 Hello and welcome back to the trading floor. The Friday show where I'm joined by a co-founder of Piers Curran and we talk all things global markets. And this week on the agenda, we've got three topics we're going to go through. Now a US debt ceiling deal has been struck. What comes next is the big question. And there are far reaching implications as Piers will explain. And then secondly stocks still going up. Seems like we're on a bit of a rinse, repeat cycle at the moment. Keep hearing on the bearish commentary and we just keep going up. And right now the S&P is just clocking in its highs as we speak. Now trading at 42, 45, when it wasn't that long ago, people were talking about the 4200 level being pretty big from a technical perspective. We are well above that at the moment. So we want to talk a little bit more about this concept and idea of the narrowness of the equity rally. There's been a lot of commentary on that in various financial media. We want to explain what exactly that means and what does it indicate for the future for the equity direction in short term. We definitely can go back and punch the numbers. So the third thing, Apple's next big product, the reality pro headset was expected to be announced at the Apple developer conference on Monday. And we'll have a bit of a discussion about what to expect there and an implications really for seems like the VR thing has gone a bit quiet kind of like the broke out it was like the hot topic. So momentarily, I guess this was pre the kind of meta euphoria in terms of metaverse not meta the company. And it's sort of taken a backseat a few full starts it seems on the virtual reality front. So it'd be interesting to see whether they can deliver a lot of excitement around that event. But yeah let's kick it off then, Piers. I know we just spoke about the order of play here. I wanted to put stocks up first and talk about the narrowness, but you said look, I can make treasury bills sexy. Yeah, I'm kind of regretting to that task, but I'm going to give it a go. Okay, well let me just get everyone up to speed then so the Senate late Thursday. So that being the first of June past the House to prove bill to raise the debt ceiling and cap government spending for two years. And the next process there is kind of a foregone conclusion, the legislation lands on the desk of President Joe Biden he signs it, essentially so he's expected to do that today, which is the second of June. He'll then of course address the nation and talk up the deal. And it comes just three days before the US risked its potential then cliff edge scenario. So we've averted a lot of the discussion we've been talking about the last couple of weeks but I guess the bigger question now Piers is what what next. Yeah, let's definitely talk about what next, you know what's going to happen Biden's going to stroll out, having signed his bit of paper is going to stroll out into the rose garden and start claiming that politics is the winner and that we've avoided the biggest economic disaster in the history of mankind and whatever just just really dull. There's one thing you just, you've made an assumption there. He said he's going to stroll out. I saw where he fell over yesterday. Right, he's going to be wheeled out. I should have said just really dull. Yeah, I mean, we said on the podcast last week, we were, you know, selfishly, you know, hoping for a little bit of drama, you know, a bit of government shutdown action. So yeah, it's all been a bit boring. So let's just put that behind us. What's next so what you've got to understand is the actual borrowing limit. Okay, the debt ceiling, which defines the borrowing limit. They actually hit it in January. Okay. So you might ask well what's been going on since January through to June then and they've been paying for stuff. Using what they term extraordinary measures. Now, they're two words that carry no detail whatsoever I don't know where they get the cash from to cover the bills for the last five months but that is the fact right the borrowing limit was hitting January, ever since then they've been muddling I don't know cash down behind the sofa God knows where they get the money from but all seems a bit odd but it's quite an important point, because now the debt ceiling bill is passed. Then it means right the government can start borrowing more again, right, but they've got to make up for five months of no borrowing. First, to kind of refill those extraordinary measure coffers to reload the back of the sofa, right, so they've got to make up for the five months that they've missed, then they've got to start borrowing for the remainder of the year. Right. And basically all this winds up to what analysts are expecting is that in the next four months that you're going to see a massive spike in treasury issuance. It just means there's going to be a huge deluge of new bonds being issued by the government, so that then they can borrow money and refill the coffers they reckon it's going to be $750 billion worth of issuance in the next four months. Then borrowing, obviously through to the end of the year they reckon actually by the end of the year so in the next seven months, we'll see $1.1 trillion come to market. Okay. Now what does that mean? I mean, obviously that's a huge sum of money just putting to one side. I don't want to really talk about. Is it right that they borrow more? Is it right that debt ceiling goes up? Is it right their debt clock continues to spiral out of control? Let's park that. What's it going to mean for markets in the next seven months? And there are, yeah, there are some hazards ahead, I would say. So what happens here? If they issue $1.1 trillion worth of bonds, well, number one, someone's got to buy them. Now this is normally, it's the primary dealers. So these are the biggest banks. They've got the big balance sheets. They've got the sufficient amount of liquidity and cash to operate in this environment, because if a government wants to sell $1.1 trillion worth of assets, you're going to need some pretty big buyers. So the 15 biggest banks are the only ones who can operate in the primary market. That's when the bonds are being issued and sold for the first time. The banks buy them, then the banks kind of just farm them out to their clients. So they'll sell these on to their clients, not only financial institution clients like hedge funds and asset management firms and all the rest of it, but also then maybe in their wealth management division, they'll start parking some of this stuff in their high net worth client portfolios and so on. So these big banks operate as a bit of a conduit for all this issuance. But the point remains, they need $1.1 trillion worth of cash. So where are they going to get the cash from? We're not quite sure, to be honest. They're going to probably have to sell other stuff. Okay. Maybe stocks. Some people are worried that perhaps this is a negative for the equity space because people are going to have to sell their stocks in order to raise cash to them by these new bonds, right? But I think that aside, I think the most important thing here is the liquidity conditions in the market will drop. This is sucking $1.1 trillion worth of cash out of the market. Okay. And with that then comes secondary and tertiary impacts. Firstly, with banks, right? If they're having to use a lot of their liquid reserves to buy up these bonds, it means there's less liquid reserves, which might alter their appetite for lending money. So it may be it might curb lending out into the system. And just as we're worried that maybe we're inching towards the recession that never seems to want to start, well, this is further tightening conditions that might kind of, you know, just grease the wheels to that recession actually beginning. I think more importantly, though, you've got to think about a supply issue here. So just very simple economics. If the supply of something goes up, well, then the price goes down. Okay. So you're going to get a big spike in supply, which is likely going to drive treasury prices down. Now what happens if treasury prices go down? Well, the yields on these bonds go up. Well, and the problem with that is treasury yields are one of the world's, you know, go to benchmarks for setting borrowing costs across the entire system. So if treasury yields rise, borrowing costs rise, it's like a pseudo rate hike. Again, that's a tightening condition on an economy where worried is already losing momentum. So I think that's probably the biggest issue, the biggest risk. Now what can be done about that, because obviously you might think, well, okay, what do the Fed do? Because, I mean, the Fed, I mean, it's kind of still in the balance. Are they going to hike? Are they not in June? We're not quite sure, but if they're worried about tightening conditions as a knock on effect from this massive issuance of securities, they might not be able to hike. But then something else that's happening at the Fed that people have forgotten about is this thing called quantitative tightening. So back in the pandemic, the central bank stepped in and rolled out a massive quantitative easing program. This was a stimulative policy where they effectively increase the money supply. Well, they've been trying to reverse that over the last few months. And really, you've got to go back, and I say months, you've got to go back 12 months, really, I would say. So for the last 12, maybe 14 months, the Fed have been reducing their balance sheet. So that means they are sucking cash out of the system. They're reducing the money supply by not reinvesting the cash that they get from maturing assets. Okay, so they're basically reducing the money supply to try and reverse all of that stimulus from the COVID. A lot of that stimulus, of course, is being blamed for the inflation crisis that we have today. There was one little blip in the quantitative tightening friends and that was the SVB banking crisis, which saw them actually increase the money supply again. Quite sharply, but we've been back on the downward trajectory for money supply. So this might lead to the Fed. You know, I would say it could be that this treasury issuance could have the biggest influence on Fed policy than anything else like that. Forget about inflation. Forget about whatever the jobs market forget about a looming recession. It actually could well be this factor alone, but is the biggest influence on the Fed. The Fed might think it will have the biggest influence on the timing of when the recession might start. This is a robust theory. Yeah. Go on. I can tell you're pretty hyped for this. Let's go. But if say, why is the S&P still rallying then. Damn it. Yeah. So your thesis, your thesis, like I agree with, on every point. The market is about timing, but at the moment, say, well, as a trader, how do you then, so you have this view, let's say, that's well constructed market is moving against that view at the moment. So how do you, how do you play that? So you either play it by basically the market's telling you you're wrong. The thesis is invalid. Well, I firstly, yeah, you've got to go, okay, well, that's a thesis, right. Obviously the market stock market's not behaving in line with that thesis. So what are the other factors that are at play. And then we've got one in a minute. Well, this rolls nicely into the tech stock. I see what you I see what you've done here. But before we delve into that, I think it's quite important from a sort of bias point of view there's this thing called confirmation bias, which is dangerous. This is where you have an opinion, and you are so bought into that opinion that you at best discount information that is contrary to that opinion at worst you entirely ignore it. And so you're just left with this idea that nothing in the world can persuade you is wrong, and then you plow on stubbornly with this thesis. And in the end it can be really expensive, if you're wrong, I mean obviously your thesis is right and fine happy days but you know they can be so now you got to be, I'd say to avoid confirmation bias you've got to really start to, you know, mentally go through an exercise which might be right. I'm going to take the exact opposite opinion. This is a thought experiment. Right, I'm going to take the exact opposite opinion and can I back it can I come up with some convincing arguments as to why the opposite opinion might be true. I think you've got to go through or in the real world you might buy research from analysts that are taking up the opposite opinion, right, and so that would be a healthy way of getting a kind of 360 set of opinions on a situation, then with the full 360 set fine you can then pick and choose, you know which way you want to leave right. But I'm going to having said all I was going to say hit me with your confirmation bias them. So yeah the stock market is going out I'm going to be two reasons why the stock market is wrong. Yeah, dangerous words. Number one, well, the debt ceiling, it hasn't been lifted yet. Sleepy Joe's got a sign off his bit of paper today. He's got that signed. The debt ceiling isn't raised, and the Treasury can't start this deluge of new issuance okay so that the bonds haven't hit the spike in supply of bonds hasn't hit the market yet. What probability are you signing to him not inking that piece of paper then zero. I mean, yeah, I mean 100% he'll sign it. Yeah I know what I know what you're saying. I'm going to say markets would be pricing in that he's signing it and they'd be pricing in already this new issuance and well big hole. Please go for your second point though you had a second point. Just, just pipe that. That's point number one, which is very weak point number two which is stronger point. That's the stock market rallying. And we mentioned this I think last week or maybe as we before briefly and I thought we just dig into a little bit more detail. This rally, talking of like the S&P 500 is incredibly narrow. You've got 500 stocks in that index but actually the month the vast majority of the rally is just based off six. Both the 500 are responsible for the vast majority of the rally, the six being the big six I mean it used to be the big five but we've now got, we've got a new big dog in town so the original big five Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft have been joined of course by Nvidia, who have now launched and briefly did break the one trillion dollar club this week I think. They tick back down. They did tick back down but I could well be ticking back up now. So you've got these big six right that are leading the charge and it's kind of crazy if you kind of took the big six. You're talking about the S&P 500 index right now it's trading up at levels we haven't seen since August last year. If you took the big six act, then we're trading well below the levels in fact we're trading, you've got to go back to 2021 to find the last time we were here right so without the big six. The index is down on the year 2023 index is down on the year even though with the big six. I'm not sure what the stats are but it's definitely up on the year right. So it's very narrow now what does that mean is that problem I mean, historically a lot of analysts would point to the fact that if there's only a few little stocks that are not little so is the exact wrong word a few large stocks that are always dependent on just a few large stocks it means that it's not sustainable. And therefore there's a risk and it's normally a signal that maybe the top of the rally, or the momentum of the rally is running out now you look at the market now don't go well, this has been the story for the whole year. It looks like the momentum is not running out and look the AI revolution has been an anomaly in this particular narrow rally. I think so this narrow rally is different to others. It's not you know because you've got this what is potentially the beginning of a long term secular kind of new trend right, but ignore that point because that's not helping my thesis. So there's there were a couple of analysts who've done some digging on this and got some technicals access a guy called Adam turnquist, who is an analyst LPL financial, but he was looking at historically stock market rallies and narrow rallies and he's using. He's using he's basically looking at how many companies in the index are trading above their 200 day moving average versus how many are trading below their 200 day moving average. And he's tracked back on the S&P 500 back to 1991. And he's broken the, the periods up into quintiles right so five segments. And we're right now in the most extreme fifth quintile, which means you've got less than half of the stocks in the index trading above their 200 day moving average. In the extreme scenario where it's a narrow rally. Here's analysis says that on average for the next 12 months, looking forward, once you've got into the fifth quintile, on average, the market drops 1.9% in the first month, it drops 5.5% in the first three months. 8% in six months. And then over a 12 month period on average is down 6.8%. So his thesis, based on the 200 day moving average analysis is that you almost certainly get downside in the index over the next 12 months. His thesis, I will counter it playing my confirmation bias technique here. There's another guy called Brian Belsky. He works for BMO. He's looked at this differently. And he's looking at stock out before he's saying right, what happens to the stock market if the top five stocks have reached a peak relative performance that's when the top five have rallied from the standard deviation above the average, which is definitely the case we're in right now. So he's used a slightly different way looking at narrowness. And actually his analysis shows that over the next six to 12 months, actually the stock index performs as normal. You wouldn't say that now there's a higher probability of it going down aura. So he kind of counters that analysis. There's all the technicals that you can spin any argument you're on you want I mean why are tech stocks rallying and will they continue to rally is I guess the crux of it. And I think that I've already mentioned one reason, the beginning of this secular long term AI boom just so happens to have happened in this kind of narrow stock market rally. And you could say that's currently, and I think it's probably incorrect but right now in the short term analysts think that it's the big tech players that are going to be the basically the only beneficiaries from the AI boom which which is obviously nonsense but there's a stronger argument, and that is in times of uncertainty, we've got a new safe haven. So this was going to be my point as you're explaining take it away. Well it was that. So I followed LLPL financial research for quite a while, and they do put out some really great backward looking historical data sets. You said they're like absolute like perfect fodder for confirmation bias because you can basically look at a single scenario and back test that. But as you are kind of going through that and as much as that makes sense. What does that same time period look like when it's post debt ceiling agreement or in this moment of the Fed cycle or there's like it's a it's a multi layered thing when you're trying to back test it rather than a singular. Because then it can be a bit dangerous, I think, and particularly because media gets hold of it. I'm assuming you read this in the FT or Bloomberg and then it's like citing something that feeds a narrative, which is always quite quite dangerous. But the point you were saying at the end. I mean, you pretty much just summed it up. I find it hard when I think backward looking the tech stocks are different now. Yeah, it's true the size of them, the diversification of their business, the ownership of their business. I mean they the corporate bonds that are out there now that weren't there before. But just on every level, I think that, as you said, I think big tech. It goes up when rates are low. And it goes up through that pandemic period. It goes up when people are uncertain because it's just a safe place to park your money at this point they've kind of gone above. They're at the summit now. Yeah, you say that. So tech stocks go up when rates are low. Definitely. And this is what we call the long duration trade and that's about the discounted cash flows and future earnings become more worth more today when rates are low. We get that. But tech stocks have also gone up when rates are high. And so that then come back to, I think, big tech goes up when rates are high. Right, I should clarify. Yeah. And this is about massive, you know, strong free cash flow. I mean, it's, yeah, monopolies, right, the barriers to entry to compete. It's just literally unreachable. And, you know, obviously, all their products have a key central place in the modern economy and they're just all powerful. And I think that's the best argument to explain what's happening here in 2023. Now, will that continue though is the big question. And yes, the AI stories come in just to give it a little bit more of a boost, but I still think, whilst this tech rally, I definitely didn't predict at all. And I'm kind of staggered by it, to be honest. But I still think there are on balance, more negative factors on the horizon than positive. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, when the stock market goes up, pretty consistently, I mean, that's the general conclusion, right? But then yeah. Okay, so talking of tech, let's then transition into Apple. And I was just thinking, you know, we're talking, it's almost like we were on the conference calls and it was like, how many times can we say AI on the podcast? I think we've managed about 20 so far. AI. AI. So, yeah, Apple, it almost feels like, even though we're going to talk about the reality pro, the VR headset. Reality headset's a bit boring, though, like a bit mistimed, it feels right. This, this narrative of virtual reality. I actually remember it back in the mid 90s. Piers Brosnan and the lawnmower man. If anyone, if anyone's older than that, remember that. Wow. That was when that's, I'm pretty sure that was even before my time. This was when Piers Brosnan, the former boss. Yeah, I think it was like Arnie. No, no, no, you're thinking of a different futuristic one. That was the running man. Ah, the running man. I'm talking about the lawnmower man. Okay, sorry, sorry. Come on. Yeah. Anyhow, so we had this kind of like, I think that was when it was like, complete infancy of like technology, it was like this kind of conceptual idea of virtual reality, and it turned out to be this like horror show basically. Yeah, as it does in the early phase. And then we had the kind of a few years back pre metaverse big talk about virtual reality and it was like AR VR. Everything was AR VR how many times can you say in your conference call to choose to stop price. Then it pivoted to metaverse crypto kind of like littered in. Yep. And now we've arrived at AI. So it's a bit slow. No, I mean, to get actual like, I think immediate bang for your buck, I think it's going to be just to say right now, very limited on this because they're just not hitting the right spots of what I guess the broader investor community is really latching on to at the And I was just looking at Bank of America citing this kind of quote baby bubble in AI and tech funds attracting an all time high of 8.5 billion dollars in the week through 31st of May, which is like huge. But they're certainly not. That's not in anticipation of the reality pro headset. I don't think. I just just a point on timing there but I thought what we could do is just talk a little bit less about the technology. Yeah, and more about I guess the business case for this type of product. So a couple things, and I'll run through so enhanced communication. I think one of the things that we have had is that behavior has changed somewhat and although we're getting more return to work in person situation. So first things have normalized there is still now a belief that there is some idea behind being able to still be productive and have flexibility in your workforce to a certain degree, sectors dependent in that way. So that being said then how do you optimize that experience of being able to participate in virtual meetings view shared content collaborate in projects in real time. Yeah, that could be well constructed within that environment is what some would say then improve customer experiences. And I think this I think actually think this is a really big area, if not one of the biggest. And this is the ability to provide real time information virtual overlays and immersive experiences so think particularly retail. So shopping. I mean I was only on the Adidas website the other day, looking at a new pair of trainers, and I thought you know what, I'm going to try these on. I just sat there on my sofa and like a zap some AR sneakers on my feet and had a little walk around pivot. So what using your phone using your phone, your phone camera your feet and it lays on, but it moves with your foot is just augmented. So, okay. So if you think about that, but that customer experience. Yeah, so if you're shopping that for sure. Yeah. Then increase productivity. So this was more focused on areas like manufacturing construction healthcare, the idea here productivity being providing workers with real time information, virtual assistants. So I think of if I'm a car mechanic, I'm working on an engine. And I'm not quite sure how to tackle this particular issue. I can virtually augment then a secondary visual, which then can go into and explain a product in a kind of real time instruction manual sense. Kind of yes. He had to fly that helicopter. It's kind of like just download it. Yeah, taking YouTube, but making it much more, you know, I've done that before when my, my prams broken, and you're like watching YouTube and you're like, ah, what did you do and you go back again and again, you know, I can't see the nut that you're turning. What is that? Like, so yeah, that alone, I would buy one of these things to avoid that. Watching YouTube for the same five seconds about 100 times. So that's one thing, you know, and there's new business models. So this whole kind of immersive experience this talking more about entertainment venues. So think about, they've already really started to do some of this type of thing, but you know, boxing, basketball, football, these types of things, unlocking them a global audience outside of your physical stadiums, things of that nature. But then, you know, you could talk about museums, historical sites. And then that starts to move into education as well. Could you improve that optimize that experience for learning languages, cultural differences, things like that, informative stages. I do say that the schools are funded by the government. So there's no way they're buying one of these puppies at $3,000 a pop. But the idea, let's say, then there's better data visualization. And this idea of making data more engaging, intuitive, interactive, meaning that finance logistics operations, you know, can by having things like 3D models overlays just help make more informed decisions, and then supply chain, So in this sector, could there be a quicker, more accurate infantry management system warehouse workers, visually queuing things, feeding back into the data centers rather than just actual then movement of goods passage of goods. So this is quite a good article that I saw, and it was kind of like that's talking about not Apple. But the business kind of case for these types of products. So yeah, any any thoughts on any of those yet. Well, I'll be yeah all that sounds great. But there's a big but here in Apple's product. And they don't lie. $3,000 is the first one. That is the price. I mean, come on. 3000 bucks. I mean I know they've been working on this thing for years. You know, trying to perfect it and has it taken them too long because actually now you've missed the boat. That ship sailed and has and sank. And the AI juggernauts just coming through over the top that's why it's one argument, but my biggest point, certainly in the short term. Two words. Headset. So Apple's mixed reality headset. I think it's going to work in the short term. No one wants to wear a headset. We've seen it. Facebook have already tried it. Yeah, I mean I've literally got one on my shelf I bought it. What was it they're quite Oculus. Anyway, Oculus quest isn't it. I think that I bought one. I think it was like a lot of money, but 300 quid or something like that, not 3000. So I bought one. It was great for like six months. And then it's been on the shelf for the last two years no one's ever used it. So I think right now the technology isn't good enough. People aren't going to wear this massive headset on their face and walk around in society. So until the technology gets so good where it can be embedded in your glasses or even. Yes eventually in your contact lens. When it gets that good fine. They'll be potentially mass adoption right across the planet but I think in the meantime a big chunky headset on your face is ultimately get plus the price is going to be a barrier like for example, Meta's quest to the new latest version that only costs $299. You know how many VR headsets got sold last year. Eight and a half million, which isn't very many. So the market for big chunky headsets, even at $300 isn't there never mind 10 times the price. Okay, so I get that. I think you're absolutely right. I mean if you think about putting on a physical headpiece which restricts your actual viewing, unless you have an ability to transition from the virtual screening to actual like glasses view so that you can move with this thing on but then it's it's a physical impediment having that on. However, you just mentioned the Oculus and Facebook is not cool. Facebook has the worst brand and face having anything to do with Facebook has no prestige it has no premium value. I know that young people specifically, and also certain geographic locations of new affluence see I China can't get enough of showing their ability to purchase and consume these products, regardless of their actual use application so. And you talk price point I mean I was just having a quick think about this because most people that I know will own a Apple product and I was thinking about it but they own a Apple product or that they own a few Apple products. Okay, how much of the earbuds the pro version now and they're like 300 bucks. Yeah, and I was like what about you see a few people with the actual headphones full on headphones and they're like 800 bucks. Apple Mac Pro nowadays. Okay, so that's 2000 going up, depending on what model you get the iPhone talking dollar wise is knocking 1500 bucks. Yeah, then you've got. I'm not even going to go into the iPad. I don't know people even use iPads anymore and I think so so let's leave that off the list, Apple watch. Yeah, so I guess the most common being people have to watch have the phone have the buds. Yeah, but we're talking about a couple of thousand dollars there. Plus then you've got additional cloud storage that you normally have now high res photos which is another five to 10 bucks per month. Plus then Apple TV, you get it free with your mobile contract or I'll keep it. That's another 10 bucks a month. So I don't think this isn't a what I'm not saying that this is a complete disaster. It's going to bomb. And the whole Apple mixed reality thing will be a complete fail. I'm not saying that I'm saying that they're not going to sell many of these for a long time. They're okay with that. I think what they're doing here is positioning themselves in this race for the long term, like little things like, you know, who's going to buy it, okay, the die hard Apple junkies, plus developers. So actually did you know there's 34 million software developers that are registered to work on Apple's devices. They're buying this to build software so that can go into these devices. So actually I think this product will accelerate the software development cycle that will mean this software will get better quicker. So I think this is the beginning. These are baby steps. And I think it, you know, and as I said, can they be first to the contact lens version in, I don't know, 510 years time. Fine, then it plugs into their entire suite of products that all of their customers are going to want in on. But perhaps the best conclusion here is just the difference between the AI situation right now and something like the concept of a virtual reality product in the fact that AI is transformative almost immediately to tens of hundreds of millions of different people across sectors, which has an immediate impact on usage, cloud storage, chips, the supply chain, whereas with virtual reality, there's a lot of barriers ahead. So yeah, it's interesting. So let's wrap it up there. That's it for this week's episode. As I said, I think in the last one with Steven, don't forget, there is I think a Q&A function now on Spotify, where you can leave us any questions, comments, so on, please do always happy to take them and get your thoughts and views on Piers' confirmation bias about shorting stocks. This is educational material only, I must reinforce that point. And also, if you're listening, you've made it to the end, you've been joining the shows with Piers and I or Steven, please do rate and review the show on your preferred podcast platform really helps get it out to as many people as possible to try and make, hopefully, finance a bit more interesting and also real with some real life stories and then perhaps what you're studying at school. So yeah, enjoy the weekend. Thanks Piers and catch you for next episode. See you later.