Savita Subramanian's Earnings-Season Reality Check

drop in corporate profits. But analysts who study individual companies haven't reduced their profit estimates enough yet to signal and earnings recession is on the way. So what exactly is up with this disconnect between the top down and the bottom up views of the market and what does it mean for your investments in We'll get into it with

one of Wall Street's best known strategists. But first of all, Donna, I gotta tell you, I'm freaking out about something, but you're freaking out about a lot of I'm freaking out about something. Yeah, what is it? What do you cook your cauliflower with? What type of stove do you have? Oh my god, this is a sore subject for me. Our gas is out in our building. I'm not cooking anything that's good, that's good. Why these gas stoves are killing us all? Do you realize that they're they're banning

them right, They're going to ban them all nowhere. I'm very alarmed that news came out the same day that they turned my gas off, well in my entire building. So I'm not I'm just not going to eat. Yeah, I'm just not going to eat for the next like three months. Probably. I think this is a scheme by door dash. I think they want you to go along door. What do you think we should check how much they're paying lobbyists to kill gas ovens? All right, Well, maybe

our guest has some thoughts on doordas. She might, she might not. Probably not, I'll spoil it, probably not. But who doesn't like delivery? Everybody likes celebrity, including our guests. Probably I want to bring in Sevita Subramanian. She's the head of US equity strategy at Bank of America. Savita, welcome to the show. Thanks for having me. B Donna, and I do love delivery. Who doesn't. I wish my guest stove was out so that I had a good excuse not to cook. It is a very good excuse

to get take out. I always thought my guest stove was gonna kill me because the kids always leave the pizza box on top of it, and I'm afraid the dog's gonna sniff the pizza and go and turn. These are some crazy it won't happen. It won't happen. Um

but sevida so so. Mike mentioned in the introduction, you're one of our best known strategies on Wall Street, and so I wanted maybe to just start out having you tell us about your year and price target for the SMP five hundred, and I believe that you guys also have different variables and scenes playing out for the year. Maybe you can talk about those as well. Yeah. Absolutely,

it's um so so our official year in target. You know, it's it's kind of a point in time forecast where we we think the market will close around four thousand the SMP five hundred, which is really limited upside from here. Um but we think there's a lot of moves within

the year. So let's talk about a range. I think our book case, like, if everything goes right, we think the market could go as high as forty hundred, which would be a pretty great year, and then our bear case and what we think is a reasonable floor for the market is three thousand, which would be quite a big drop from here. So, you know, I think our views are in two thousand twenty three, it might be a less than stellar year for the index, for the market index, but we think there are gonna be a

lot of great opportunities within the SMP five hundred. And you know, I think that's where we're really focused with with our views is what sectors, what themes, you know, what areas within the SMP five hundred can actually do pretty well this year, you know, amidst a backdrop of of relatively muted returns for the overall market. I want

to get into those themes and sectors sevida. But like I said in the introduction, I'm fascinated by this notion that pretty much everyone assumes all these earnings estimates from the analysts right now or wrong, you know, all the top down view of the market is that what are they thinking, Uh, these estimates have to be cut? What do you think explains that? I mean, our our analysts just sort of waiting for the companies themselves to lower guidance.

You know, is this four fourth quarter reporting season really gonna pull that out from all the conference calls. You know, how do you see this unfolding? I think you're right.

I think that analysts are in sort of weight and C mode, and maybe even companies are in weight and C mode, because you know, the real positive surprise over the last few years is that despite rampant inflation, cost pressure or wage pressure, you know, everything going up to you know, pretty high levels in terms of you know, kind of margin pressure, companies have managed to navigate this by either you know, pricing products more aggressively or by uh,

you know, cutting costs. And I think on top of that, we're seeing corporates very nimble in terms of cutting costs. A lot of the headlines recently have been around megacap tech companies, you know, uh, kind of reducing their compensation cost structure by by layoffs, you know, not necessarily great for the economy, but good for their bottom line. So so I think that analysts and you know, in corporates are are probably a little less convicted in terms of

margins and cost pressure and pricing power going forward. Our view is that we are likely to see some downward revisions, and you know, our forecast for profits growth for three is you know, two hundred bucks for the SMP five hundred, and that would mean about a ten percent decline in earnings peak to trough. Now, you know, I think that makes sense to us amidst UH forecasts for a recession. This is, you know, one of the most widely telegraphed recessions of of all time. I think we're all just

sitting here bracing ourselves for it. UM, a teen percent drop in earnings would actually be half of the typical recessionary corporate earnings drop. So so we think that we are going to see those estimates come down, and it's likely to happen after companies guide more aggressively lower around three earnings UM. But you know, I think where we're going to see pressures are in companies with more labor intensity, like services companies, companies where you're really seeing cost pressure

remain high. Those are the areas where we think that we're going to see some downward guides on on margins and savita. I want to ask you about what specifically you'll be looking for this earning season, and I think you guys have you guys have really great UM daily

and weekly research. I remember from past earning seasons that you have Maybe it's sort of like an AI driven model or something along those lines, where you sift through all the earnings reports and you look for keywords and some of the things that are mentioned the most number of times. So if we're behind, if we have peak inflation behind us, UM, what will you be looking for? What keywords, what trends and and and UM will you

be sort of cluing into as these earnings reports roll out? Yeah, thanks for that question, and thanks for reading our research. Always read it. We do a lot of kind of text analysis, and you know, some of the things that we've been able to unearth UM during different periods are you know, kind of inventory pressures, UM, demand destruction, UM inability to price. So this quarter what we are laser

focused on our couple of things. As I mentioned, we want to hear more from companies around whether the tightness in the labor market is alleviating, because that has been the theme for the last you know, almost eight quarters now, is just the inability of companies to source labor unless they dramatically increase prices, especially at the lower income end. UM. We're also listening for more news around layoffs in services sectors. So you know, so far we've really heard it only

from you know, megacab tech companies. We're waiting to see whether that spreads to a broader array of companies. UM, we're also listening for thoughts around you know, kind of this inventory mismatch. So we've seen some of the supply chain frictions alleviate, and now we're wondering how much inventory companies have to work off, and that could be another

drag on on pricing, power, demand, earnings pressure, etcetera. We're all you I think some of the other factors that we're paying attention to from a from an earnings for share perspective are buy backs. So you know, the last five years we've seen buy backs contribute about ten percentage points of SMP profits growth. That's a huge amount and

it's really unusual versus prior cycles. So if that buy back trend also decelerates, and there are good reasons to believe it does, I mean, the government is now taxing corporate buy backs. You know, companies might be more likely to hold cash rather than spend it on buy backs

if we are worried about a downturn. So that's another trend we're listening for um and our view is again for share earnings growth has been really juiced up over the last five plus years by just um you know, rampant buy back activity, and if that cools, that will be another source of potential risk to two earnings going forward. You know, Sevita, you've mentioned some of the layoffs among

the big tech company ease. I think a lot of people are bracing for perhaps a wave of layoffs in the financial sector, you know, which I'm assuming a lot of our listeners are employed in our layoffs. Automatically good news for the share price this year is as just to be blunt and say it out front. If if I see a headline such and such is cutting x percent, is that automatically good news for the stock price or

is it is there more nuanced? Do you think, well, you know, it's good news and that the company is being nimble and addressing this issue of you know, bloated compensation costs and maybe you know, rationalizing capacity. But I do think that the the signal it's giving us is that this company is in workout mode. So yes, they're being nimble, they're addressing these issues. But First of all, it means that they you know, sort of misallocated capital

um in in in a better period of time. And second of all, it means that from an economic perspective, especially, I think in this getting into this recession, what could be different this time is that a lot of the layoffs are really happening at the higher income end or the skilled labor end. And what that means is that, you know, typically in a recession, luxury goods are more

defensive than lower, lower price point products. But in this recession, maybe luxury isn't as defensive because a lot of the layoffs are really much more acute at that kind of skilled services and tech level. UM. So those are some of the things that we're watching from a company perspective. For the most part, we've found that investors have lauded the news around layoffs um you know, as a source

of alleviation of margin pressure. But I think that you know, whether or not that's enough to offset the Also, deteriorating demand is the big question, so top line becomes important. Yes, companies are being very nimble at managing costs, but they're doing this because they're seeing less demand and and less ability to um, you know, continue operations with their current labor setups, so that that votes ill for you know, demand in uh in terms of uh, you know, kind

of top line growth. When we look at tech companies, one of the things that worries us, and we're underweight information technology as well as communication services, and one of the things that worries us is that, you know, kind of similar to Y two K back in two thousand, we've seen this massive pull forward of demand for tech during COVID work from home, um, you know kind of you know, all of the telecommuting that we've done, and so what we're seeing now is potentially a hit to

CAPEX on software of companies that already sort of you know, really address their software spend over the last couple of years. So I think that's what we're worried about for tech companies is you know, maybe what they're doing is great in terms of managing costs, but how much of their demand is really cyclical rather than as sticky as what everybody was forecasting, you know, in the in prior years.

And we mentioned recession a couple of times down how this is one of the most well telegraphed recessions ever but you actually say that this is not your mom and dad's recession. So I'm wondering what you are expecting and how you might characterize. I will say that was good news when I read that, because my dad was born right at the beginning of the Great Depression. So for me, that's why you could crowd his life. You could put like ten pounds of spaghetti on his plate.

He'd eat every piece of spaghetti because he yea spaghetti is exactly right. I mean, I think that when we think about our parents, and you know, prior generations, recessions looked really different. And I think I mean, obviously the Depression was was one of the most acute recessions we've ever seen, I think, even two thousand and eight, when when you think about kind of the drama that took place within corporate America, within consumers, homeowners, it was really

broad spread. It was driven by this you know, massive credit cycle. And I think the good news is that today corporates and consumers actually look pretty well capitalized, at

least for the time being. And maybe that's just a function of really low interest rates, but I think what corporates learned in two thousand and eight was that leverage is evil, and they have now locked in relatively long dated fixed rate obligations on the on the debt side, Like to me, the most encouraging number is if you compared today's average maturity of debt on SMP balance sheets to that in two thousand eight, today debt terms out at about on average a eleven years back in a way,

it was more like seven years. So we've seen this this longer duration exposure to to fixed rate debt, which I think is good news because that means that higher interest rates won't hurt these companies overnight and they have time to navigate that that process. Consumers similarly are well. They got a big bullus of cash from the government in one so you know, balance sheets of consumers and corporates look pretty great. The government is holding the bag

when it comes to debt. So if you look at deficits, if you look at FED balance sheets, I think what's different today is that the FED has never had this type of an asset base. We've seen trillions of dollars of you know, kind of bond purchases occur over the last ten plus years, which have been great for risk assets, but not you know how does the FED navigate unwinding

all of that debt? I think that's the trillion dollar question because we've never seen this movie for and and that's what We're a little more worried about the public

sector than the private sector in this recession. I think what blows my mind the most is, you know, we are all expecting this recession, and then yet you right in your quant models the most attractive sector is financials, which you know would not be what you would expect ahead of you know, at least these big recessions that you know, two thousand and eight, that sort of thing.

So yeah, I guess to some degree that's just a testament to the effectiveness of the of the reforms of two thousand and eight, and how what a different economic environment it is with the high inflation everything. But walk us through what makes financial stick out in your quant models to be so attractive? Yeah, I mean it's a it's a great question because I think when you think about what to own in a recession, financials would probably

be the last sector you'd want to own. And it's because we all think of two thousand and eight, where that was the point of maximum pain. Today, I think the good news is that financials companies are not necessarily holding the credit risk. They haven't really been allowed to

lend to low quality consumers. They've been you know, kind of regulated by the government, um, forced to arguably over capitalize balance sheets or you know, today, if you look at a chart of leverage for financials, we're at you know, a sixth of where we were in terms of leverage risk relative to two thousand eight. And we've never seen this type of a monstrous drop in leverage going back to you know, the nineteen thirties. So I think where the lending risk resides is not necessarily in US large

cap banks or financial companies. It's really outside of the financial sector. You know, you've seen a lot of of lending through private equity, venture capital UM companies that have burgeoned in an environment of zero in trist rates, zero hurdle rates, you know, kind of free capital, and I think that's where we are more worried about this unwind of public sector debt. So yeah, So, like I said, it's not your mom and dad's recession and that the

credit cycle. You know, we are seeing credit conditions tighten, but it's not necessarily as threatening. Two banks given that they've been regulated to deal with these types of credit credit cycles. Um from lessons that we learned in O eight. Uh, you know, I think financials is also this sort of

closet high quality sector. And it feels weird for me to say this having lived through the financial crisis, But when you look at the earnings variability of financial companies relative to the market, you know, tech is a far

more cyclical sector today than financials is. Financial companies actually have lower earnings volatility than the SMP five hundred, which is kind of shocking, right, I mean, it's it's almost like financial has morphed into the regulated utilities sector because of you know, the fact that these companies have been so scrutinized and have been so disciplined about capital cushions. Said, I also want to ask you about this point that you make about how bonds over stocks is now the

consensus for at least the first half. But then you also add, um, given drops in equity sentiment and positioning, one of the biggest risks today might be that of being under invested in stocks. So how are you thinking about this? Because we heard we've also been hearing from people I think even gun Luck said it earlier this weekest part of his quarterly webcast, that people should be positioning six in bonds and stocks, And I'm wondering what

you think about that. Look. I mean, I think that bonds did horrifically last year, so one could argue that there is some you know, kind of upside risk to fixed income. From a yield perspective, bonds now offer much more competitive income than than you know, the dividend yield on the S and P five hundred, So a lot

of things have changed over the last twelve months. But I think what worries me is that when you think about bonds, the biggest demand for ten year treasuries over the last few decades has been from the FED buying bonds through quantitative easing and from China buying US treasuries. And both of those big sources of demand have left the building. So I think that that's something we need to think about. Is quantitative tightening is happening real time.

I mean, it started last year, and basically our our rates team thinks that quantitative tightening as projected will basically remove about you know, a trillion plus dollars of demand for treasuries. Over the next twelve months. That's a lot of money, and we don't know who is going to step in and fill that void. So our view is okay, Yeah, bonds are offering a higher yield than they were last year, so from an income perspective, they do look on the

margin more attractive than a lower dividend yielding equity. But if rates continue to rise, and if that demand for bonds is continuing to wane rather than wax, that's where I worry about the upside risk to interest rates and thus downside risk from a price perspective to bonds. I think. Also what's shocking to me is that over the last twelve months all of the equity bulls have become bond goals. And the most one of the most consensus themes that we hear is, you know, buy bonds in a recession

and then move into equities and the recovery. Our view is this, like I said before, this might be a very different recession where bonds don't necessarily hold up as well. And the reason is that, you know, the twin deficits, the fact that the public sector is holding the leverage. So our view is okay, sure, dividends are lower, but there are still a bunch of stocks in the SMP five hundreds that offer competitive yields with bonds and with

the fixed income markets. And the good news is that equities can grow their earnings if inflation remains sticky and high. So buy companies that have you know, reasonable dividend yields and also the ability to navigate an inflationary environment or rising interest rate environment and continue to grow those dividends and remain competitive with fixed income. So I still think that the argument for holding equities in a rising interest

rate environment remains intact. Companies have the ability to grow earnings, whereas fixed income is exactly that fixed income. You can't grow your earnings in an environment of rising interest rates. And with you know, equity income sort of being a much bigger potential source of return, I think than it than it has been in the last negade or so. To simplify it's to sort of the most simplest terms. Is it like by the aristocrats index type of thing,

do you think? Or that type of company? That type of company exactly, these boring kind of steady eddie companies. In fact, my favorite screen and I tell my parents about this. I tell my friends about this, But my favorite quantitative screen is like the easiest thing to do. So you take the Russell in thousands stocks like the one thousand largest companies in the US equity market. Take the largest one thousand stocks in the US equity market.

You look for the dividend yield. You rank all these companies by dividend yield, and then instead of buying the highest dividend quintile, you buy quintile two. It's that easy. So just by quintile two of the Russell in thousand by dividend yield, and what that does is it gives you kind of competitive yields with the market. So you're

buying companies higher dividend yields than the overall market. But you're also screening out companies that are becoming very high dividend yielders because their prices are falling and they're about to cut their dividends, because that is anathema, and especially during a recession, that's where a lot of these high dividend yielding companies end up in purgatory for cutting their dividends.

And then you also basically clip that coupon and you avoid companies that are growing too expensive when their dividend yield drops, you know, below a certain threshold. So that's where I think the real action is going to be from a from a total return perspective. And one of the things that we found is that quintile to by dividend yield has outperformed every other quintile of the market and has offered a much lower probability of losing money

than other areas within that dividend spectrum. So similar to the aristocrats, it's really the idea of don't stretch for yield, but look for safe and growing dividend. You I wanted to ask about your process and say I put you now, we know our favorite screens. In fact, I have a headline in my head already. That's right. But I'm curious, you know, since you and your team are so well followed, so respected and influential on Wall Street, I'd love to

know just kind of the basics of your process. Say I were to take you and put you on a desert island for a year and then bring you back and put you in front of a computer, what what would be the first sort of things you would you would look at? Yeah, I mean I think that well it's always changing. So that's the tricky part. You know. For the last ten years, one of the things that we've been forced to pay attention to is how much

the FED and stimulus have juiced up the market. So I think having a you know, a whole slew of macro charts showing inflation trends, valuation trends, you know, kind of UM leverage, you know, kind of the big picture story for what's been happening in the world. So if in twelve months we come back and we see that the FED has successfully unwound all of the quantitative easing that that we enjoyed, we'll feel a lot better about

the market because we were past that point of the unknown. UM. I think also, you know, what we try to do is look at you know, when when people talk about you know, what you want to do is buy the cheapest stops in the market. Well, some of the things we try to do is we test those theories and in many cases they hold true, but in many cases they are patently false. So I think, you know, a lot of our work, UM would be centered around Okay, this seems like it's a it's a thesis that makes sense,

but Let's test it. Let's see how those stocks that had you know, the lowest valuations, the highest free cashulalow yield, all these different things that investors care about, Let's see how they actually did in the real world. And one of the things that I find fascinating is that human behavior drives a lot of asset class rotation. And this is sort of similar to the bonds versus stocks argument.

So you know, when you start to see if you know, if I come back in a year and everybody hates bonds and loves stocks again, that's going to change my tune around, you know, whether you want to be in

stocks or bonds. So I think that also paying attention to sentiment, positioning, crowding themes that are just well vaunted and everybody is expecting something to happen, those are also really important to pay attention to because you know, while we learn in finance classes that it's all about earnings, growth and terminal rates and you know, all the numbers, in reality, there's a huge amount of psychology involved in what works in a in a market cycle. So I

think that's also really important to pay attention to. Basically just as much data as I could get my hands on, I think would be the answer to your desert island question. And memes, of course, don't you don't forgive me Twitter the memes, the meme stocks are back in action that Beth and Beyond, that's right, Yeah, I mean we don't care as much attention to that because I feel like the alpha there is so short term, so unpredictable, that it's almost easier to fade that and wait for it

to be behind you. There's some good memes about bed Bath and Beyond going around now because apparently they use foam to make their towels look so pristine in the stores, so now there's pictures of it all over the all over Twitter, at which I need to spink less time. Um. Okay, one one more very cool point from um one of your your notes, you said, the market is hoping for a FED pivot, but it really shouldn't. A FED easing

cycle amid tightening credit conditions. I e, recession has been the worst backdrop for stocks, and I feel like nobody.

You're like the first person I've heard say this. Yeah, I mean I think what what a FED pivot would suggest is that the FED is worried and you know, I think basically what we found is that when you're in that environment where the FED has been tightening, credit conditions have been tightening, and the FED feels as though they're tightening has actually worked, it's sort of too late and the damage is done within markets, and until credit

conditions actually ease, you don't want to be involved in equities. So our view is right now it's happening, is the

feed is tightening and credit conditions are tightening. What would be a better outcome is if credit conditions actually eased in the next twelve months, and we don't think that's going to up, and we think the FETE is going to continue to tighten to try to cool this white hot economy, super high inflation, and they will it like they have in every other cycle, will probably go too far, at which point you really don't want to be in equities.

You're you're really in that demand destruction recession mode, which is a period of time where equities generally do the most poorly. So I think that, you know, what what we're seeing right now is sort of the FETE is doing what they probably need to do. They're trying to cool inflation, they're trying to unwind a lot of the benefits that we enjoyed over the last ten years, and

them stopping prematurely wouldn't necessarily be a great sign. It would be a sign that, you know, we're really in in a demand slow down, and that would be negative for earnings, that would be negative for cyclicals, that would be negative for the economy, etcetera, etcetera. And that's you know, precisely when you don't want to own cyclical equities. Savida Supermannian. It's so great to catch up with you and hear your take on the markets. We can't let you go

just yet, though. We have a little tradition here on the podcast, Ldonna, what's it called craziest thing? I always get it wrong? Weirdest? How many times we have we done this, I always call it weirdest, right, and we can call it weirdest if you want. I always get it wrong. I'm sorry. I will literally never learn. I will go first. Mine is actually very good. Okay, it's super fun. Okay, I picked it with you in mind.

There's an India based company called Dream eleven. It runs a fantasy sports platform and now their employees have to pay a fine of one thousand, two hundred dollars if they contact a colleague while the colleague is on a day off. Isn't that crazy? I guess this company has like a policy where workers have to take at least a week off annually, and so if somebody emails you, they have to pay this huge fine. Why did you

think of me on that? Because you love to email me when I'm on, when I'm on, but it's usually about the Buffalo bills or something that yeah, or about the podcast. How about you, Savida? Have you seen anything crazy recently? Here's what I think is crazy. Feels like every investor is laser focused on what the FED is doing with the short end, with you know, FED funds rates, how much they're tightening on the short end. But the

truth is it doesn't actually matter that much. The long end is much more important, and nobody is talking about quantitative tightening. That to me is the craziest thing in the market is that we are all focused on the exact wrong part of the curve. That's pretty good, that's pretty good. What I mean, is there a potential for them to ease up on quantitative tightening before cutting rates? You think? And how would that be? Perceived. Well, I think that that's what everybody is hoping for, but I

don't necessarily know if that happens. If they really want to control inflation, they need to tighten on both ends. So I mean, I just feel like this is a market cycle where well, oh, here's the other crazy things. So if you think about the average portfolio manager, the average age of a portfolio manager in the United States is about forty I think it's like forty three years old. Make me feel old, the oldest person in the room, and fine, and forty three years old, So think about it.

This has been a cohort of individuals who have worked during a period where all you needed to do was by the stocks that went up. Momentum was the best stock selection factor for the last you know, couple of decades here. So that's what portfolio managers and professional investors have been sort of trained to do on this almost in this Pavlovian process. And you know, valuation hasn't mattered for a very long time up until us the last couple of years. So I think that's another very interesting

part of this environment. Yeah, definitely on the flip side, though, they also grew up with supercomputers, and you know, we didn't even know what quant and factor investing was back in the day, So you know there there maybe there's an edge there too, to the youth and the technocratic nature of it. True, you young whipper snapforts, all right,

that's pretty good. All right to my crazy thing. I had you in mind, and Voldonna, because I'm gonna put the two of you against each other in our game show. The prices prices precise, not the prices, right, Savita, Yes, completely different, so differently, completely different. But Savida, I know you look at a million different points of data. One thing I don't ever hear anyone talking about is actually the share prices of different companies. You'd never hear any

analysis for good reason. What's it really matter? Where does it? I don't know. So the question is what's the highest stock price in the sp I'm not talking about evaluation, I'm not talking about Hathway. It's not it's not Berkshire Hathway what they used to well remember they were excluded from the SMP for a long time before they did the split. To uh, it's not Berkshire hath not Perkshure Hathway. The highest price stock in the SMP five hundred just

share price, not priced the book. Just watch her down to make sure she doesn't pull up her I'm looking straight at the camera. I mean, I would have to say it's like one of the mega cab tech companies that have just never that haven't split. But I feel like all of them have split. Um, that's true. And remember it's a crazy thing because you're probably not gonna get it. It's exactly we never hear much about. Is it one of those like I'll give you You're right.

I don't think it's ever done to split it did a reverse one for thirty split way back in nineteen three. No splits. Since I bet it's one of those like research companies, what's the one they just like have like public profiles and do consulting for different public companies like shoot, I'll remember it all right, wild guests, just at the price,

you don't have to name the company. Undred eighteen hundred dollars Sevita, what do you think three thousand, three thousand Sevita is a little bit closer four thousand, eight hundred and twenty eight dollars from shared down from a peak by the way of fifty nine dollars in December. You'll never in a million years guess the company NVR Inc. The trades for almost five thousand dollars a share. I don't even know this company, so you think about that or a round lot of you know of NVR is

gonna cost you half a million dollars? Basically, isn't it silly not to split that Sevida Like, he's never a liquidity premium that you're missing out on and everything. I mean absolutely, that is why how many shares are outstanding? I don't know. I think it's like a fifteen billion dollar ish market cap, so interesting. I never would have guessed it. I never and that's why I think it's the craziest thing I saw this week. That is wild.

I need But now I'm so bothered by not having not being able to remember the other company I was thinking of because I didn't really even guess one r NVR. Okay, that's wild. Is the craziest thing I saw this week. Wild thing I saw. But I'm glad you didn't guess it. Actually I was. I was thinking Sevida is going to get this, But I'm glad you don't know. No, I'm like, I'm more. I don't. I don't. I'm not a stock jock. I'm more of like a macro. So yeah, I was

lummoxed by that one. That is a good question. That's good. I find it still a company would let their stock price trade that high, but real maybe they're proud of it. Yeah exactly, I mean we're talking about it, so right. Anyway, Savita, is so great to catch up with you. Really fascinating conversation. I hope we can have you back something likewise. Thank you again, Yeah, thank you for joining us What Goes Up.

We'll be back next week and so then you can find us on the Bloomberg Terminal website and app or wherever you get your podcasts. We'd love it if you took the time to rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts so more listeners can find us. And you can find us on Twitter, follow me at Rea Anonymous, Bill Donna Hich is at Bildonna Hich. You can also follow Bloomberg Podcasts at Podcasts. What Goes Up is produced by Stacy Wong. That for listening, to see you next time. Thank thank thank