Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Welcome to Maren Talks Money, the podcast in which people who know the markets explain the markets. I'm Meren Somerset Web. This week I'm speaking with Jo word Mean, chief strategist
at Stray Reflections and Independent Global Macro Research and Trading Advisory. Now, one of the reasons I wanted to speak to Jo word this week is because he looks at markets with quite a historical context, and regular listeners will know that we're mildly obsessed with the stock markets of the nineteen sixties and the nineteen seventies, what happened there and how that reflects onto today. So Joad, thank you very much for joining us.
Welcome, pleasure to be with you.
So let's start by looking at the sixties and the seventies, what happened in those markets and how you feel they tell us something about today.
So a couple of interesting trends that we've seen recently that we can find echoes in the past. In the last decade we talked about especially post pandemic, there was this idea of the yolo market and the smack boom, and when you go to the sixty that what's interesting is back then you had Jerry Say, who led this movement within the Go Go Years, as it was named. Go Go fund assets increased from two hundred million dollars in nineteen sixty three to three point four billion in
nineteen sixty eight, an increase of seventeen times. And you can compare that to Kathy Woods, who became the star of the Yolo market in some ways, and her firm's assets row seventeen times as well, from five billion to eighty five billion, another you know, increase of seventeen times. Go Go finds made three and forty four percent between nineteen to three and nineteen sixty eight. Woods Frackship fund, our innovation jump more than three and fifty percent just
from the pandemic low to February twenty twenty one. The other thing was, back then you had the conglomerates boom and John Brooks described that as an era of show offs and shenanigans, and that sort of led to again what we see today or more recently, SPACs, which was at once obscure Niche Nestleveico became the hottest trend on Wall Street. And then the third thing I would say was the idea of how retail completely changed the landscape
back then. Mary Lynch opened over two hundred thousand new Brokes's accounts in the first five months of nineteen sixty eight, and there were about thirty one million Americans who owned the stock, more than one in every four adults, a fifty three percent increase in nineteen sixty five when they were just over twenty million. And if you look at it again comparing it to the recent times, you had fifteen nine million people who held accounts with one of
the top seven years workers in twenty nineteen. By twenty twenty one that number each ninety six million, a sixty percent increase, with seventeen million new accounts open in twenty twenty and twenty million more in just than the first out of twenty twenty one.
Okay, so you have this dynamic where you have a big name, kind of leading hero fund manager. Right, you go through this period and Gerald's side, he was with their Fidelity right initially and then set up on his own and became a sort of a brand in his own right, same as Kathy Woods, who, by the way, we have had on this podcast before. Anyone who's interested in what Kathy Woods thinks about markets. Please go back and listen to that one. It was also great fun
to do. So you have these sort of celebrity fund managers, You have these fast rising markets. You have these products that old timers in the market might look at and say, well, that makes no sense. But maybe you have a new generation of avestas who haven't seen bad things happen in the market before, and so they come on at speed.
You get this huge retail participation, you get a bubble, and then of course eventually the old timers who've been bearished for far too long or right, but after everyone else has made a big part of money. That makes sense, But we're still in a bull market, Kathy Woods as her performance might not be so good anymore. So maybe we can compare to Gerald's side back then, but nonetheless we are still in a bill market. It doesn't reflect exactly right, or does.
It it does? I think? So let me explain the price action. Right, So back then from the nineteen sixty six the bearmarket. In nineteen sixty six, we had the first stop and then SP five hundred dropped twenty four percent, and that bear market lasted eight months. It was not
followed by recession. Instead, a new speculative binge, the second in the decade, took hold, and the averaging daily training volume for nineteen sixty seven on the NYC surpassed ten million shares, a new high by long shot, and compare that today. We had the peak in January twenty twenty two, and what followed was again a twenty seven percent bear market over nine months. No recesion follows, and we've had
another stock market boom. That's that's continued. In nineteen sixty eight was the second peak, and it was sixteen percent above the nineteen sixty six peak, and it's led to the next big decline of over thirty percent over the next two three years, wiping all of the games out from the Google years. And again right now, this is
where we are. You know. The key point is this, after a climactic like the twenty twenty one peak, exhaust spective energy, the next space isn't another vigorous bull market, but a more subdued one with sort of less upside.
And so here we are today where we're about twenty five percent up from the twenty twenty one level, and we're seeing concentration in the MAC seven names, which speaks to the desire to be in trusted, cash rich earning generating companies more so than the spective one that we saw previously.
Yeah, although twenty five percent up doesn't feel very subdued, that feels like that's quite a big rise.
Only if you think that this can discon continue, right, I mean, twenty five percent over the twenty twenty one high. To me, that's not seemed very significant. And I think it's about where do we go from here?
Okay, Mike, I guess that is the key question. Then where do we go from here?
Look? I think what's interesting is if you also jump into the seventies next, you'll notice that there's another comparison that you can make between the MAC seven and the nifty fifty stocks and back then, you know, the few fifty stocks straighted at about forty two times earnings at their peak, more than double the SB five hundreds average of nineteen, and their valuations were said to be okay, because these guys we're going to continue to grow into
their earnings like no price was high enough. And while that prediction was correct, the misconception was it didn't matter what you've paid for them, because they continue to generate earnings growth around nine percent of the next twenty five years, but they had it in to endure a pretty decent decline over the nineteen seventies bear market and then the Magnificent seven like the nifty to fifty at their peak, we're treating at more than double the SB five hundreds
valuation multiple in July of last year. The basket as a whole has peaked in December of last year. And so if history is any guide, you know you have to keep in mind that the price matters. And so the idea is, what if the SP five hundred is right now reaching heights that won't be surpassed the next decade.
So what I mean by that is if you do see a thirty percent decline from here, and we can discuss specific reason as to why that may happen, but if you see a thirty percent decline from here, you're looking at a bottoming somewhere around twenty twenty seven. It takes about two and a half years to typically recover from a bear market low to the high water mark again, which means we could be stuck around the six hundred level back in again in twenty twenty nine or twenty thirty. Even.
Yeah, let's go back to the nifty to fifty AM and the lesson that was learned then that needs to be learned over and over and over again, it seems, is that a good company is not necessarily a good investment, and price does matter. So the feeling then, and you get this feeling now as well in large parts of
the market. I think the feeling then was that it doesn't matter what the price you pay, because this is a great company, it's going to keep growing, it's solid, it's absolutely fine listening's but absolutely true about lots of those companies. But still the price can be too high. So that was the lesson that investors learned then and investors of maybe some investors have already forgotten.
Yeah. So interesting because even if you bought the ninety fifty stocks at their peak, the return from those investments would have still closely massed they as we five hundred and twelve percent annual return over the next twenty five years. But it's just that you had to endure a decline in some of those stocks upwards of eighty five percent.
Yeah, so you just paid too much upfront and you had to wait a long time for that return to come,
but it did come, which is crucial. So if you look, now, let's take that over to their Magnificent seven or perhaps the AI or the AI adjacent stocks as we now call them, and again we look at those stocks, or part of the market looks at those stocks and says, it doesn't really matter what you pay because they will grow into those valuations, which might be true, but that growing into the valuation could take a very long time
and that there could be a big correction. First, is that the correct way to look at the mirroring from the nineteen seventies.
I think so, and I think we've reached those sorts of extremes. And our fundamental belief is that you know, you know, whatever period off the last few decades we look at that, we can get into the eighties and the nineties as well. But we believe that that stocks are in a topping process more broadly, and the topping process isn't a specific point or there's just one catalyst.
It takes you know, typically you know, seven to eight months up towards twelve months, because different sectors and styles speak at different times. But just for you know, context sake, let's keep in mind. The NICKE peaked in July of last year. Microsoft peaked in July, the semiconductor index peaked in July, the high yield sector you know, peaked in September.
Home builderspeat in October. Now, semiconductors and the home builders were the top two performing sectors since October twenty pointy two low following that you've had in November, micro strategy peak, the transports peaked, swakacs peaked nine seven, like I said, as a basket peaked in December. Apple and Testla peaked in December. Mean coins peak in December, in Vidia peaked in January, and so far bitcoins peaked in January as well.
So we can see the sort of over arch topic process developing, and they're now a function of what are specific catalysts that could happen that could lead us into a bear market? What are they? So? I think there's certain conditions that are necessary but not sufficient, amongst which is bullish sentiment. It is consumer expectations for stocks over the next twelve months. It is you know, stronger dollar, higher interest rates, it is insider selling, Michau cash levels
at record low levels. All of these things are you know, part of what you want to see as necessary but not sufficient. And I think what's interesting is the deep Seek news moment that occurred recently. I think creates a crack in the AI narrative to an extent. And you know, Soros had this sort of framework of how he would look at a bubble, which follows a predictable pattern, you know. And you know stage four of a five stage process
was at twilight period where faith waivers. And I think what we're seeing with deep Seek is this idea for the first time in this cycle that perhaps we may be able to lower the cost per unit of intelligence going forward. You know, every bubble, you know, every innovation, every technological wave as all a similar pattern of innovation, application, eventual democratization driven by competition and constroductions. And it looks
like that's happening again. So we will be finding more efficient approaches to challenge the route for GPU intensive taradine.
And this is the case with every period of intense industrialization or some kind of technological change, you very often find and we've seen this again, I mean speed lots written about it happening with the railways, happening with the internet, having with cables, et cetera, et cetera, that the people who put the vast amount of money into the capital expenditure in the first wave of the new technology aren't necessarily the ones who really benefit from it.
Absolutely, and I think a core belief underpinning the album mark it was that the massive instructure of spending will create unastainable boats for the US tech giants. But we're still seeing that the returns all those investments remain unclear.
It's definitely going to impact their return invested capital, and I think starting the next earning seasons, at some point this year, we will see shareholders begin to question that those endless cap ex plans if they future returns right, because I think cost of active scaling them matters much more than chasing performance breakthrough, which American tech giants are sort of focused on right now.
Might that then challenge the idea of American exceptionalism, And we talk about this quite a lot on this podcast, because there is a general idea, particularly among the new generation of investors investors, that the American market has always been exceptional. That is completely natural for the American market to be valued significantly more highly than any other global markets.
That's just no more, Whereas, of course, you know, as old these know that that's only a function of the last fifteen fifteen or so years, and before that it wasn't the case. Does this shift in the AI narrative perhaps, is that the first beginning of a challenge to the idea of American exceptionalism.
So let's remind listeners, right, So, if you think about it, coming out of GFC, America was not the place you wanted to invest. You had the twenty ten flashcress. In twenty eleven, you had the credit rating downgrade, the dollars at a fifty year low. In twenty twelve, Facebook went public and it was a disaster if the IPO flopped. It was the world's largest technology ipo. Obama was increasing regulation.
There was mistrust of the Fed. You know, top investors in the colonumists were writing a letter saying, stop qv you're going to create hyper inflation, You're going to debase the dollar. At that time, Marion, the thinking was emerging markets to serve a higher pe because of their superior growth prospects. Commodities deserve an allocation in your portfolio. So I'm sure a problems would say, you know, there's nothing
more deceptive than the obvious fact. But that was the time you wanted to really be invested in the US. And I think what was exceptional about America was last decade three specific things. First, America had predicate and plessy leadership, the first of which was coming out of GFC, the FED the Ganqui cleaned up the banks before any other country. Then it followed with Trump's tax cuts and deregulation, so
yet political and policy leadership. The second was the shale revolution, which was totally unexpected, which made America and energy independent nation. The third thing was Silicon valley innovation, which eventually led to the bubble. Now what's interesting is I don't think
we're in an American exceptional market anymore. I think which we're seeing in the American exuberance where hype has run ahead of reality, and we can sort of look into that because instead of political and policy leadership, what we have now is a country that's running a deficit of seven percent without any sort of recession or wartime, which is not the best policy prescription. At this point in
the cycle. The shale companies have gone from prioritizing maximum output to maximizing profits now, Silicon Valley seems to be now, especially post nine twenty one, with where we are today, still struggling in the larger startup landscape and potentially seeding
its lead in certain other technologies. So I don't think, you know, America is as exceptional, and I think specifically, if we are in an AI powered bull market, how is it that since October twenty twenty two or November thirtieth, twenty twenty two, when chat GPT was launched, how come the German DAX is upperforming the SABA five hundred Germany, which is which has a ward in its continent, It's
graptical energy crisis, political instability, China a comparatitive threat. How is that possible that German equities have now performed US equities? If AI is an American story, and you've also had the Chips Act, you have the IRA, you had a massive graptical capex, and if you're also in an AI powered bull market, how is it so that a barberous relic, an ancient sort of value like gold is uperforming them both up sixty five percent compared to SB five hundred
and sub fifty close to fifty percent. So there's something not right, something not acceptable about what's happening, either where two bearers on the prospects of Europe or perhaps overestimating America's strength at this point in the cycle.
Yeah, I mean in terms of Germany, European stocks, even UK stocks that they have done fairly well recently. Is that really just the function of global fund managers looking at their exposure to the US and saying, well, sixty seventy percent, this is maybe beginning to push it. Look at the relative valuations, or just shift a little bit out, and given the underweighting of non US markets, it doesn't take that much to start pushing them up a bit.
I think that's certainly part of it, you know. I just think that it's important to ask in a question, which is what is happening that shouldn't be, what is not happening that should be? And if we are truly, you know, in an air powered world market, then this should not be happening where the SEP founder is underperforming. If we are taking a technological leap forward, then goals should not be performing three four hundred. Something else is
going on. And we may not have all the answers, but you know, one way I think about this, Marin is again, if I go back in time, you know, each decade there's a a powerful event that occurs which turns into the zeitgeist and eventually into a mania. So back in the seventies, it was the big tann of Britton Wlds in nineteen seventy one, which lected the gold world market, but in nineteen eighty that stopped working. In the nineteen eighties, it was Japan's sticking over the world.
You're long Japians equity, Japanese real estate, but nineteen eighty nine that stopped working. In the nineteen nineties, the zeitgeist was the Internet. It only really kicked in nineteen ninety five. But you want to be long Nasdaq March two thousand. That stopped working in the two thousands. The zeitcast was shining as interesting to the World Trade Organization in two thousand and one, so you're ready long China em commodities that stopped working in twenty ten, twenty eight to eleven.
Based on whatever asset you pick, the zeitcast of the last decade was best articulated by Mark and Resent in twenty eleven, and a Wall Street Journal article titled software is Eating the World? That zeit guys, in my opinion, ended in twenty twenty one.
What do you think the one for the next decade is?
Then?
Where are we going next?
Yeah, there are a few interesting points here right. So first, because these are ten year trends, a lot of careers, reputations, businesses are built on that success. It takes a while to dethrone dominant beliefs and behaviors that served them. So even up until twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen, we still thought emerging markets are going to come back. We still thought gold and commodities are going to continue to do well.
It didn't really happen. And up until mid twenty fifteen, people still thought, you know, America is not the place to be. You know, back in twenty fifteen, Bill Gurly says, Silicon vllies in a bubble, So it's very difficult to discern, you know, when that shift is happening. There's certain candidates, you know, that we can look at. I think that are a handful. You know, we've been talking about as
zodcast portfolio with our clients. The first could certainly be AI, in which case you want to be long in VideA. This I think is too close to the prior's archives to be the one. The second could be health and obesity, so in which case you will belong evalily. And the third candidate could be defense in a multiplier world, so in which case you will belong palenteer and you know
some certain European defense names. And I think the fourth, which is where I leaned most is it could be the energy transition, the race to zero emissions and the global energy transition. So this idea of electrification in trying to serve the climate goals. And I think that's important
because just like last decade it was America's decade. If climate or the sort of energy transition becomes the dominant team, then the country most important for this decade is actually China, because China is the renewals of a power of the world. And so just like ten, twelve, fourteen years ago, it wasn't obvious that America was the place to be, it's not obvious right now that China is the place to be.
Who would want to invest in a country that was a shrinking in gage population or leader for life, a slow march and property crass, civil leverage, you know, potential war with Taiwan. And yet and yet, you know, Chinese tech stocks have performed the US market last year and they're pretty songly this year. So again, something else is going on that we may need to pay attention to.
It's interesting, though, isn't it that you pull that out when if you flick through the papers, look at what we write, look at what we talk about. It actually seems that what we're seeing in most of the world, the UK side, we haven't got there yet, but we probably will. What you're mostly seeing is a pullback from the idea of trying to pursue zero, a pullback from the idea of moving away from fossil fuels too quickly, because it clearly isn't working at this feed that a
lot of people would like it to. So we're seeing more of a pullback than to push forward in that area.
And that's how surprisingly how markets work, right. It's just very counterintuitive. And I think it's more about just understanding
the capets are required to upgrade the US electrical trade. It's, you know, what's required to sort of create the electricity and the power needed to support even the AI boom now, right, And I think all of that feeds into energy transition and in some ways the race to ZERI emissions, because you're going to have to find sources that are alternative to conventional ones to sustain this.
To us, that seems to suggest that there'll be a nuclear boom rather than anything else.
I mean a certainly part of it. I think naturally guys are They're a big role to play in the interim. But the reason I think Germany is also performing is because if we are in the sort of climate era, and then the solution to climate is not technological, it's industrial. So there's also a time where industrial companies do better.
It's not ventually capital, it's project finance, it's you know, working with other governments, and in most cases, you know, China is way ahead of any other nation when it comes to the key technologies needed for that push, which I see bringing Europe in China closer. Even if the US sort of heats up political pressure on both spend.
That further, Why does that bring China and Germany closer together?
I think ultimately what you're gonna have to see is desire for more investment from China, and so you know America could benefit from that. Europe could benefit from that. So you're gonna play economic diplomacy, is you're gonna see a shift towards ees globally. You can try if you want to stop that, delay that, but we're already seeing it happening in across emerging markets, and the developed world
is going to be slower because of political preferences. But ultimately you're more likely to see Chinese companies taking over European auto plans than European companies competing or out competing Chinese ones, And so it makes sense, and I think it's a very interesting comment even by Risula recently where she talked about how we need to figure out that ways to compete and collaborate with China and get closer, so you know, we're not necessarily at the cusp of
this delinking globally from trade linkages and sharing technologies that sort of will help prepare us to the next sort of iteration of global growth.
Okay, I want to come back to European structure in a minute, but before I forget, I want to go back to Gold where you said something's going on there. What is it that you think is going on with the goal price?
I think it really began for US with the sanctions in Russia. You know, So there are three basic strikes to pack Americana. You know. Strike one was Post nine to eleven, where you know, America suddenly went against the international order and neaded the country a soueign nation and you realize, wait a minute, sovereignty doesn't mean anything. So that was the beginning of the rise as a strong man. So you certainly lost faith in America as the global
protector or as the benign hedge of one. The second strike was in the GFC, when you realize, wait, we can't trust America as the global eclomic manager because subprime was an American creation. And that's when China sort of decided that we got to separate usself from US banks as much as possible in the US financial system. The third strike was the sanctions on Russia where you confiscate state assets, where you suddenly realize, wait, we can't even
trust the national property rights anymore. I mean, that was our sacrisanct. And so I think since then you've seen you know that strike three of facts Americana, which basically means we're entering a different world order going forward, right, And the risk is that America is acting like a hedgemon in a multi poder world. That creates incivility, that creates uncertainty. However, since then, what we're noticing is that
gold buying among center banks has really picked up. And it's also to a point where you know, it's not responding to the rise and real interstrates, its start responding to the rise and the dollar. And I think that is an extremely powerful trend and I think that continues.
Okay, we did a podcast on gold a little while ago, so we can leave listeners go and re listen to that, because I think a lot of a lot of things that you said chime very very neatly with what we discussed previously. You also mentioned bitcoin, which you say has peaked. Do you see bitcoin as central banks aside fulfilling the same role for investors as gold, or do you see it as something completely separate.
I think the big question with bitcoin specifically is that does it trade like NASDAK or does it trade in the rest of the dollar. And I think historically it's traded like NASDAK. So given our scenario where we think risk assets could be down materially over the next two and a half years. It's difficult for me to see bitcoin de couple from that, even initial signals from creating political tension, whether it's tariff news. You see bitcoin sort of selling off on that, you know, across the sort
of crypto total market cap sells off on that. So it's difficult to see that as a hedge or trading inversely to broader risk sentiment.
Yeah, no, it's interesting. We do keep being told, don't mean that bitcoin is a diversifier and a long term store of value and all these things where we have
no evidence of that yet. And when we look at golden when we look at bitcoin, when we discuss bitcoin, and when people come on and discuss bitcoin with us, its value today is based on its perceived role in the future, Whereas when we talk about gold its value is based on the role it has already played in the past, and we can expect it continue to play that role. And that's very very different assets, one based on history and one based on expectations.
I still think it's all a function of the cycle. Right. At some point, you know, a bitcoin post COVID has crossed the rubicon where you're seeing now even greater traditional adoption. So I think it's an asset that continues to be
relevant and we'll continue to make institutional in roads. The question is when the invest at watch point in the cycle are we in And what we typically see is when the cycle turns, have micro strategy giving you in some indication where marcro strategy peaks and it coin follows, you know, months later. So as of right now, microsolurgy beat in November. As of now, Bitcoin pete in January.
I'm open minded to another move to like one one thirty maybe in the next few months, but I do suspect that will be at top that stays in place for quite some time.
Okay, so you're advising institutional clients in the main I think. But let's imagine that you're talking to a retail investor possibly and listen to this podcast. How would you recommend that they allocated their assets at the moment?
Time frame matters. But if you were to say this is a multi year sort of.
Allocation, looking for a decade, let's go for a decade.
Yeah, then I would I would say, you want to be long China and Chinese acuities. You know, I think we are underestimating the innovation coming out of China and Chinese brands, and I think, so you want to be long China, I would say, is that it's the top one,
and there's specific companies you can look at there. I would say you would want to maintain exposure to gold and silver as well as part of your allocation, and you would want to get exposure to commodity names that would sort of benefit from the execation and deconbonization story, right, So that is copper, that is aluminum that would do well. I think there is going to be a natural gas or LNG boom that was sort of perhaps you know, left national gas prices as well, so there's something to
be done over there too. But the best decision that investor can make typically is avoiding the zycass of the previous decade. So you know, in twenty tens, if you just avoided China, em commodities would done fantastically well. If in the nineties you avouted Japan, you could have done well. In two thousand, if you know what about it nas that you could have done well. So that just tells you that we're in an era now where the US will begin to underperform the rest of the world.
If you were too. If you were, if you didn't do anything else, if you're at the very least to rebalance yourself away from the US, away from tech, away from AI, you might be doing yourself a favor.
I think.
So, okay, interesting, And what about what about access to the extraordinary dynamic entrepreneurialism in the Middle East? So, for example, in the UA, you go to Dubai, Debbi, and you see these extraordinary economies being built. Is there any way to get exposure to that? And would you advise.
That it's not an area of focus on me? I mean, a lot of the innovation that you're talking about is happening mostly in private markets and through venturing capital funds, right, so I think that would be the way to get exposure. How we haven't had a long enough cycles really determine
how those funds have truly performed. The gootage dynamic where the economy is not so much reflected in the stock market in terms of the marketab versus economic weights, and so you know, the stock market is on this side of the best exposure either. So it's really a function of what you want to do or what your view on oil is. It's because because fundamentally speaking, it's looking at the public markets. It does tried the beta to oil to a certain degree, DoD.
I'm going to ask you a question I've I used to ask everybody, but I've slightly stopped asking now and I already think I know where you're going to go with this, But I'm going to ask you. Anyway, over this ten year period, if I offered you a choice of bitcoin or gold, which one would you take? You're only allowed one.
By the way, I would take gold.
Yeah, I thought you might. I thought you might from what we've just talked about. And if during that ten years you were to recommend a book two people to read that might help them get through this next decade in markets or in life, what would you recommend?
You think I would recommend The screw Tape Letters by the C. S. Lewis. I think it's the most important book of our time. It's basically a senior demon writing letters to a junior demon about how to corrupt humans, which he calls the patient and keep him away from the enemy, which is God. So it's a fascinating exchange of letters which is basically the inside game of how we are foiling ourselves. And so in a decade, which
could be you know, more problematic politically, economically, socially. I feel like we need to have a better understanding of how we are being led astray. And I can't think of a better book than C. S. Lewis. It was actually better is to listen to it because John Cleese does the audio version, which is fantastic in his voice.
That sounds great. Okay, so we are being led astray? Who do you think is leading us astray?
The enemy? I have seen the enemy and it is us.
Thank you, Thank you very much for joining us today.
Pleasure. As always, thanks.
For listening to this week's Maren Talks Money. If you like our show, rate review and subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts, and keep sending questions or comments to Marron Money at Bloomberg dot net. You can also follow me and John on Twitter or x I Met Marinus w and John is John Underscore Steppy. This episode was hosted by Me Maren's Sunset Web. The show is produced by Summersadi and Moses and sound designed by Blake Maples and special thanks of course to jo at me on Thank You