more than 30 new opportunities a quarter, so it's material. We will look at public markets, but there's a very, very high bar for that. There are elements of that business which are quite challenged.

Paul O'Connor:

How do then you analyze the investment opportunities and ultimately choose the managers that you want to partner with? So what are your screens there to remove certain investment managers you don't consider appropriate? And surely this is not an easy task.

Matthew Webb:

No, it's not easy, Paul, and you would sympathize with that more than most. It's a tough gig, particularly if the amount of opportunities you're actively assessing at any given time is significant. So look, we do all the hygiene factors, so the spreadsheet stuff on performance and staff tenure and the like. Something you would obviously do if you're assessing an investment manager as an investor into their funds.
But over the top of that, because we're investing in the businesses, we do an enormous of work on the people. Without the people, the business ceases to exist, so that's absolutely critical. In assessing these, we've established what we call kill factors in our investment process, which effectively if one flashes read, it becomes uninvestable. And what that is designed to do is it stops you becoming too enamored with parts of the firm and underplaying the problems.
And we've got Annie Duke to thank for that. We didn't come up with that ourselves. So Annie Duke wrote a very famous book called Thinking in Bets and then released a book called Quit. Within Quit, there's a discussion of kill factors and now what prevents you proceeding regardless of how well everything else is going. And the best example is the 2:00 PM turn around town at the Hillary Step at Everest. No matter how good you're feeling about the climb, that time is the time to turn around, because if you keep climbing Everest at that point, there's a very good chance you won't come back down. So it prevents you getting summit fever, it prevents you your emotions taking over and minimizes confirmation bias from the process.
It does take us a lot of time, so we spend around 6 to 12 months on each firm and it could easily take longer, but we have this luxury going back to the volume that we spoke about before because we only deploy about two to four managers a year. We go to pains to understand what we don't know, and we engage specialists when needed for due diligence in specialist areas. So it's a time-consuming process, but we have on our side the luxury of only committing to two to four managers in each year. So we have a lot of time on our hands.

Paul O'Connor:

Why wouldn't I just look at buying equity in listed fund managers that you might perceive to be past that bottom point of the J-curve and moving into a significant growth period? What wouldn't I just buy that and then that way I can keep liquidity, I guess, and get a more diversified exposure?

Matthew Webb:

Yeah, I think that's a perfectly valid point to make, Paul, and they can make great investments. I think in Australia, one of the issues that we have with the locally listed firms, and I'd say this is to a degree true in the United Kingdom in particular is unfortunately though the managers are way beyond their J-curve. They're at the point of maturity and slowdown. So the listed managers you can get exposure to on stock exchanges are often very, very mature and you don't get that growth profile. And of course, we don't need to go onto businesses staying private for longer. And in no sector is it more relevant than in asset management.

Where we see major tailwinds is in private market firms. So you could buy Blackstone stock KKR, stock Blue Owl, Apollo, Ares. The problem is the listed market is highly efficient and you're simply the incremental buyer. You don't bring anything to the table and listed markets in our pricing, these businesses are 25 to 30 times earnings, so they're expensive. The acquisition multiples that we're buying our firms on average so far, the firms that we've got in the portfolio at the moment are held at a 14 times multiple because we bring more than capital. So we think highly attractive entry terms.
And interestingly for the firms I just mentioned, bear in mind some of these are managing more than a trillion dollars. Doubling AUM from here would be sort of front page news in the Wall Street Journal. The firms that we're looking at, if they only doubled in size, we'd be very disappointed. So notwithstanding the fact we've got to execute well with these firms, they have fundamentally different growth profiles. So you're paying a lot less in our view for firms that have much more growth potential, but you're only getting access to these principle led firms because Scarcity brings value to the table alongside the founders.

Paul O'Connor:

So you've spoken about your focus on more, I guess, managers that invest in private assets and unlisted assets. I think we're both aware that active funds management businesses have been under a lot of pressure globally in recent years from competitors such as passive strategies. So is that why it's led you guys to focus more on unlisted markets managers that invest in unlisted markets there where it's more far more difficult, obviously, for passive to replicate?

Matthew Webb:

Yeah, I think the active fund management industry is in a tough space. You've got market cap indexing like Vanguard, which has made exposure to markets very cheap for a long period of time. And you've seen the massive growth in smart or factor beta products that effectively have done a great job candidly uncovering beta that was dressed up as alpha. So you put all this together with the internalization dynamics of super funds. So super funds managing money in-house as opposed to using external managers. And indeed, wealth groups are doing that more and more.
And then you've got a backdrop of general fee pressure for active funds management. So institutional fee rates for large cap equities have approximately halved in the last 10 years. So it's hardly a compelling backdrop. So we've got a super high hurdle for public market strategies. We're not completely allergic to them, but amongst other things, they must be very, very high alpha, such as that alpha is not easily achieved elsewhere. And as you'd sympathize with identifying that is difficult, so it does take a lot of time for us to get confidence.

Moreover, we do have a preference of private markets. And firstly, it's got a more favorable backdrop. So if we look at the cyclical backdrop for want of a better term around private markets, you've got the Australian superannuation industry growing at about 5.2% per annum out to 2040. It grows less than the contribution rate because people retire and want to take their money out. Our estimations of private markets assets inside Australian wealth portfolio sit at about 2%. That could be a bit high, a bit low. It's probably a bit high, but for conservatism, we're putting it at two.
If you just grow that to 10% out to 2040, so you've got 15 years to do that, you've got underlying growth of five. If you combine those two numbers together, you're getting 20% growth in private markets in AUM and portfolios on average across an industry. So you've then got an industry growing revenue at about 20% per annum, put a bit of operating leverage on that. It's easy to get profit growth at 25% per annum. There's not too many industries then grow profits at that amount. So we're pretty excited about the opportunity.

Now, clearly, access to private markets opportunities is more difficult than public markets, so we're not complacent about that. But we are very bullish on private markets assets, not getting up to endowment style allocation sort of 50% of the United States, but we don't think it's overly aggressive to see them as 10% in wealth portfolios out at 2040.

Paul O'Connor:

So we touched on it sort of earlier in the podcast about the Scarcity Partners business and the people behind it, the skill set. What does the future of Scarcity Partners look like? And do you think you consider broadening your product range? And I guess also facetiously, have any of the larger USGP staking firms approached to you guys about taking a stake in your business?

Matthew Webb:

Not facetious at all. So the answer on the latter is we've had a number of people ask us about a stake in our business, and it would be hypocritical for us to not consider that. It's not something that we're interested in right now, candidly, because it's just too early, but we always remain open-minded.

Our view on Scarcity Partners is we're doing something that we love. We believe the real money and asset managers are picking the best managers. And whilst investing in their funds can be great and there's been some outstanding investment managers in Australia that people have been able to invest into their funds, investing into their businesses. If you find a good manager, try and invest in the business as opposed to invest in the funds because you'll make a lot more money assuming your investment thesis is correct.

Our fund made its first acquisition early 2024, so we're kind of not even two years into our journey yet, final close first half of next year. So we're just ramping up. We're excited about the growth potential ahead. We will be very, very disciplined around what we invest into. We're high believers in specialization. Gone are the days where capital is scarce. Reducing interest rates made generalist private equity a great place to be because as rates reduced, A, leverage became cheaper, and B, exit multiples grew.

So you could just put money into a business, borrow a lot of money, and viola in five years' time as rates dropped, the exit multiple and that business was higher even if you did nothing, that game is over. We think specialization is critical and multiple expansion is not assumed in any of our investments. We are very keen to keep doing what we're doing if we move outside our area of specialty.
We may move up and down maturity, so we may move into more early stage funds management businesses, may move into later stage, but we're very focused on specialization. That goes for not only what we do, but also the underlying portfolio companies that we look at. We think specialization will be the new theme. If we look at what happened to traditional asset classes across history, specialization has really been rewarded as opposed to the big brand names, which people kind of exited on masse going back about 10 years to focus more on boutique founder led firms. We think that'll happen in private markets too. So that's where we're focusing our energies.

Paul O'Connor:

Matt, we could talk on, I guess, for hours on this topic there, given that I think both of us have pretty much spent our life in the whole wealth management, funds management industry, but we better draw an end to the podcast. So firstly, I'd just like to thank you very much for your time this morning, for the insights that you've provided. I'm sure to most of the listeners, what we've been talking about would be extremely familiar to the listener as well, given that the financial intermediaries in Australia would be well versed with the different funds management business models, the growth of private assets. And I guess I think you've articulated very well that the investment opportunity that the whole Scarcity business is facing. So Matt, thank you again for joining us today.

Matthew Webb:

Absolute pleasure. Thanks Paul and Netwealth team for the opportunity to chat.

Paul O'Connor:

And to the listener, as I mentioned, I hope you've enjoyed the discussion this morning with Matt Webb from Scarcity, and I look forward to you joining us on the next installment of the Netwealth Portfolio Construction Podcast series. So have a great day everyone, and I'll look forward to catching you again soon.