Hello, and welcome to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. I'm James Kirby, the editor at The Australian, and welcome aboard everybody. Well, I've had by public demand, you might say, we've had lots of questions, and I know they've been banking up and I know a lot of you have had questions in the tank if you like for some time today, we're going to do a special on readers questions and I think you'll find it very interesting. We will go off in all sorts of directions, so you won't have
a common theme if you like. There won't be much in the way of structure or order that we normally have, but we will actually bounce off a lot of really interesting subjects. There are all questions from listeners, all types, all real and genuine. I'd like to add, and who will help me with these questions? Well, I mentioned to you that I'm away for a week, so the next two shows will be hosted by James Girard and he is here to help me today. How are you, James Gerard?
I'm doing well. Good to be back again. Thanks James, You're welcome.
James Gerard, a financial advisor dot com dot au here with me. So on the other thing I'm going to do, James, is as you know, i'm trained as an editor, I'm a bit I'm a bit severe on the editing, as you would probably know as a contributor to the paper. But more than that, with the with the correspondence we get and I do want to take the opportunity to say thank you to everyone who writes in and if you ever feel the urge to write a review on
your podcast app, I would really like that too. But in editing, I keep the questions I demand if you like that, questions are short, and people have got very good at that. That's just in the interest of fairness really that we can get more done. But also, James, as an editor, I snip off endearments or things like you know, I love the show or whatever, but I think today we leave them in just to give people a flavor here and there of some of the stuff
that people are saying. All right, so my first question, and we'll read them alternately, James, and we'll take our usual segments, but we'll try and do maybe three or four in each segment. So the first question straight off, first, Cab off the rank, folks is Yolanda Hiolanda. She says, you mentioned a Super black spot, a zone where you have too much or too little in Super. Are you able to describe this in more detail and give a range? Surely a very common range would be six six seven
to one point five million? What is the amount most people with a full working life which SUPER will have in superun retirement without making extra extra contributions. And if you can't answer it, she says, can you point me to someone who can hold on? Yolanda, we will make a damn good job of answering this. I hope James calls this is really funny. James as an advisor and an optimist, cause it the sweet spot. He talks about
sweet spot and Super where you should be. I talk about the black spot and Super where you shouldn't be. That might tell you something about our distinct personalities. But anyway, for what it's worth, here's the thing. And always remember, of course, before we say any answer here, it's probably better to have your own money. Of course, it is okay.
You're going to be more independent if you've got a million in Super and someone says I don't have a million in super, but guess what I might as well have for the amount I'm getting in various ways through government payments, and technically that can actually be argued in
some cases it's not the same. However, for all the effort we make for all the savings, you do wonder sometimes is there a zone in super where when it's arguable on a year to year income basis okay, and I'm including everything you can get from the government done Central Link and coming with seniors health cards and everything else, and there is a zone where it's arguable whether it's worth the effort. I think James, it's somewhere in the
order of four hundred thousand to six hundred thousand. What do you work on?
Yeah, that's about right. It depends on the person, if they're single, if they're a couple, if they own a house, or if they don't own a house. Because what I call, as you've mentioned, the sweet spot. So the ideal situation is where you can pick up the age pension from the government in retirement, which is available from age sixty seven onwards but subject to an assets and income test. But you're also what we call a self funded retiree or have hundreds of thousands of dollars in super as well.
So the way that you sort of hit that sweet spot to get the full age pension from the government, which for a single person is almost thirty thousand dollars a year. So it's not pocket money here.
Well that's what happened when I was saying about a million dollars. I mean, if you're very conservative estimate if you had it in a poorly paying cash account, a million dollars, what the thirty thousand a year might be there thereabouts what you're going to get, right, So.
Yeah, that's right. So yeah, you caush your mind back a couple of years ago when the cash rates and will turn to positve rates, we're giving you half a percent, one percent, you're getting peanuts and even on a million dollars. So getting this guaranteed payment of thirty thousand if you're a single, forty five thousand if you're a couple from the government is great. But of course, with the cash rate going up, the return out of super being better.
But still the principles are the same around this sweet spot. So the place that your lander should have a look at is it's called a guide to Australian Government payments and it's on the services website and you go there, you have a look in the back around the assets test section and then you just identify which one you are and again are you single, you're a couple, Do you own a house? Do you not own a house?
And it will show you how much assets, so how much super value of your bank account, car contents, how much you can have in assets to receive the full age pension. And then if you exceed the threshold for an age and full age pension, you're going to the part pension range. And then if you exceed that up a threshold, you get zip.
So it's called it, and they taper it, don't they. So it's like for every dollar over x, it takes fifty cents off your pension. And so keep that in mind. It's a long term thing. But it's I mean, it's I think it's just a huge issue. And by the way, folks, all these retirement calculators, you know, be very careful, be damn skeptical about these people saying you need a million and super you need one point six million, a million,
what do you need? Well, you know there's a government pension for first of all, and some people will live on that. Part two, there are a lot of other issue items that you can pick up as an older person if you don't have SUPER. But the megapoint I'd like to make to everyone, James is if you don't own your own home, you will pay highly in this system because it's entirely biased towards the homeowner because the home value is basically not counted, but all SUPER is.
So if there's two people, one has a five million dollar house and tiny bit of SUPER and the other person has a million dollars and SUPER but no home, then that person with just lots of SUPER and no house, they're going to do worse than the system, aren't they. They are.
That's a really good point. The net assets of the person with the house is much higher, but they get the pension, where it's someone with a lower net asset, but just because their money is in SUPER, they don't get the pensions. So that's a very good thing. That the good point to note that the family house is not included in the assets test.
So keep that in mind, you lander, and all the your lander's out there. No advice here, of course, information only, And also folks, That is why if you were listening to the most recent show, it's why I've come around to saying you, yes, you can use your super to
buy a family home. Not because it's a great idea, not because it's in principle I think it's terrific, but because the tax system is so loaded against you if you don't have a home that you are better off with one before you start forever, not just in midlife, young life, but even more so when you're retired. Okay, a question from Luke. Do you want to read that one, James?
I will. When in a DP acronym for dividend reinvestment plan for an ETF acronym for exchange traded fund, is a dividend reinvestment made at the price post or pre distribution post.
Yes, oh please? Do you're the financial advisor? Yes?
Okay, so I wasn't sure. If I asked you a bit, I'll ask.
If they're hard. If they're hard, you answer, it's really it's basically the routine.
All right, got it? Sorry, I'll get with the program. Okay. So the answer is that the dividend is paid and then it gets reinvested. So the dividend reinvestment is made based on the share price after the end.
They so so they figure out what the dividend is. The dividend is the dollar per share, and then once they know that, I presume after thirty within the period of something, they reinvest that dollar for you in the shares that you have in there in the in the ETF just like a share, just like an ordinary share. They do it the same way. I don't believe there's any difference at all, And I know people are always
asking that. Okay, Pavel p A v. E. L Hi as a regular listener to the podcast, and it informative and enjoyable, and especially given the quality of the guests that you have honored their experience and willingness to share good insights. That's you, James Gerard. I think it would be great if, not if in the not too distant future, you could have a financial advisor to summarize what the
recontribution strategy is. Oh, okay, our completely upside down, totally twisted supersystem has a thing which allows you to take money out and put it back in and reduce your tax ability of your ultimate inheritance you might pass on through your super That's it conceptually. Would you explain what a recontribution strategy is, James, how it might work.
Yep. So we have this hangover from supernuation years of the past, with components of supernuation. There's a taxable component, there's a tax free component. There's even a less common untaxed component as well. And this was back when I first started my career twenty years ago, where we had things like reasonable benefits limits and we had to do these complex calculations to work out how much people could
get out of super in retirement tax free. But going back on maybe fifteen years ago now they sort of simplified the system and got rid of all these complex calculations and basically said that people over the age of sixty who are retired will have everything tax free and if they're in the pension phase. But the last the past few years they've changed the rules a bit and they've brought in these one point nine million dollar caps, and it's going to be a three million dollar cap
at thirty percent. But that aside, for most people who are retired in drawing a pension money out of it's tax free. So the strategy here around the recontribution is that it didn't really really mean anything to you while you're retired drawing your pension because it's tax free. It's more for your non dependence. So typically adult children who inherit your super money after you pass away dependent so spouses they receive the money tax free from your super
if you pass away, but non dependence. So for kids who are grown up, who have their own spouses and families and who are not reliant on you, they have to pay seventeen percent tax only on the taxable component
of your super account. So a lot of people don't actually know what their components of their SUPO is, So you probably need to look at a statement or bring up the super fund and you might be surprised because there might be a high taxable component, which again you shouldn't be worried about because it doesn't mean anything for
you in retirement. But there's a planning opportunity depending on your age, because you can do this recontribution strategy where you take money out of super and then you put it back in again, and doing that, you're taking money out, and when you take money out, your withdrawal is proportionately
split between the taxable and tax free component. So in simple terms, if you had one hundred thousand dollars in your super account and it was fifty percent taxable fifty percent tax free, and if you took ten thousand dollars out as a lumps on withdrawal, that one thousand dollars withdraw payment would be a mix of fifty percent taxable fifty percent tax free. And so you've got this ten
thousand dollars in your bank account. Now you can put it back as what we call a non concessional contribution. There's no tax payable when that goes back in, and that payment adds to the tax free component of your super account.
It's a long, elaborate, my mildly absurd way of legitimize, legitimately minimizing the tax of your beneficiaries in the long period of time. And most people by the time they get inheritance now are adults anyway, aren't they. But the other thing is to say, for as, if you've never met any voluntary contributions ever, would you're would it be one hundred percent taxable? Then that's right, yeah, which would
be a lot of people. And increasingly and increasingly people know that the SGC so high that I imagine that group is getting bigger and bigger. Okay, I imagine that all makes perfect sense to you also far these are questions that I've basically distilled some of the more common questions that we get, and we will, as I say, be bouncing around. That was very quickly there. That was two on super and one on dividend reinvestment plans, which, of course I'm sure you know what they are. Once
upon a time all shares used to have them. Now it's sort of entirely they're so sort of ruthless in their ways corporate, so they turned them all and off as it suits them. But it's a good discipline if you have shares to just sign up for a d or P unless you're very efficient and you know exactly what you're going to do with your cash every time.
And the other theory academically is like if you think a company is good enough, like if you think Commonwealth is good enough, common Well Bank's good enough, then it's probably good enough to reinvest in. That is an interesting sort of test if you ever want to sign up for a dividend reinvestment plan for either an ETF or a share. Okay, we'll take a short break and we'll
be back in a moment. Hello, Welcome back to the Australian's Money Puzzle podcast James Kirby with James Girard, and we have a reader's Questions special show for you today. Nothing but readers questions, all sorts, shapes and sizes, and a really interesting one from Scott. I've got to read this. This is a great question. What is the endgame of someone who invests in shares outside of Super for the
long term? What's their desired end state? If you're investing in shares for the long term, you'd surely do it in Super if you're worried about quick access or liquidity. That's what an emergency fund is for. I'm forty and I've spent the last fifteen years investing in the share market for the long term outside Super through index based ETPs. It suddenly dawned on me that I would likely to
crystallize these investments before retirement. I would have invested through Super. Whoops, Well yeah, okay, Scott and all the Scott's out there. Interesting point. I originally, when I saw this question, I thought it was what's the end game of investing? There was the old joke in the in the in the Danny DeVito movie about with the two they're fighting over, it's all about It's about money this movie. It will come to me in a second. Well, it's cold, and
he explains to someone else on Wall Street. The guy says, what what's it all about? Why are we doing this anyway? And Danny DeVito says, the guy who dies with the most wins, which which is what people will say sometimes to me on issues about Super. But I say to them, yes, yes, well settle down there. We all need money in this world, and we need to be able to defend ourselves in times of difficulty. That's the first thing not to mention when we get when we are not able to make
the Sundari we make in our prime. Now, Scott, the only thing I would say to you in retrospect because it's too late, right, I imagine, so you could switch this stuff into super in specie transfer, but it's too late in many ways. You can have. How much can you have outside of super tax free in income anyway? James, any single person, anyone in the country can have a certain amount.
Yeah, you can. It depends a little bit if you're a capitable single But let's say start to day ten thousand, but it can be around twenty five thousand in circumstances.
Okay, so whoever you are, even a rock bottom minimum, you can make an income of eighteen thousand perannum and it's tax free. It doesn't matter whether that money's in super or not. So perhaps someone like Scott could could hold it right there and have a look and say, well, how much am I making? What would be the income out of this? And you mightn't have to transfer it if he wanted to transfer it into super, if that was his, if that seemed better. How can you do there?
Can you say this? And I've got did he give a number one? How much is there?
No?
But let's say let's say he has twenty five brand in investments their ETFs and he says, God, I should have put that in my super fund ten years ago, but he's still got ten years to go or twenty years ago. Can he switch that stuff into his super and what would be the upside or downside of that move?
Yeah, he can definitely do that. The upshot is that it reduces tax downstream when he's retired, as zero percent tax on the capital gains. If he eventually sells it and super funds. A lot of them will do what's called in specie transfer, so Scott won't have to sell the share and then repurchase it through his super fun He can just like pick it up and then transfer it and drop it into his superfund, which is good.
There will be capital gains tax implications though, because he's crystallizing again whether he does the in specie transfer or sells it and moves it to the super fund, so that needs to be considered. One thing which I speak to clients about is deferring or minimize in capital gains tax. We're accumulating assets. We're acumulating shares and properties throughout our
working lives, partly in super, partly personally. So the stuff that we hold outside of souper, the best time to transfer it into super is generally just stuff you stop working, and the reason is that you don't have your employment income, which means that you're not being pulled into the higher
tax brackets. So as soon as you go into the lower tax bracket when you're retired, assuming that you're still under the seventy five years of age for the contribution caps, that's when we start to crystalize.
So good. This is exactly where our advice comes into play. This is where you know, I would say, folks, this is where using advice really pays off. That's such an interesting way of using and optimizing how the system works, and people wouldn't necessarily guess that. Yeah, okay, so just
so just ron that scenario. If you were gems about the person who had the ETFs and let's say they had the twenty grand in ETF and 's they're ten years to go to retirement, what would a person what's what is in your view and an optimum uh a pathway there?
Yeah, you know, if they've held that ETF for a while and there's a large capital gains tax bill, we would just leave it and say, okay, let's just let it ride, assuming that we like that et F, and then when you retire, the year after you retire, we'll sell it at lower tax rates and then transfer that money into souper. If there's not that much in the way of capital gains tax ten years from retirement, we might do it earlier. So it just depends on how much tax we're going to get.
The little tax treads and ew because of their age. Correct yeah, that's kind of the key there, I see. Very very interesting. Okay, okay, very good. All right, you want to read the question from mac Daddy, which I presume is not a real name. M A C D A D d y macdaddy.
It's not an Irish name, is it, James. You haven't come across it.
Now unless it's a very very obscure Scottish name. And I don't think it is that Danny DeVito movie. I think it was Other People's Money, the one you're here are the people's money. Thank you. It's good to Yes, we should do a session sometime on financial business and investment movies. That's one of the that is one of the really good ones, Steady de Vito, Other People's Money year. Okay, Macdaddy, Right, what's the question?
Thanks for the insightful and entertaining commentary you provide each week on Everything finance. How does the stock split affect the charts and graphs of the company's share price? For example, if a company does a one to four split with the share price suddenly dropped by seventy five percent, I am guessing not so. How are the share price and charts of a single price adjusted for a stock split.
Great question, Macdaddy. Oh gosh, every financial journalist nightmare the time you do the story about the plunge and the share price and you get a call the next day saying you didn't know that there was a stock split, did you? Oh god, it did happen to me once. It was a dot com. It was in the middle of all the crazy, crazy craziness of dark com. But it did happen, and I was super alert to them ever since. So stock split, First of all, actually there's
one going on. Is it in Vidia going to do one?
Yeah, I've followed, But would make sense given how much the share price? I don't think so.
I think so so companies do it when often when they when the share price just goes bananas and it's just so so high that they that they are of the opinion that retail investors don't don't want to buy shocks stocks that cost ten thousand each or whatever, so they split them at ten and for every stock you have, suddenly you have ten worth a thousand rather than rather than one worth ten thousand. But it doesn't affect anything, really, does it, James. It's just a technicality on the charts.
I supposed it'd be some sort of an inflection point or something which would suggest what happened.
Yeah, so I've seen this over the years, and what happens is that the charts, the historical charts, and the volumes, the share volumes are adjusted to ensure continuity, so that you're looking at it based on the current after split share price. And how it works is, let's just say that you have one hundred shares at one hundred dollars each. After the split, you'd have you'd have shared at twenty
five dollars. You'd have more shares, you'd have four hundred shares, but you still own the same amount, and the stock chart just adjust to show that the new share price at twenty five dollars in the proportioned that the previous price history, so it all looks nice and clean.
So it was one for four split. As mcdeddie asks, then would the share price drop by seventy five drop?
Yeah, it does show a drop of that seventy five percent straight away, but what I've seen is that they sort of smooth it out, so they sort of like apply the split, if that makes sense, going backwards, so that you don't see that big drop if you I'm back six months later. It just looked like everything had always been.
Yeah, the charts, and it doesn't matter. Well apart from the fact that you have four shares for everyone you had, mac Daddy, the value of the shares you have have in no way change whatsoever. All things been equal, I mean on the day that it happened. But interesting, and it's interesting. We haven't had a question on stock splits before. They're not as common as they used to be, but
every now and again they happen in companies. I think I think CESL might have had one along the way, and in video I think I've read that they might be doing one.
Two.
Okay, right, that was mac daddy. Brad. Thank you for your excellent and concise financial, property and market commentary. I won't bore you with this stuff anymore, folks. I just thought today and it being a reader's question show, we would actually read out what they say. We normally ate it all stuff out. I plan to hold some equities that is, by the way, they're called shares shares, and sell after the end of June in order to raise realize capital gains at a lower tax rate. Because the
Stage three tax cuts are coming through. Do you believe others will do the same and will there be any impact on financial and property markets in the next financial year as a result of Stage three tax cuts? I love your question, Brad. Here's the thing. I'll do a quick thing about property and James might pick up on the financial side. Do you know that following Stage three
tax cuts which kick in on July one. I don't have the tables in front of me, but if you were on one hundred thousand a year when your tax cut comes in, your borrowing capacity will go up by twenty five thousand dollars straight away on July one. If you're on one hundred and fifty thousand, your borrowing capacity that is the amount extra you can bid on a house for, will will increase by thirty seven thousand automatically on July one. These are figures from Morga's Choice, which
I just got yesterday. So there's a property market impact instantly that people will be able to borrow and bid more. So that's take it or anyway you like, But that is not going to put prices down. Let's put it that way. It has the potential to put them up. What about more generally James the s there's all sorts of angers on this one is for an advisor.
Yeah, So firstly, with the planning, with the tax changes from one July, some clients are trying to bring forward productions into this financial year to claim a higher tax deduction because there's higher tax bands compared to next financial year. But really that's only for people who earn less than one hundred and ninety thousand dollars per year, because if you were in one hundred and ninety thousand dollars a year next financial year, you're still going to be taxed
at a marginal rate of forty seven percent. So people below one hundred and ninety then there can be a bit of a benefit by trying to prepay interest and do other things like that this financial year. With regards to broader impacts on financial markets, I don't think it's going to be that much. Cuts will happen, people will be happy. But you know, if I ask you, can you remember the tax cuts that occurred years ago, ten years ago, how do you feel about that? Does that
still influence your financial decisions? And it is no for everybody, So it'll just flow through. People be a little bit richer with more money in their pockets, and then everyone will get on with life.
They might spend more, though, which could push up inflation. Yeah, I don't say that. I'm looking forward. I was looking forward to interest rates coming down.
Later this year. Yeah, it looks like next year. Now is the later?
Oh yeah, now they're saying December twenty twenty five. This is the money markets. Oh yeah, why don't you say twenty twenty six file you're at it? Oh lord, yes, they'll be waiting. We did say, we did say a lot time and go on this show. Don't be waiting for their interest rate cuts, my friends. There is no sign of them at all. But thank you for the question. Bad, very very interesting. So tax cuts, yes, some obvious things
is that people will have more to spend. Two surveys, NAB and Westpact, both done in the last month, both said the same thing, that the majority of people intend to save their tax cuts. And the only thing I have to say about those surveys is what people say on surveys and what they do can be very very different. As you know from election polls. Pre election, people will always say what you what they think they should say. I say the chances that the people will save eighty
percent of their tax cuts are zilch. That's my that's my personal view. What do you think?
I agree? I agree, it's been tough time.
Say that anyway, won't you? Yeah? Did the extend they even notice them?
You know what?
I I don't mean to be facetious there, but how many people are so numerous and financially obsessive that they will note the change per per in their in their pay? Not everybody, I have to say, and I'm not just guessing about that. In those same surveys, twenty percent of people didn't know anything about the text cuts. They didn't know they were coming because they haven't been listening to podcasts or reading newspapers. All right, we will take a break.
I'm back with some very good questions from John and Dan and Rick. Hello. Welcome back to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. It's a reader's and listeners listeners questions special they have been building up. I thought you might enjoy hearing the questions that are coming in from all sorts of angles. Sometimes we in the show, we we do
them at the end. Perhaps we do do them too quickly, And I thought this was an opportunity expandid opportunity to catch up to speed on them and actually just zone in on them as well. Okay, question from John Great podcast. We have three children age between twelve and eighteen. I would like them to be involved in the families financial decisions.
I think this would help them in the future. At what age would you recommend involving them in financial decisions, what chairs to buy, what property to invest in, how to manager family trust? Should they be so lucky as having one? He didn't say that that was me at the end, James Strars, we both have this situation. My guys. I have to say. They used to say that they understood everything anyway, and then I would challenge them. I say, what do you know about Super?
Oh?
I know all about that it was, and then I'd ask them one or two questions, precise questions. They would know the answers. So I have found that their interest is building rapidly and it's almost entirely linked with not with Super. They're aware of Super, but it's almost entirely linked with the property prices and how they will fare and how they will ever get into the metropolitan markets
of Australia. Which is probably where they're going to live, considering the sort of jobs that they are probably going to get. But so I tried with my guys when they were but I think there were sixteen seventeen eighty when I even tried in any serious way to sit them down a bit. What do you think and what do you think and what do you actually do?
B Okay, all right? So similar to John, I've got three kids, three girls, so Vivian's five, Viva seven, and Chloe's fourteen, so I can speak up to fourteen years of age with experience. And I also I insist that they listened to the podcast around the dinner table. So hello, girls, I love you, hope you're listening to this. And what we do is, of course, you want them to understand finance at a young age, but I find that children just aren't interested and you shouldn't force it on them.
I found that with Chloe, my elders starting to introduce her to debit cards, and I think the good age is anywhere from twelve to maybe up to fifteen years of age, so they start to understand the basics of spending money and earning money through pocket money and doing jobs from fifteen onwards, and then starting to introduce them to investments, maybe from sixteen through to twenty as they show interest in that, and then introducing them to more
advanced things such as if you have a family trust, how that works, what that means for them in the future, the property market, superannuation, saving for the future. I think all that foundational stuff. Anyway, from twenty to twenty five. It's sort of sounds a bit late, but really it's difficult to sit an eighteen year old down and get them to think about supernuation and salary sacrificing in the benefits they'll get at age sixty when they're thinking about going to the next tailor swift.
That's right, Well that was I suppose you can kick it around forever. But that was the brilliance, in some ways of the Paul Kating move of the SGC. I mean, here we are saying, you know, you can actually tap it for your super on the same show. But there's no two ways about it. I mean, it's in your twenties that you really really got to get started to get the compounding, and it's in your twenties that you really really really don't care two jots for super because
you think you're going to live forever, et cetera. So one other thing I thought I just thought I might mention to John is that in my dealings with very very wealthy families, and we've had advisers on the show, you know who don't say this on the show, but they won't deal with people that have you know, they they have to deal with people with ten million. I've had. There's one advisory, there's two advisors on the show that basically that's their range. They just have a small squad
of clients and these people are very very wealthy. That's all they do.
Uh. And and.
What they tell me is how these matriarchs and patriarchs at seriously wealthy families, how they get their kids. More difficult in sub cases for them because you can't really convince the kids that they're going to ever need money, that they're going to have to pay the mortgage and blah blah blah, because they know they're not going to because they know there's just so much there. And so the issue becomes imperative. Uh And what and their way
in is philanthropy. So they say, well, you know, you you want to achieve something in climate, climate change, or you want to make a difference in some way, get involved in the Family Investment Committee and have your place at the table, and then we'll see if we can do what you wanted to do. That's actually a way in as I imagine that, imagine that it works for all families, at all ages and all types of families.
It's that the figures are smaller. Perhaps all right, maybe believe it at that terrific great great answers and and and really good on all those issues. And thank you everybody for listening to the show. Okay emails the money Puzzle at the Australian dot com dot a U Okay, talk to you soon.