Views of a Top Growth Manager

to day. Rising worries of a second COVID wave triggered a nasty stock sell off yet again, but with the rally still largely intact, what's an investor to do? We're joined by a fund manager who has been in of

his peers over the last five years. He'll explain his process for picking stocks and how he's looking at long term secular trends that are being catalyzed by the pandemic, and as always, will close out the show with our tradition the craziest thing I saw in markets this week, and by all means, if you see something crazy in markets, give us a call on the Bloomberg Podcast Hotline at six four six three to four three four nine. Oh,

and maybe we'll play your voicemail on the show. Or if you just have some suggestions for us or a guest you'd like to see on the show, or I don't know, some criticisms of Sarah, maybe some praise of me, whatever it may be. What do you think, Sarah. I've got to say, Mike, it seems like people have more time on their hands. There have been plenty of crazy things in the market to talk about. Yet our listeners,

maybe I shouldn't be calling them out. After weeks in which you were really giving it to us, now you've just pulled back. You're leaving us hanging. Yeah, get on the hotline, give us a call. We get lonely here and on on our podcast, our socially isolated podcast. But Sarah, as you pointed out, a very interesting guy on the show this week, Um comes from a firm that I'm I'm really fascinated with. Uh. They're called Poland Capital Management Management.

They're based in Florida, down near you, Sarah. So maybe you can go and stop by and say hi when uh, when the world's back growth's back to normal. Uh. But his name is Dan Dividowitz and he manages the Poland Growth Fund. Uh. He's also the firm's chief investment officer. And so I've been I'm looking at the performance of this fund over the last year, two years, three years.

I mean, it's really pretty impressive. It's beaten, you know, not just the SMP, but if you look at the sort of Russell growth indexes and the SMP growth indexes, it's beaten all of them on basically last year, last two years, three years, uh, four years, five years. So um, it's it's good to have, uh a a successful manager like this on the show. So, without further ado, his name is Dan uh Divitowitz. Wait I already said that, but regardless, welcome to the show. Dan, Thank you, Mike,

thank you Sarah. It's a pleasure to be with you today. Dad. You know, I know a little bit about the firm. I know you tend to run funds that are are sort of concentrated portfolios. And correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, but you know, usually about stocks in a fund, um you tend to buy and hold. You know, there's not a lot of of turnover in the fund um. You know, both of those elements I

find fascinating. So we'll get into it into that a little bit, but kind of walk us through basically, you're you're sort of approach for picking a stock, you know, just the simple you know, where do you start as a growth manager when it comes to trying to find stocks to buy? Sure? Sure, Mike, And yeah, almost all of that was accurate that you said about us. The only inaccurate part of I'm not the ce IO of the firm. We don't have that title. I'm cohead of

our large company team. But that's okay. I like I like a title inflation too, So thank you for promoting me, all right, I appreciate that. Yeah. The simple thing is, you're absolutely right. We we invest in what we we think of as high quality, concentrated growth. And so my team is the large company team. We have three different strategies of my team. The one that I run you right, is our our flagship, the Polling Growth Fund. It's also called our Focus Growth Strategy. Uh. And that's a thirty

one plus year old product. And I've been a Polling capital for fifteen years. I'm only I'm only I've only had my hand in about half the track record of this product. But we run two other portfolios that are essentially very very similar, different geographic exposures, but high quality concentrated growth. And then we also have two other investment teams at Poland Capital, one that does small cap investing small companies and one that does emerging markets and and

again high quality concentrated growth. So that's what polland Capital is about. We think it's really really important first and foremost to protect our client's capital, and that's really what we're we talk about. It's the what the way we live. It's a bit unique for a growth manager to think that way, to think about preserving capital first and then

growing capital second. And so it's important for us to only invest in what we think are the most competitively advantaged and financially superior companies and nothing less than that. And so concentration, a lot of people used to think meant higher risk because you're investing in fewer companies. That's against the concept of diversification. But what we found, and actually academic studies have you even found, is that you really don't need that many companies in a portfolio to

achieve adequate diversification. We think you get that. You know, maybe at fifteen stocks in your portfolio. We typically, like you said, around twenty five companies in our portfolio, but we hold them to these extremely high standards. You know, everybody says they invest in quality, right, nobody says they don't, but we actually put metrics on that. You're talking about concentration and how you can actually run a very well diversified,

wall performing portfolio that is so concentrated. I find really interesting, especially in the current moment, when we are constantly hearing people look at indexes passive indexes and pointing at how concentrated they are, and they usually say that that is a negative aspect of the indexes. But obviously, your growth manager,

your job is to find high quality growth companies. But I do want to ask you, is it at all surprising to you that growth has had such a long and such a great run over other styles in the market. I mean, I look at your Polling Growth fund hitting a record high this past week, alongside the SMP Growth Index and some very popular growth companies as well. Is it's surprising to you that they have held up so well through the ball market, but also in the downturn

as well. It's it's a question, Sarah. We get asked like every day, is you know when this growth? When is the growth run over after? Yeah? More than a decade of growth outperforming value by the way, you know, I consider myself a growth investor. A Poland Capital, we are growth investors. Most of my investment team, including myself, came from the value school of investing. So I I worked in New Jersey before coming to Poland Capital fifteen

years ago at what was considered a deep value shop. UM. Many of my colleagues come from the Columbia Value School of investing or have worked uh in what they would be considered value shops over the years. And so we were very, very steeped. And our founder David Poland who passed away UM eight years ago, also Graham and Dodd Disciple, Warren Buffett disciple, So we come from that camp. We

believe in the margin of safety, right. But I think it's important to kind of take apart the growth versus value argument because we think it's kind of a false construct.

Growth and value are not um two different things, right, And when you look at indexes, especially when you know some of the ones you mentioned like the SMP Growth Index, where the Russell one thousand growth Index, Russell one thousand value index, whatever the way those indexes are constructed, are using oftentimes valuation metrics, right, So, especially the Russell indices, what gets in the in the value side is usually low price to book, low price to long term earnings

growth and what gets thrown into the growth that's the value side. On the growth side, it's the high ones, right, high price to book high. So that to us, growth is not defined by high pe That doesn't make sense. For us, growth is defined by growth and earnings per share growth and free cash flow over time. And so we take a little bit of issue with the construct of indexes that are compiled using valuation only as what

puts them in that in that bucket. So that being said, what this growth outperformance what's been driven by It's not really been driven by as historically has been by multiple expansion. Right when you think back to the tech bubble especially, and that's usually where people think about where growth outperformed value for a long time and then finally underperformed because

valuation has got to extreme levels. That's not what we're seeing, right, And for most of the great growth companies that we study anyway, we're seeing their returns being driven by earnings per share growth, free cash flow growth that's been well supported the evaluations than well supported by the fundamentals. I also think you have to, you know, look at what is going on in the world today. So uh, a

huge amount of disruption in many, many industries. Right. A lot of those industries, let's say, retail, energy, financial services, tend to find more waiting in value indexes than they are in growth. The disrupt doors, you know, which are the large tech companies today. Internet enabled businesses tend to be more in those growth indexes. And so you're seeing real disruption and the disruptors being in different camps. And we don't see a lot of that going back in

the genie bottle, so to speak. We don't see the disruption stopping. So the key takeaway there is you may claim Dan as a Florida man, but as you heard, he's really a Jersey guy. I'm claiming him for Jersey, Rutgers, Rutgers for the win. Mike. You're going to take any example. You can take that and run with it. But the truth is the two of us are currently both in Florida. So where as of right now we're both Florida, Florida mount or Florida woman. But you both have had alligators

in your yards. From what I understand too, it's not uncommon. Yes, it's it's as Florida. Can you say to pick up on that notion of valuation and growth? And I'm looking at the growth funds holdings at least as I guess it says the end of the first quarter, uh, and top holding Microsoft. Boy, what spectacular run that stock has had and like you said, one of those quality stocks. Uh. You know, you don't have to worry about many hiccups

with a company like that. But looking at just sort of the know, a pe on a trailing basis, I mean, it's getting up close to thirty four thirty five times earning. How do you sort of you know, look at that as a growth manager. Do you look more like a pet ratio type of thing, or you know, is there evaluation? I mean I think that might be Microsoft's highest trailing p at least since like the the scary days of the turn of the century, around the bubble days, I mean,

not anywhere near the same situation it was then. But when do the valuations really start to raise your eyebrows? Yeah, I mean you have to think about evaluation when you're investing in any company, but certainly in growth companies. You have to. You have to have a reasonable basis for evaluation. You can't just ignore it, at least not in our opinion. You can't ignore it for our From our perspective, I should mention that valuation is often the last thing we

talk about. So it's important for us to start with and prove out that a business is so great that we want to own it, right, that it's so superior and so competitively advantage and so much growth available to us, we want to own it. Then we decide is there an attractive enough price. And the way we think about valuation is in it is about the expected return over the next five years. So we think about everything in five and ten year increments. We don't think about anything

in quarters or even the next year or two. So, you know, with great companies that have massive competitive advantages and secular growth trends behind them, it's often not that difficult to project what earnings are going to look like, or what free cash fill is gonna look like five

years from now. Within a reasonable range. It's not like the average company where the potential outcomes are so wide, you know, for a company like Microsoft, it's actually fairly narrow um set of of of circumstances that are gonna happen over the next five years. And so we know what the earnings and cash will look like today, we have a conservative estimate of what it's gonna look like

five years from now. We know what the pe is today, and then we make a conservative estimate five years from now, so we never assume multiple expansion. We assumedly to be the same or lower because certainly within the next five year as most businesses will likely be growing slower than they are today. And so we use a conservative vestment again on both earnings and multiple five years from now. And if we can see a path to double digit

annualized returns from here to there, we're very comfortable. And with Microsoft, we certainly see that today. By the way, we've owned Microsoft um this time around for the last

three or four years. We've owned Microsoft in our portfolio now three times in thirty one years, and it's been holding about half the time, so almost fifteen sixteen years UM we've held it the last time we sold it, back in two thousand ten, Microsoft was a much smaller company, even though it's very very large, growing at about two paranum.

This was before they made a pivot to the cloud, right before they moved to a subscription revenue model across all of their franchises, before Azure, which is obviously tremendously large now, and so it was about a two percent grower ten years ago. Fast forward today, it's a larger business growing in the load to mid teens organically, which is incredibly difficult for a company this size. Why Well, because the subscription revenue model gives them a lot more

pricing power. It allows them to fight piracy, which they haven't been able to do for a long time. But now when you can only get the most recent version of Windows or Office by subscription from Microsoft's own data centers, you've got to pay for it, you can't hirate it.

And Azure being a platform, uh that is, you know, the second choice now behind Amazon Web Services, but certainly a very very powerful engine in its own right, with massive, massive opportunity for growth, and so it's a it's a much better company today and it's a much faster growing company today with much more sustainability. Even though it already was basically a monopoly before this, it's now a fast

growing monopoly. And so that valuation, like you said, on a trailing basis, you know, it is maybe a little bit high when you look at it historically, but given what we know about Microsoft today and where it's going, it's very very reasonable. Looking at the waiting in the fund, you know, it's creeping up to ten eleven percent at least at the end of the first quarter. Is there

do you set a limit on on waiting? You know, as you mentioned in the beginning, that running a concentrated portfolio does have that risk that if a stock's really cruising, you know, it's it's going to start really dominating the portfolio. Do you have any sort of cap on on what you would give a single stock as a waiting Yeah, Microsoft is about as high as we typically let companies go. It's around that ten eleven percent, and you know, is

about it as far as we're willing to go. We will sometimes let them appreciate a little bit past that level if we don't see any really compelling reason to take it down. If we still think you have this combination, which we think in Microsoft's case, you have where it's a unique combination of moat, you know, competitive advantage that is growth and valuation on your side. Then we're usually willing to allow it to drift a little bit higher than that, but not much. You know, we typically don't

go much higher than where Microsoft is right now? Do you ever worry about regulatory issues or do you find yourself discussing it? I mean, I can't tell you how many times it's been brought up to me over the past US here, especially leading up to the election. Everyone's saying, look, antitrust regulation is a bipartisan issue, blah blah blah. But considering the fact that Microsoft is a large holding Facebook also Google parent Alphabet, is that something that you guys

do take into consideration at the moment. Yeah, absolutely, Sara. I mean you have to. You have to think about policy regulatory risk in in any business, and it's kind of part of our investment philosophy and process because the vast majority of the companies that we own have a monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly like structure to them. They became, they create

oftentimes they created industries and then dominated industry. So you mentioned for sure, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, throw throw MasterCard and Visa in on that conversation. If you if you even more narrowly defined sub industries, you could say Adobe certainly dominates the market for creative software. UM. We see this all the time, and so what we're really interested in is is there anything that can disrupt the business model or the earnings compounding that we expect from these companies.

And so there's often a lot of saber rattling that goes on, but it's rare that we find that that governments will really destroy a competitive advantage or um the earnings power of a company. So even if you're talking about the potential breakup let's say of um, Facebook or or Google, which we think would be really stretching for a government, right because you have to prove, at least in the United States, you have to prove that consumers

are harmed. And I don't know exactly how you prove that when these services are free to consumers, but let's just assume they do. We don't even think we think that some of the parts could be at least equal to, if not greater than, the whole that you see today. And so you know, nothing really worries us at the moment, But for sure, we're always looking at regulatory risks. You know, it's kind of interesting because today a lot of people want to talk about E S G and E S

g risks. You know, do we see anything How do we think about E S G risks? Well, we think about in the same way we think about all risks. We want anything that gets in the way of the compounding of any of our companies is something we want to be concerned with. It reminds me of that there's a Trump tweet a week or two ago about the Microsoft government contracts that must have That must have turned

a few hairs on your head, Gray when you saw that. Then, well, you know, it's funny because uh, I guess the narrative before was that Trump was really so against Jeff Bezos and Amazon Web Services that he was kind of handing

this over to Microsoft. I mean, it's it's a nice story. Um, at the end of the day, both of those companies have extremely capable services, and UM, if you're doing any business with the federal government where you're supplying your data centers to secure government information, highest level scrutiny has to go into that and and honestly, both Amazon and Microsoft and I throw Google in the mix on this to have platforms to host, to be the platform for cloud

services for the highest levels of government and and that is not easy to achieve. And one of the reasons why we love those businesses is it's it's hard for anybody else to come compete in this business. You know, at that level. Facebook, for instance, certainly could have a cloud platform if they want to do, they have the infrastructure and to be able to do it. They have no interest in being in this market because they don't see a reason to be the fourth best cloud platform

in the Western world. You know, you mentioned Amazon. I don't see it in the top ten. Do you do you hold it in the fun somewhere? We don't. We haven't owned Amazon in ten years. Um. And this is ah, this is kind of an interesting thing. So you know, in our concentrated portfolio, we don't feel compelled to own anything. Um. So you know, obviously we're gonna look very different than a benchmark. If we only own about twenty companies today we own one, we're not gonna look anything like a benchmark.

And we don't have to get our returns the same way the benchmark gets its returns either. So if you look at our portfolio today, we don't own Amazon, we don't own Apple, we don't own Netflix in the portfolio. We've owned Amazon in the past. We've owned Apple in the past, UM never owned Netflix. The reason um that we we did own Amazon for a while and then have not in a long while, it's because I mentioned we we stick really closely to our guard rails, those

five guard rails that I mentioned before. Amazon. Uh, it's an amazing business and probably the most competitively advantaged business. We don't own in the United States for sure. Uh is because they're building of Amazon Web Services and their own logistics infrastructure, and all of the things that they've been building internally over the years have brought the metrics that we care about, the return metrics, the free cash

flow metrics below our thresholds right now. Those thresholds are there to keep us out of trouble, because most companies, when you see a deterioration in those metrics, it's usually trouble coming right. Amazon is the exception to that rule. Amazon has been investing from a position of strength, It's

been making itself better. It was hard for us to know exactly what some of those investments were as they were going because they weren't a hundred percent open about that, especially as they were building a w US in your early years. And it's also hard to know what the returns on those investments are going to be over time as well. In a company like Amazon. Remember Amazon's core business, it's it's an original core business, which is online retail.

There is an extremely low margin business. So when you're evaluating these type of investments in an already low margin business, it's very very difficult to know what the sustainable margins are, what the real valuation is at any moment in time, very very difficult. Today, the vast majority of profits actually come from aws, not from UM the retail business, and so it's a different business, still a great business today.

It actually does meet our guardrails Amazon does today. The reason we don't own it today is because the valuation is not at a place where we feel like we can get the kind of return that we hope for, so we don't own it. Maybe one day we will again. We love the business for sure. It's the only company that we cover that we actually have two analysts that cover not one not just because the company itself is so great, but because it competes with or potentially competes with,

almost every company it wants to compete with. So we have to be well versed on Amazon, but we don't own it today. And and the same thing for Netflix is also because of the guardrails. It does not meet our guardrails today. We do study it, we do know it quite well and apples a little bit of different story. We did own it for a long time, but we feel like kind of the best days of growth for Apple or behind it. That's why we don't own it anymore.

M just considering the time that we're living in right now with the coronavirus, many of us quarantining. Looking at your portfolio or even stocks that might be on your watch list, or have you found any company or any industry that this has really completely changed the growth prospects for going into the future, or even something you don't own that now you might see value in considering what

this might encourage out into the future. Yeah, yeah, I mean potentially, yes, I mean it's in the middle of it. You want to be a little bit careful about how much you extrapolate um because it's hard to know exactly how how much human behavior is permanently versus temporarily changed, but we do think there are some obvious beneficiaries and and a lot of them are kind of the trends

that were already in motion. Right. So, if you think about some of the biggest secular trends that we see out there, and the ones that you see as you look down our portfolio holdings are things like the move from offline commerce, you know, to e commerce, and from offline advertising to online advertising, from cash and check to

digital forms of payment. Those are those are obviously well in motion for a long time, but because of coronavirus and because of people sheltering in place and kind of being forced to do things a little bit differently, those have accelerated. Those trends have accelerated, and we don't see those um turning back. If anything, they're just catalyzing, um

faster adoption of some of these technologies. Some of the other things are a little bit harder to say, like, you know, will office space not be as attractive, you know, as people now become more comfortable with remote work. Um, I'm not a hundred percent sure that's going to happen. You know, there there may be a need for a little less office space or not because maybe you need to built in a distance or so maybe even if you're gonna have fewer people in your workplace, you may

need more space for those people. So some of those things are not yet I'm not really sure about, you know, other things like UM the long term move away from linear media consumption to non linear media consumption again very very catalyzed by this. UM we own a company in our portfolio today called service Now. UM. Service now as a software platform that essentially allows people to automate workflows. It's already been a strong growth company, but we see

tremendous adoption. We expect tremendous adoption for automated workflow because as people have to distance more, you need to build in more automation, and so UM we're seeing that pretty clearly. We're seeing things like Microsoft Teams and Zoom being adopted in a in a very serious way. We don't think

all of that, we don't think the adoption necessarily goes backwards. UM. There are a couple of other companies that we're looking at today where UM there is like a collaborative software nature to them that we think it will be unlikely people turned back from as they go back to work from normal. But you know, again you want to be a little bit careful. Yeah, Dad, I'm just curious what it's like to be a fund manager during all this.

I mean, are you getting more sort of in calls from investors in the fund or any any panicked voices on the other line. I mean, I'm guessing it must be a somewhat stressful time with all this going on,

you know, not so much. I mean in the in the early you know, I would say in the March period, in mid March, when we were really starting to see cases start to come and and getting ready for quarantining UM, there was a lot more concerned about what would happen to some of our companies in the portfolio of people calling. But you know, you gotta remember too that we're we're mostly invested in these very financially heavy, you know, cash

rich companies with big competitive avantages. So we're probably not the number one problem for people, you know, when they're looking at the types of companies that they own. We tend to have, you know, a lot of the strongest one so there wasn't a lot of panic or anything

like that. There's a lot of questions, you know, there are a lot of questions about what UM stock performance would look like, and which companies were more vulnerable than others, which ones would have UM significant UM cash flow impact, and which ones would not. And we didn't really touch on this at all. But at Poland Capital we don't make market predictions or economic predictions. UM. We try to stay fully invested in the best companies that we think

can power through any crisis. And and you know, like we've been doing this at Polland Capital for thirty one years, we've seen a few criss along the way. This one is very very different, obviously, but it allows us to know that we don't have to predict these things. We just have to build a portfolio that's that's resilient and companies that can UM survive and thrive and continue to invest through periods like this and so UM that's exactly

what we have. The companies. You know, we have a few companies that have been really really impacted negatively, UM, Nike, Starbucks, Aligned technologies where businesses, you know, these are business where you actually physically have to go somewhere to buy something or to order clearer liners. Right, they've been severely impacted, but they're continuing to invest in this period of time because they have the balance sheets to be able to

do it. They're gonna come out stronger on the other side. And so you know, I think that helps to be able to articulate that to our clients, and I think, you know, having that very proactive outreach on our part has helped a lot. Well, it's a certainly a unique time and I'm sure we could talk about this, uh forever all day long. I wish that we could. But Mike,

I think it's time for the crazy things. It's that time, I believe, so all right, stand clearer of the craziest things we saw in markets this week, Well thanks to Charlie Pellet. That's Bloomberg Radio's famous Charlie Pellett with a little help for the show. Here we're ratcheting up the gimmicks. Sarah, I love it. I love it. We have And if you've been to New York you might recognize that voice.

And that's because yes, that is the man of the subway, that's right, and one of the nicest guys in the world. I will I will also point out, and I can't believe he don't know if anyone would disagree, was playing along with our gimmick. But that's that shows you how nice of a guy he is. So Sarah, you kick it off. What's the craziest thing you saw in markets this week? All right, I'll go I had to, but I'll go with the fun one. I don't know if either of you saw. I just thought it was really

interesting and a little bit kind of gimmicky. I guess you could say to UM, I guess the company shouldn't come at me after saying that. But Goldman Sacks has a new font, UH made headlines this week. It's called Goldman Sands UM and the idea they say is to create a clear, contemporary and credible font. And this was

huge on their website. So I feel like Goldman Sacks when you think of that font, the old font, it's really memorable, and I almost I think it's going to be difficult to recognize the name for a bit, UH with a new font that sounds like comic sands. I had not seen that. It's a historic day on the show. Because that's my craziest thing too. I can't believe it. And you know what, one of the first I thought it was crazy, but then they kind of sold me

on it, you know. They you know, they designed this font so that the S doesn't look like the five. They said, the letters need to be approachable without being whimsical. And okay, but I wonder there's a lot of thought, a lot of thought that goes I know. I check it out on their website. They explain all the decisions they made on creating this font. It's it's really kind of fascinating. I'd hate to be the Morgan Stanley Zion

team right now. You know, they're burning the midnight oil having to come up with their own their own fund now. But all right, Dad, did they I'm sure they They warned you about our gimmick. Have you seen anything crazy in markets this week? You know, Mike, I I have been struggling with this because, first of all, I don't I don't. I yes, I was worried about it, and and I don't spend a whole lot of time believe it or not, looking at markets, So I have a

hard time coming up with crazy things. I'm gonna tell you what surprises me, and and maybe Sarah can relate to this, is that Floridians are actually surprised, uh, that there's an increase in cases in Florida, And that to me is crazy because if you're down here and you're looking around, there's no surprises about that what people are doing and what they're not doing and the effect that

it has. I mean, because I feel like, you know, this isn't really markets right, but it is because anything that we talk about these days starts and ends with COVID, unfortunately, and so your people's opinions seemed to be influenced by that, and the concern about what's going to happen with the economy going forward certainly seems to be. But I am in my conversations with my my friends down here and my colleagues, and less of of my colleagues. They're relatively

intelligent people that have good thoughts on these things. But but uh, down here in South Florida, people are genuinely surprised that there's a massive uptick in cases, and not, to me is absolutely crazy. So Dan I can fully attest to that. I mean, I remember going to pick up food just a couple of weeks ago. Um I would stay in the car and family. Would we run out with our masks. I'll just grab the food, get

back in the car. But the amount of people I would see on the street not wearing masks, walking around, people very close to one another. I actually had a neighbor because I had a family member who came in from another state and they were quarantining for a bit to make sure they were okay before coming to the house. A neighbor said, oh, you're doing that this. I didn't think this was happening anymore. This isn't a thing um

and and people are now shocked. All right. Well, Dan david Witz, thanks so much for joining the show today. It was a pleasure to have you. Thank you, Sarah, Thank you Mica. It's a pleasure. What goes up. We'll be back next week. Until then, you can find us on the Bloomberg Terminal, website and app or wherever you'll get your podcasts. We love it if you took the time to rate interview the show on Apple Podcast so

more listeners can find us. And you can find us on Twitter, follow me at at Sarah pant Sack, Mike is at Reaganonymous, and you can also follow Bloomberg Podcast at podcast. We also want to say a very big thank you to Charlie Pellett of Bloomberg Radio and also the voice of the New York Subway. What Goes Up is produced by Jordan Gospore. The head of Bloomberg Podcast is Francesscalvie. Thanks for listening, See you next time.