On why valuation matters, building trust and a valuable skiing ‘lesson’
In our regular video series, we interview the wealth sector’s key decision-makers to discover how they think about life, both within the world of investment and beyond it; what brought them into the business and what keeps them here; and what makes them and their companies tick
Asset valuations and the geopolitical backdrop may be pressing concerns at present but, for James Sullivan, head of partnerships at Tyndall Investment Management, a constant cause for optimism is the robustness and adaptability of listed companies.
“They do deliver and they do churn out earnings time and time again, regardless of what the macro and the headlines are saying,” he tells Wealthwise editorial director Julian Marr in our latest Choice Words episode, above.
“As we know, there is very little correlation between global affairs and the performance of the market. There is at times, of course – but, generally speaking, markets tend to go up more than they go down. And therefore it is really just about managing one’s own emotions – and the emotions of our investors to make sure they don’t do anything silly at the wrong time.”
You can lose money by buying the best house on your street at the wrong price; and you can make money by buying the worst house on your street at the right price – and the same applies to markets.”
Turning to what he most looks for in individual investments, Sullivan begins: “My team primarily invest in collectives while, as a group, we do invest in direct equities. And what I would say is consistent – whether we are looking at equities or collectives, whether they be index or active – is an approach of ‘valuation matters’.
“The terrible analogy I always make for clients is you can lose money by buying the best house on your street at the wrong price; and you can make money by buying the worst house on your street at the right price – and the same applies to markets.”
A “big red flag” for Sullivan, meanwhile, is flows. “If a fund is haemorrhaging assets and the manager is on the back foot, very rarely – if ever – are they able to deliver performance,” he explains. “That is because they are constantly fighting fires – and they are not getting flows in to capitalise on all the opportunities they are very happy to talk about.”
Transparency and cost-sensitivity
Asked how financial services businesses can set about building – or indeed rebuilding – trust, Sullivan says: “The slightly glib answer is, Don’t lose it in the first place. Still, as an industry, we are probably not on the front foot right now – I get that. So transparency is a big deal and being cost-sensitive is a big deal. Delivering a proposition to a client that delivers on objectives – but with as little cost friction as possible – is a very good starting point.
“Transparency is integral to rebuilding trust – what are we doing and why are we doing it and when are we going to do it? It may sound simple but clients do apply a lot of weight and credibility to having those honest and open conversations when things are going well – and when things aren’t going so well too.”
That dovetails neatly with Sullivan’s take on a later question – on the qualities he believes drive a successful wealth management business. “Like a lot of things, it is easy to identify what ‘bad’ looks like,” he replies. “What a good business looks like is a bit more subjective and less easy to define. What I would say – and this applies to all businesses, I suspect – is they need to be pragmatic and they need to be adaptable.
‘Listen to the market’
“What I mean by that is they really need to listen to the market. I have seen businesses before say, No, no, we have got the best product – everyone’s crazy for not buying it and people should pay up for it. It doesn’t work like that, though – you need to listen to the market. You need to move the product around to satisfy the market.
“If a firm employs professionals to run money for clients or IFAs or institutions, the firm itself needs to give them a framework around which they can operate and it should have two things. There needs to be a degree of autonomy – within the compliance boundaries and the objectives of the mandate, of course – and there needs to be accountability.
“That means I can look after my clients how they would expect to be looked after – and how I think they want to be looked after – but that comes with still delivering on the objective and making sure I perform accordingly. So autonomy and accountability for the key stakeholders of a business is crucial – and also helps retain and attract new talent. Very few people who are of value and are credible are going to be happy being told what to do by somebody with a whiteboard saying, You must buy this or you must buy that – that is just not going to work.”
A full transcript of this episode can be found after this box while you can view the whole video by clicking on the picture above. To jump to a specific question, just click on the relevant timecode:
00.00: What excites you about the current investment outlook? What worries you?
03.17: What do you most look for in an individual investment? What constitute ‘red flags’?
06.06: What drives your approach to client communications? Should professional investors aim to attract the ‘right’ type of client?
08.50: How can financial services firms – and indeed the whole sector – set about (re)building trust?
10.06: What was your path into investment – and, if you hadn’t taken it, what do you think you would be doing now?
14.20: What was the biggest investment mistake you are prepared to admit to – and what did you learn from it?
17.29: Outside of work, what is the strangest thing you have ever seen or done?
20.00: What qualities drive a successful wealth management business?
21.54: Who or what has been the most important influence on your career?
24.33: Two Choice Words recommendations, please – one a book; one a free choice?
Transcript of Choice Words Episode 24:
James Sullivan, with Julian Marr
JM: Well, hello and welcome to another in our series of ‘Choice Words’ videos, where we get to meet the great and the good of UK fund selection and UK fund research. I am Julian Marr, editorial director of Wealthwise Media, and today I am delighted to be talking to James Sullivan, head of partnerships at Tyndall Investment Management. Hello, James. How are you?
JS: Good morning, Julian.
JM: Let’s jump straight into the investment outlook … do you know, I never say ‘Good morning’ back! I really should. It would be the polite thing to do is – although I am just so excited I made it through the intro in one take! Anyway, let’s kick on with the investment outlook – what excites you about the current situation? What gives you pause for thought?
JS: OK, so maybe a slightly strange way of answering that question is, Everything excites me – the good and the bad. That is what stimulates me to get out bed in the morning and do my job. I think, personally, I have the best job in the world. It is so stimulating – it’s a privilege to be in this industry. But breaking it down to, really, the meaning of the question, what concerns me most is probably the current valuation of the equity market.
If we go back six or nine months, there were a number of regions that were materially cheap on a historic basis – and I’m talking primarily Japan, the UK, Europe, some of the developed non-US markets. Now, they are much closer to fair value because they have rerated significantly over the last nine months and earnings haven’t quite kept up with the pace of the market move.
Paired with, of course, the fact the US is – it is subjective, to a degree, but it looks very, very expensive. Of course, it is home to the best companies in the world, the fastest-growing companies, the most dynamic companies – so, deservedly so, there is a premium on the US market. But the divergence between the valuation on the US and the rest of the world is slightly concerning.
So valuations as a whole concern me. I suppose we then pair that with the geopolitical backdrop, which is less than stable – to be diplomatic. What is going on with Russia? What is going on in Israel? It does give me great cause for concern – and a spillover of that into markets and sentiment, potentially, is not too far away. Then we have inflation that isn’t really going away, and rates aren’t coming down as quickly as maybe we would have forecast – and hoped – to create slightly easier monetary conditions for the economy.
So that is most of my causes for concern – and the element that gives me most optimism is something I think we sometimes overlook as an investment community, time and time again, which is actually the robustness and the adaptability of the companies that are listed. They do deliver, they do churn out earnings time and time again, regardless of what the macro and the headlines are saying.
There is very little correlation between, as we know, global affairs and the performance of the market. There is at times, of course – but, generally speaking, markets tend to go up more than they go down. And therefore it is really just about managing one’s own emotions – and the emotions of our investors to make sure they don’t do anything silly at the wrong time.
Valuation matters
JM: Good start. I won’t lie – when you said it was going to be a strange answer, part of me was hoping you would start singing or bring out glove puppets or something! Still, a great answer – and, since you mentioned the individual businesses, let’s zoom in from the macro to the micro. What do you look for in specific individual investments? And what do you see as red flags?
JS: My team primarily – not solely, but primarily – invest in collectives. We do, as a group, invest in direct equities – just not my team. But what I would say is consistent – whether we are looking at equities or we are looking at collectives, whether they be index or active, is an approach of ‘valuation matters’. You know, we are not value investors – absolutely not – but we do think that valuation does matter.
And the terrible analogy I always make for clients is you can lose money by buying the best house on your street at the wrong price; and you can make money by buying the worst house on your street at the right price – and the same applies to markets.
We accept and we acknowledge the UK is not home to the most dynamic, progressive businesses in the world – but that doesn’t mean we can’t make money, and that is why we do adopt a ‘valuation matters’ approach. Then, when it comes to buying collectives, what really matters to me is the simplicity of the objective and the ability to consistently deliver on that objective.
A big red flag for me, meanwhile, is flows. If a fund is haemorrhaging assets and the manager is on the back foot, very, very rarely – if ever – are they able to deliver performance because they are constantly fighting fires; and they are not getting flows in to capitalise on the opportunities they are very happy to talk about. That, to me, is the biggest individual red flag that causes us most concern.
JM: I am going to throw in a random question here because the flows idea is interesting – specifically, the degree to which a lot of wealth managers might be part of the problem because they have big chunks of money to put in and take out. Trying to put this politely, some are more short-term than others – more ‘tactical’ or ‘strategic’ or whatever. What is your approach to dealing with asset managers there?
JS: Yes. I think, with that in mind, we are relatively patient. We don’t adopt a ‘buy and hold forever’ approach but, when we set up our asset allocation, we know broadly how we are going to populate that. It will be a blend of index funds and a blend of active funds.
And, as I say, as long as those active funds are delivering what they told me at the outset they were going to deliver, that is OK. For example, if we go out of our way to buy a value fund and the backdrop is more growth-oriented, clearly we will give it a little bit of time to come good. So we try and measure a fund against the backdrop that is more suited to its objective. So I think we are relatively patient.
Personal interaction
JM: Thank you. Good answer to a curveball question. Let’s now move on to client communications – obviously you have your excellent ‘house in your street’ analogy! Is that your general approach to client communications? Additionally, something I try and get to the bottom of here is, What do you think of the idea of trying to retain the right type of client, or the right type of investor – that is, someone who stays with you for the whole journey, so they get to benefit from your full expertise, rather than panicking, jumping out early or moving on somewhere too quickly?
JS: With the first part of the question, in terms of our approach to communication – look, everyone is going to come in here and tell you the same thing in terms of, We pride ourselves on our ability to communicate with clients. We genuinely do – that is, for us, the differentiator.
The proposition itself, dare I say, is quite samey – everyone’s offering an MPS, everyone’s offering a fund of funds, everyone’s offering a DFM proposition. What differentiates one party from another is still the personal interaction. We typically go to every single office of every IFA client that supports us, once a quarter, and we deliver an investment committee – with the IFA and their team in the room, so we make them feel part of it.
We make sure everything we do comes with full transparency and accountability – and I think there is a lot of value to be attributed to that. We communicate in written form – of course – but we also communicate via an avatar, when we need to get something out very quickly, and we host client webinars. So we do all we can to make sure the client feels engaged and informed as much as they want to feel engaged and informed.
In terms of attracting the ‘right’ type of client – again, what I think is quite unique to my team is that, as much as our clients find us, we also choose them because we deliver a bespoke service to IFAs. Therefore, essentially, we can choose who we want to work with – and those relationships are built largely on trust.
We will commit to you everything we have. We will come to your office once a quarter. We will build you a bespoke suite of models. And in return – assuming we deliver on our objectives and what we tell you we are going to do – we sort of expect you to deliver your AUM, over time, into the proposition, into the partnership.
So how important is it to attract the right client? For business to be sustainable, I think it is very, very important. You spoke about flows into funds not always being as sticky as they could be and it is important for us – as a business that is relatively small but growing – that we have clients who are with us for the journey, as long as we don’t underperform or, as I say, misbehave in any way.
Transparency and cost-sensitivity
JM: Sounds good. And not unconnectedly then, how can financial services firms in general, and indeed the whole financial sector, set about … I was going to say ‘building’ trust but maybe I should be more naughty and say ‘rebuilding trust’.
JS: That is a bit naughty!
JM: Sorry. And obviously none of this is Tyndall-specific!
JS: Absolutely not! OK – the slightly glib first part of the answer is, Don’t lose it in the first place. But, as an industry, we are probably not on the front foot right now – I get that. I think transparency is a big deal. I think being cost-sensitive is a big deal. Delivering a proposition to a client that delivers on objectives – but done so with as little cost friction as possible – is a very good starting point.
Transparency, which I have mentioned two or three times already, is I think integral to rebuilding trust – what are we doing and why are we doing it and when are we going to do it? It may sound simple but clients do, as I say, apply a lot of weight and credibility to having those honest and open conversations when things are going well – and when things aren’t going so well too. I think that is a key ingredient to building and rebuilding trust with the clients – and more broadly as an industry.
Out of practice
JM: Good stuff. A more personal question now – what was your route into investment and, in an alternative universe, what do you think you would be doing if you had not taken that route?
JS: I started in 1999 – so just before the bursting of the dotcom bubble – so it was a very exciting time to start. I joined a law firm – a firm of solicitors – because they had an investment team within the law practice. They were a team of two, I made it three and then soon we became four – so we had a very small team within the law firm – and it was very easy. At the time I was doing admin and I was doing my financial qualifications.
But we were given money, essentially, from the rest of the law firm – the partners – who may have just overseen a divorce settlement or the sale of a business. So we were handed a client and we then managed their money – we never really had to go out and look for clients.
A year or two into that, the investment team essentially outsourced itself – with the help of a couple of guys, who came along and provided some capital to sort of give us a new beginning – and we grew from that. But my first foray into this industry was through the law firm and I cut my teeth learning my financial planning certificates, which back in the day most IFAs would have done.
I obviously went on to be an investment manager rather than a financial planner but those certificates gave me a great understanding of how my client thinks about life. So they weren’t wasted at all – they were a great building block and a foundation for my career.
What would I have been doing if I hadn’t got into financial services? I always had a fascination with advertising and marketing. I was slightly obsessed with Saatchi & Saatchi as a kid – and, unsurprisingly, my favourite TV series of all time was …?
JM: Mad Men?
JS: Mad Men, exactly. And I remember when it ended, I felt genuinely flat! And I thought, How am I going to fill this void? I was fascinated with Mad Men – so that, I think, would have been my career, had I not gone into investments.
JM: Very interesting. We may pick up on Mad Men another time but, on the law side, were you a trainee solicitor or ever on the legal side?
JS: No.
JM: Because I do keep an eye on that. I am no loss to the law – I was one of the most mediocre trainee solicitors of all time – but one thing that has always fascinated me is this relationship between law and finance. As a journalist, I once went to either a ‘Sifa’ or an ‘Asim’ conference – probably around the time you were starting your career, actually – and there was a brilliant discussion with this guy who said, Look, all you lawyers, what are you doing? You know, people come to you – there are settlements for work disputes, unfair dismissals, there is personal injury, there is divorce, there is inheritance …
And he said, Why are you letting all this money come into your firm and then go out again – these pots of hundreds of thousands of pounds? None of your clients should be leaving here with more than £35,000 or whatever! And the rest you should be helping them invest. And lawyers do not seem to be interested – I guess it is not why they joined the law. But where is that disconnect do you think – or have I just not noticed it in the last 10 years? Because there was a lot about professional connections – 15 years ago, maybe? – but it seems to have dropped off …
JS: Yes – that is a really fair observation. I remember Asim well – that was around when I was cutting my teeth – and I suppose that was the philosophy of the firm I worked for: let’s not let this money walk out the door. And then, over the last 10 or 15, years, there has been this sort of move towards outsourcing – law firms outsourced their investment operations, as happened with me in 2000 or 2001.
And then it became more about JVs and strategic partnerships between accountancy firms and lawyers and investment firms and tax advisers. Where is that right now? I don’t know – but that seemed to be the direction of travel, rather than having it all in-house. I think it does mitigate against the risk of something going wrong in-house, while you can still take some revenue streams, obviously, from the JVs.
JM: Maybe the JVs are working – maybe I just don’t see them anymore – but I did love a bit of ‘professional connections’ back in the day. Just easy copy, perhaps!
Early lesson
JM: Right, moving on – what was the biggest investment mistake you are prepared to admit to and what did you learn from it?
JS: My biggest investment mistake was probably my first investment. It was a PA investment – so my own money – and it was when I started at the law firm in 1999. I got very excited about what was going on with the TMT stocks and I remember watching Marconi, which was the old telecoms company spun out of GEC. From memory, it had fallen from a ridiculous valuation and had come all the way down and was trading around £1.
And I thought, Oh my god, this is the best trade ever! I am going to make a fortune with my £300 investment or whatever! So I bought that and then watched it go all the way down – to essentially nothing, by the time it got diluted away and there was a stock swap and whatnot. And – relative to what I was earning at the time, which was, I think, £8,000 a year – for me, it was not an insignificant amount of money I lost on that stock.
And looking back, it was the best time to have made a mistake – that is, very early on. And it made me realise the benefits of all the things we now take for granted: diversification, single-stock risk, only invest what you can afford to lose – you know, the very basic principles of our industry. So it was painful at the time but I think, over the last 25 or 26 years, it has been the best thing I could have done.
JM: The reason I am pausing is that is so similar to my first experience of investing – although yours is more honourable. Mine was a few months after you and I won’t say which fund it was – although I have written about it quite recently – because I will admit here to the reason I bought into it. I had been out at the Money Marketing Awards the night before – very, very late – and sometime the next morning, I interviewed this very lovely fund manager, who was telling me all about the joys of technology stocks.
Now, I fell asleep during that interview – it is the only time I have ever done so, I promise! – but the thing is, he didn’t notice! And I thought, my God, if you are that into technology, I should be investing with you. This is not how I should be investing – that is something I now know very well, of course. Anyway, I think I had just done a freelance project so I put £1,000 pounds in – and, in the space of about a month, it went from £1,000 down to £400 and anyway … but it is a way of learning, isn’t it? That is for sure.
JS: It is probably the most influential way of learning, I think.
JM: Yes. It certainly hurt. It still hurts! The thing is, I am so cussed, I hung onto it and I hung onto it and it somehow got absorbed by all the other global tech funds. At one point it was Aberdeen, at one point it was New Star, at one point it was Henderson and so, as I have said many times before, I invested in all the right tech funds, but not necessarily in the right order! Anyway, eventually it became Henderson Global, and actually passed £1,000 – maybe not in 1999 money, but at least I got past that. And, this is why we use professionals to invest, of course.
Skiing lesson
JM: Outside of work, what is the strangest thing you have ever seen or done?
JS: Gosh! What is the strangest thing I have ever seen or done? I am acutely aware my compliance officer is probably going to be watching this at some point so I am going to focus, if I may, on an emotion rather than a tangible event – which I hope doesn’t take it too far away from the actual question.
JM: I think we all have to find a way to answer that particular question as best we can!
JS: I only started skiing recently. I’m not a skier, I suppose – can I call myself a skier if I’ve been once? I don’t know …
JM: Can I call myself an investor when I bought a fund!
JS: So I went with some friends to Switzerland and they took me up on a gondola near the Matterhorn – and I thought, Gosh, this is quite a way up for someone who should be on the greens and blues! And we ended up coming down a red because they told me I’d be OK – and I wasn’t OK. I had the most awful morning of my life – I was bruised, I was battered, I was massively deflated and I felt like giving up.
We went for lunch and they were like, Right – we are going to go back out this afternoon. And I was like, No, no, I’m done – I’m done. I was so grumpy, I was even considering getting my BA app up and flying home. You know, I was so close to being done. The next morning, though, I hired an instructor, he came up the mountain with me and it was amazing. I had a morning with him and then skied on my own in the afternoon and repeated that the next day – and they were then the two best days of my life, paired with the worst day of my life.
And looking back, what I found really strange but very, very empowering was that juxtaposition of emotion from the most despair I have ever felt to the highest high – probably literally as well as metaphorically!
And I think, rather tediously, there is a moral to that story, which is, Don’t get on that plane when things are not going so well – because it will turn and I think that does actually apply to markets as well. And that wasn’t overly scripted – I didn’t mean to make that comparison – but I think there is a moral: When we make emotional decisions, typically they are executed at the wrong time and to our detriment. JM: Good answer – and your next client letter written as well now, of course! So that is all good.
Autonomy and accountability
JM: Let’s broaden things out again – what qualities do you believe drive a successful wealth management business?
JS: That, again, is a very good question. I think, like a lot of things, it is easy to identify what a bad business looks like. What a good business looks like is a little bit more subjective and less easy to define. What I would say – and this applies to all businesses, I suspect, not just wealth businesses – is they need to be pragmatic and they need to be adaptable.
And what I mean by that is they really need to listen to the market. You know, I have seen businesses before say, No, no, no, we have got the best product – everyone’s crazy for not buying it and people should pay up for it. It doesn’t work like that, though – you need to listen to the market. You need to move the product around to satisfy the market. So I think adaptability is one of the biggest ingredients.
I think, if a firm – like Tyndall and like lots of others in our industry – employs professional individuals to run money for clients or IFAs or institutions, the firm itself needs to give them a framework around which they can operate and it should have two things. There needs to be a degree of autonomy within the compliance boundaries and the objectives of the mandate, of course; and, secondly, there needs to be accountability.
So that means I can look after my clients how they would expect to be looked after – and how I think they want to be looked after – but that comes with still delivering on the objective and making sure I perform accordingly. But I think autonomy and accountability given to the key stakeholders of a business is crucial.
And that also helps retain and attract new talent because very few people who are of value and are credible are going to be happy being told what to do by somebody with a whiteboard saying, You must buy this or you must buy that. That is just not going to work.
Great influences
JM: Good answer. Home straight now, with two more personal questions. First one, who or what’s been the most important influence on your career – apart from your ski instructor?
JS: Jacques – yes! Can I name three people very quickly? The first one would be Michael Phillips – I don’t know if you remember Mike but he was my first chief exec. So when I spoke about going into the law firm and then, a couple of years later, we spun ourselves out, that was because Mike turned up at the tender age of 38 or 39 and bought us out of the law firm – and we created a standalone business that went on to grow aggressively.
We acquired Exeter Fund Managers – you may remember – and we went on to acquire Miton and then Midas and various other bits and pieces. That aggressive growth strategy allowed me to grow alongside it and with it. So I went from a kid learning my trade – well, maybe I still am a kid learning my trade – but I grew and I was given the opportunity to grow. And that, to me, was wonderful. So Mike was a really good mentor in those early days and a massive influence on the trajectory of my own career.
The second – I alluded to when we bought the Miton business and it was run by a chap you remember fondly as well, Martin Gray. I was 27 or 28 when we bought Martin’s business. Martin was probably in his early 50s and he was running the firm’s flagship funds – Miton Strategic and Miton Special Situations – and, for some reason, he asked me to be his co-manager.
I had no understanding as to why he asked me, but he did. I had no real idea what I was doing so of course I said, Yes, I’d love to! But Martin taught me how to think differently, how to interpret news differently to others and he was a remarkable individual and he was the most wonderful friend and mentor. He died in 2016, as you know – and it was a great loss to the industry. He was a relatively unique character and he is still sorely missed today.
And the third element is my son, Noah, because I have this rule I try and abide by. I am not perfect at abiding by it but everything I do in my life, whether it be work or non-work related matters, I think to myself, Would Noah be proud of me if I did this? Am I doing the right thing? Would I want my nine-year-old boy to see me doing this? And most of the time I say, Yes, it would be fine. So I think that helps create some form of check and balance. As I say, I’m not perfect but it does help me think about whether I am doing the right thing – whether my boy would be proud of me.
Full potential
JM: Very nice. Last question, we call this ‘Choice Words’ because of what you do for a living but we are going to end with two personal choices or tips, please. One would be a book – it does not have to be investment-related but it can be. The other one can be, well, it is a ‘free hit’ really.
JS: OK, so I will go with a book for the first one – well, you said it had to be a book! So it’s a book I read four or five years ago now, I think, and it was written by a chap called David Goggins, who is a former Navy SEAL. The book is called Can’t Hurt Me and it is about personal resilience and not letting factors impact how I am going to behave – and hurt me, essentially.
And it helps train the mind as to how we can also break down barriers – there’s a concept running through the book that helps us understand that most people will only achieve 40% of their capability and how can we push through that and actually achieve 100% of our capability? And I just think there’s a lot in that.
I see a lot of people in life who are just underachieving – they have the capability to deliver much more, but there is something holding them back – and that book gave me a little bit of inspiration as to how I personally can better myself, without sounding too sort of precious. It is a really, really good book.
The second thing I would mention is a podcast, which – I don’t know – everyone probably mentions as their second choice. It is called Short History Of … and it’s done by the Noiser network franchise, delivered by John Hopkins, who is an actor himself. And the reason I really enjoy that podcast is because there is a sensory element to it. It’s almost like watching a film with your eyes closed – the way it’s delivered and the sound effects – and it’s not just two old duffers in a room talking over a microphone!
You know, recently I listened to one on George Orwell, which was fascinating. I think the week before, there was something on the Doomsday Book. The week before, it might have been the Vietnam War while the East India Company was fascinating from an investment perspective.
And what it gives me is a degree of escapism. That hour when I listen to that podcast is probably one of the only hours in the entire week where I kind of shut down and I don’t think about markets or my son or whatever it may be. And it’s a form of meditation, in that sense – escapism and meditation and getting lost in the narrative of something I find fascinating.
JM: Great ‘Choice Words’ choices – I am finally learning to say that properly now! Excellent, James. Thank you very much for those – and thank you very much for talking to us as well.
JS: My pleasure, Julian. Thank you.
JM: And thank you very much for watching. Please do look out for further episodes as they are published.
