Government Equity Stakes: Crossing a Line?

The U.S. government's unprecedented move to take a 10% ownership stake in Intel raises serious questions about the appropriate boundaries between government and private enterprise in American capitalism.

• Government equity ownership in Intel marks a significant shift in U.S. industrial policy
• Argument for equity stakes: if taxpayers provide subsidies, they should share in potential upside
• Critical questions about who manages these positions and how decisions will be made
• No clear infrastructure exists for handling government equity positions
• Concerns about political influence affecting corporate governance decisions
• Government's ability to pick "winners and losers" in the market is questionable
• Intel's struggles against competitors like AMD and NVIDIA make it an unusual choice
• Potential need for a sovereign wealth fund structure to properly manage government investments
• Investors should carefully consider implications of government ownership when evaluating stocks
• Fundamental question: is government ownership a sign of strength or weakness?

Please share your thoughts with us and let us know what other topics you'd like us to cover on future episodes. We appreciate your support through likes, shares, and feedback as we help you on your journey to financial wellness.

Straight Talk for All - Nonsense for None

Please check out our other podcasts:

https://skepticsguidetoinvesting.buzzsprout.com

Disclaimer - These podcasts are not intended as investment advice. Individuals please consult your own investment, tax and legal advisors. They provide these insights for educational purposes only.

Chapters

• 0:50 Government's Stake in Intel
• 5:47 Questioning Intel's Bailout Logic
• 10:06 Who Manages Government Equity?
• 16:26 Sovereign Wealth Fund Possibilities
• 23:39 Investment Implications for Shareholders
• 31:24 Strategic Goals vs. Profit Generation
• 35:55 Final Thoughts on Government Overreach

Transcript

Steve Davenport: 0:26

Hello everyone and welcome Today here with Clem Miller. We want to talk about more of the issues around in the market today, and I don't know how Clem felt, but I was shocked to see that we were going to start having the government invest in Intel by owning shares, Those shares were going to be held by the US government. It feels like to me it's overstepped and overreach to the extreme, but Clem is a big supporter of these ideas of getting more equitized and having more equity risk, so he probably has a good reason why we should be doing this now. What's your rationale for having the Trump administration buy shares or get shares in Intel?

Clem Miller: 1:19

Okay. So in my mind there's only one reason for this. Okay, and then there's a lot of bad reasons, but there's one good reason, and the one good reason is that, in the past there have been subsidies, either direct ones or indirect ones to companies, usually in the form of either grants or long term loans or long-term loans. And if you've got a situation where the government is providing subsidies, why not have the government take an equity stake? Having the government take an equity stake, or at least a warrant, the right to have an equity stake seems to be a good thing to have, as I mean, in other words, the government would actually, in a sense, buying something and the company the company in the future can always, if it has the cashflow, can always make a corporate decision to buy that shareholding back, uh, but but you know why not?

Clem Miller: 2:40

You know, when the government's providing a subsidy, why not have the government actually own, uh, that company as something that it's buying, right? I mean buying shares in a company as a condition for receiving shares, as a condition for providing a subsidy that it would otherwise already apply? So in the Intel case, you know, there's this 10% shareholding, but that was the subsidy had already been approved under the CHIPS Act, under the Biden administration. So rather than providing grants or loans, it's providing a. You know it's buying an equity stake, so I see nothing wrong with that.

Steve Davenport: 3:33

Now, Okay, Clem, I got to stop you because your assumption is here that you're giving the money to them anyway. So every time the government offers you some type of support, how many shares are going to go with the next time there's a government support offer, and how many people are not going to take it, just like Ford didn't take it in the GM case? When GM was bailed out, Ford said no, and you know, ultimately, is the government picking winners and losers here? I mean is that what we want? Do we think they have the ability that portfolio managers don't in selecting who the better companies are, because isn't that how the world capitalist system works? Or is it a government going to be the new one who decides?

Clem Miller: 4:26

Well, you know, there's really two levels of question here, Steve. One is should the government have bailed out Intel in the first place? And then what does the government receive? I don't think necessarily that the government should have bailed out Intel in the first place, Because Intel hasn't been the greatest of companies over the years, it hasn't really. It's sort of lagged and it's.

Steve Davenport: 4:55

But they've given them credibility by showing them this, you know, and it's great right.

Clem Miller: 5:02

Well, I mean, is it credibility in Intel to provide a government subsidy like this? I don't know. Probably not. I think having to what?

Steve Davenport: 5:18

would a risk-adjusted return been requested by the private markets if the government wasn't going to give this?

Clem Miller: 5:28

Well, first of all, I don't know, I have not seen any evidence. Maybe some exists, but I haven't seen any evidence that the government's decision to bring Intel into the CHIPS Act. I don't see any evidence that that's actually boosted intel's share price for shareholders. Maybe it exists, but I certainly haven't. I certainly haven't seen that right and I have.

Steve Davenport: 5:58

there's a lack of decline similar to a rise caused by it. I mean, it was a, it was a company that was, that was in kind of dire straits, wasn't it?

Clem Miller: 6:10

Yeah, I mean, at best you could call it a laggard, right? I mean in an industry where you see a lot of winners, right? I?

Steve Davenport: 6:22

mean they decided to not go into the nanos, right, and they focused more on the PC slash server market, not the you know what I'll call cutting edge AI market. Yeah, yeah, and so the PC market and that market became commoditized, with their competitor, amd, taking most of the market share right.

Clem Miller: 6:45

I believe that's the case, but I mean the. The point is, I mean even amd is much more advanced than Intel.

Steve Davenport: 6:54

So they've done a better job in the same space. My point is that they're not in the nvidia right, I mean I don't know that it makes sense to.

Clem Miller: 7:02

I don't think that the initial decision to provide bailout support for Intel was the right decision, correct. And so that was the initial decision. Now, once you've made the decision to do that, what should the government receive in return? I think an equity holding is is not a bad, it's not a bad idea to have that, because then you know, because then you know you're you're getting something for your money, and not just you know, not just repayment over time, right, correct?

Steve Davenport: 7:44

There's two areas that I'd like to talk about. Correct. There's two areas that I'd like to talk about. One is OK if these are a part of the world and they help make the markets more efficient for the US to be a part of any upside. If this is helpful, great. Does it belong in a sovereign wealth fund and not in the general treasury? Treasury, I mean where? Who is going to be sitting over this position, saying maybe now is when we sell 5, 10, 15, 20 of it? Who's who's monitoring and who's managing it? Club?

Clem Miller: 8:20

I don't think that's, uh actually really clear. Who's going to be doing that, at least, uh, on a longer basis? I mean, you know, one would presume treasury, but we don't have, we don't have a sovereign wealth fund yet, right?

Steve Davenport: 8:53

no, but I guess that's. My question is it seems like we jumped into own equities without really having the structure around it to manage the equity. My am I being too?

Clem Miller: 9:03

you know, critical um, are you being? Yes, I know I'm skeptical. No, I think you're. I think it's appropriate to be as skeptical as you are. Uh, because we don't really have guidelines or rules around when we might sell it right uh, just think in general, owning the stock, the stock, what do we? Do with the dividends. Yeah, how do we know. How do we know even what the appropriate maximum shareholding is. You know, is 10% appropriate?

Steve Davenport: 9:42

I don't know. I think the next question I'm going to ask you is you know it goes. The next step, which is what about voting corporate actions, is is is Trump going to vote on the corporate action and give it to Caesar, you know, at the gladiators and say can we? Give it the thumbs down? Or is he going to look on Instagram and see how many likes Intel gets and then make it a buy more Good?

Clem Miller: 10:10

question. And even on top of that, what happens if you get a new? What if the political pendulum swings again and you get back to an administration that favors green and renewable energy and net zero and all of that? You know what. What's going to happen then? Is the government going to apply environmental, renewable energy, green principles to deciding how they're going to vote the equity shares? You can bet that that would happen.

Steve Davenport: 10:50

I agree. I'm not even getting into what happens in the next administration. I'd just like to know during this one, you know what I mean. We've got three more years. Tell me what. What is the? You know what is the process? I mean I I assume that somebody in the white house before they said we're gonna going to buy or we're going to get this many shares, Somebody said, OK, who's opening up the brokerage account and where does it go? And who, you know? Do we take the? You know we can get electronic delivery of those shares if somebody has a brokerage account, but whose name do we put on it? Do we put Scott DeSent's name on it? He's a good trader and we leave it up to Scott.

Clem Miller: 11:38

I recently saw a note. I don't know if this is true or not, but apparently DeSent's hedge fund lost 90% over the course of a few years. Lost 90% over the course of a few years. You know, maybe that was fiction, but I did see it, and so that struck me as being very odd.

Steve Davenport: 12:05

I don't know how one can lose 90% over several years. I mean, I'm asking these questions in a completely sarcastic and, right, I don't know, I don't think this was well thought out. Right, I don't think this is a complete solution. I don't think this is even a solution that you know we want to. I understand that the government owns some crypto because criminal operations seized it and therefore they held it, but my impression was, anytime the government did that, once there's a resolution of the ownership and the criminality, it gets sold. I don't know, just like everything else, right, these are car. You sell the car. You don't hold the car because you think it's a good model and it's going to appreciate.

Clem Miller: 12:52

Now, during the great financial crisis, there were equity positions that were taken, but those were very quickly sold off.

Steve Davenport: 13:05

Right. I mean, it feels to me like this is something we have a sort of a you know, an understanding of, but most of those assets that are seized are all depreciating assets and this is an appreciating asset. So is that the difference? I mean, stocks are appreciating assets for a while, but they, you know, you might have to live with a five year correction before the new foundry gets built, and then they start to generate revenues from the new business, right, right, and the thing is is that government operates under its own set of accounting rules.

Clem Miller: 13:44

It doesn't operate according to GARP rules Okay, or GAP rules, I should say. It doesn't operate according to GAP. It operates according to itsARP rules Okay, or GAP rules, I should say. It doesn't operate according to GAP. It operates according to its own rules.

Steve Davenport: 13:56

So when it loses money, does it need to report that?

Clem Miller: 14:00

It doesn't have audited financial statements.

Steve Davenport: 14:03

Okay, so it's just like the property and the buildings. It doesn't really matter what their value is, because they're not for sale. They're a part of the government, Right?

Clem Miller: 14:13

I mean they can sell them and they do sell them, but it doesn't really matter, right? I think the government takes. You don't invest in the government, right? So there's no need for them to have GAAP financial statements.

Steve Davenport: 14:27

Correct, but they do have some type of a process for closing down one office building renovating another building.

Clem Miller: 14:36

Yeah, the gsa, uh general services administration, does that kind of right is this?

Steve Davenport: 14:41

what is that where we should put these intel really? You said scott percent lost 90, so we can can't let Scott have the keys to Intel shares.

Clem Miller: 14:56

This, steve, the thing you said that I a thousand percent, 10,000 percent agree with is that this is not really well thought out In a financial crisis. That's one thing, because you know very well that it's the Treasury normal businesses maybe that are, you know, undergoing some difficulty or where there's a policy preference, like chips or solar or whatnot. Solar, you know, in past years you know who runs that, right, is it? You know it's not clear who actually should run that. You know Treasury doesn't sound. I mean Treasury may be where the assets are housed, but you know, maybe this is Commerce Department, right, I mean, it's well, that's what.

Steve Davenport: 16:02

I think that somebody looked at it and said hey, this is, you know, this is ultimately going to be good for us. Hey, this is ultimately going to be good for us. Us taking on this ownership is a good thing because it allows us access to influence over a part of the market that we're supporting through our funding of these founders. I assume that somebody is looking at this saying it's a good idea, and you said it's like you're getting something extra for free. That's fine, but once it becomes an asset of the government, my question is we don't have experience managing equity assets. Therefore, we need to think about the infrastructure and maybe create a sovereign wealth fund. We need to think about the infrastructure and maybe create a sovereign wealth fund, and maybe, you know, maybe this all comes together in the end of, you know, in the fourth year of the term, when we get a sovereign wealth fund.

Steve Davenport: 16:59

But my question is what goes on Like? When do we start owning the shares, who owns them, where are they kept and how are they managed? This, I don't think that's a, you know, 10% of what is 10% of Intel. Now, what are they about? $40 billion.

Clem Miller: 17:18

I don't have it right in front of me, so let's say it's $4 billion.

Steve Davenport: 17:22

It's only $4 billion in assets. We can just say that's like the forest land in California and we can just ignore it, right. Or we could say why don't we really try to make sure that the setup and this is in place to benefit others and to benefit the companies and figure it out? I just think we're ripping along in these different pathways with stablecoin and Bitcoin and private equity and 401ks and there's just not what I would call a thorough and clear analysis that explains the what, the why and the who of willing to impact. Is that too much to ask one, you think?

Clem Miller: 18:15

I think you know, for government to be effective, it needs to be able to know what it's doing right. And I don't know, I don't know that. I don't know that it actually knows what it's doing. When it comes to owning shares of companies, yeah, I can see, you know, in the heat of a of a financial emergency, I can see bailing out banks, insurance companies on a temporary basis, basis treasury or Fed holding those shares and then selling them pretty quickly coming out of it. I can see that, but on an ongoing basis, to have a sovereign wealth fund. You know this isn't what you know sovereign wealth funds. You know this is not a sovereign wealth. I mean what we're envisioning here. You might call it a sovereign wealth fund, but it's not a sovereign wealth fund, I agree.

Steve Davenport: 19:19

It's a repository toward which I take this asset.

Clem Miller: 19:22

I'm not saying that we're— A sovereign wealth fund is supposed to invest the windfall proceeds of, you know, basically, natural resources is usually the case. You know Norway, you know Texas, alaska, saudi Arabia, kuwait, uae, qatar. All those are places that have sovereign wealth funds that were funded by oil and natural gas revenues, excess ones, and where the sovereign wealth funds are, you know, at least supposedly for the benefit of the people, for the future residents of those countries, after oil and gas runs out. That's the general situation of a sovereign wealth fund. So, while they may call it, while some may call what the US would do a sovereign wealth fund, it's really, like you said, it's a repository of assets, of a Hodgepodge. Hodgepodge of assets that the US government might acquire, or positions that the US government might acquire.

Steve Davenport: 20:36

So let's go back to what is our purpose here to help investors and think about this. So, if we look at this situation, intel as a holding might not be in your portfolio, might not be in my portfolio, be in your portfolio, might not be in my portfolio does the government owning 10 make that asset change from a hold, a buy or a sell? Um, because of the involvement with the government and the government now being a 10 shareholder, is it? Is it better? Is it worse? Is it the exact same?

Clem Miller: 21:11

I think it's. It doesn't make me I mean I don't hold it, I don't hold intel now and it didn't. You know, the purchase of, or the the acquisition of those shares uh doesn't make me want to buy it anymore. Uh, that doesn't want to make me buy it when I don't hold it already, right, so that's the. I mean I didn't even want to look into it because of that, right, I mean that tells me.

Steve Davenport: 21:41

I think that you and I realized there was some overarching kind of you don't get something for free and now they're paying with equity. And how much they pay with equity ultimately could be judged as excessive, or maybe it's a deal, but I don't know how much that would cost Intel on their own to get the loan for that foundry. Given their balance sheet, I think it would have been a higher risk loan. So therefore I would say it would have been in the you know four or five percent higher. Therefore, if we say it's four or five percent higher on four billion dollars or whatever the loan is, you know it can come, you can come up with a valuation. But I guess what I'm saying is how do we look at it in terms and perspective of as an investor? And I would say that it's somewhat of a positive because it creates a government interest in not seeing that equity go to zero.

Clem Miller: 22:45

Let me raise a scenario.

Steve Davenport: 22:49

We have two good scenarios.

Clem Miller: 22:51

We're skeptical but we're not cynical Non-zero probability scenario, but maybe close to zero. So the government owns 10% of a company. Let's say the government owns 10% of a bunch of companies, right? So Congress passes a law and says, uh, from now on, government shareholdings, uh are higher in the capital structure than private shareholdings in uh in those companies. So let's say there's a bankruptcy, uh, creditors get paid off first, lenders get paid off first. What's left goes to the shareholders. Oftentimes in bankruptcies, shareholders get wiped out.

Clem Miller: 23:41

So what happens if there's a government shareholding and it has priority in the capital structure is that the government might get paid out 50% on their shareholding and it has priority in the capital structure is that the government might get paid out 50 percent right on their shareholding and the rest of us would get paid out zero. So I see that as a as a possibility that government might, might pass such a law and if companies you know to protect their private shareholders, you know they might pay back those loans, those government loans. But what if they can't pay back those government loans and there's a bankruptcy? Then you could get you know, you could get you know your, your shareholding go down to zero. Nevertheless, I see what you're saying is that you know, if government's putting in some money, you know, maybe the government has some incentive to try to keep that company going. You know, I don't.

Steve Davenport: 24:38

I wouldn't really necessarily count on that, Um, but I'm not sure what ability government has in this space because they've never really operated in the spits. Yeah, so that's the way I would look at it is, I'm from Missouri, show me. I mean, I think that for this space, just like the 401k space I think it's TVD, you know to be determined, I hope that it's put in the right context, it's supervised and there is some. You know, what are we going to do with the dividends? No-transcript. Do we use the cash for, you know, future aid to the company? I look at the dividend and think you know that's 10% of your dividend is going to the US government, in addition to whatever you pay in taxes and other. You know, does it help you If you're in town when you're doing your taxes? I don't know. I mean, it depends on how we look at this position, but I guess I'd say it feels to me like Clem.

Steve Davenport: 26:01

We need to take a step and step back, and I love the idea of capitalism and government and the proper separation of church and state. I've always thought that you should be able to operate Tell me what the rules are, tell me where the highways are, tell me how I should function in terms of the environment, but then I operate as a businessman and I do whatever I think is right. But then I operate as a businessman and I do whatever I think is right. And now it feels like they got a loan and I don't know if the loan ever excluded the idea of giving warrants and equity, and Trump asked for it and he got it, and so maybe we've all been making a mistake by not asking for more. Glenn, will you give me a million dollars?

Clem Miller: 26:59

I promise I'll pay it back. I think I'd rather have equity in you.

Steve Davenport: 27:02

Holy shit, what kind of a relationship is this? You're not only a usury. You want to own me, I'm anyway. Um, I don't know. What do you think of the investment issues for this, or for people who are listening? What have they learned or what? What do they need to know about this in terms of, hey, when I see the government on my position in my company, I should feel better, worse, the same, or I don't know how to feel because I don't understand the structure in which they're gonna be in well, I think that right now, when you look at companies that the government is bailing out, I think you have to put your skeptical hat on and say why were they bad in the first place?

Clem Miller: 28:03

Why do they need to be bailed out, these companies? That's the key question, right why do they need to be bailed?

Steve Davenport: 28:10

out.

Clem Miller: 28:11

There's a cyclicality that causes over investment in times of froth and under investment following now, if you get into a, you know, a broader situation where lots and lots of companies, including successful companies, are required to take government equity infusions, then we're into a little bit of a different world where there's, you know, government is then becomes highly involved in the operation of different industries. For example, what if the government takes equity shares in defense stocks? Then is the government even more involved in the defense industry than it normally is. So I think that's a different world if it becomes a broader issue.

Steve Davenport: 29:14

The idea here is really just to prepare I like to think of. What we're trying to do is to prepare investors for some of the eventualities that might come with this ownership by the government. And if you owned Intel because you got a low cost basis and you bought it in the late 80s, it's probably still up a lot and you probably have to make somewhat of a decision as to whether this 10% stake is significant to you. If your position in Intel isn't significant, then it's not really an issue. But I think for some people who live near Intel or grew up and work there, it is an issue and I think that my one piece of advice would I'm not sure the government is any better at managing positions in Intel than it is in managing roads, defense, oh yeah, and other things. So therefore I would say government involvement in my equity. I'm a purist and I would say it's a negative. And I understand they may have given them money that would have cost them more if they went to the market on their own, which tells me they're getting a benefit and they're paying for it with their equity. But I still look at things and say equity ownership of companies in the US marketplace is not the role of government. The role of government is to create the environment so that people can operate and succeed, and it's not to take an interest and then have an obligation to future interest if the company has problems. And I also think it needs to be fully understood how we're going to manage that position. If we get a 20% profit after a year, do we take 20% off? I think that if this were considered in light of all the things that we're trying to do as a nation, it's up there. I would like to see some of our energy profits and energy lease revenue go directly to a sovereign wealth fund. That, to me, would offer the US better chances of success in the future, because we're thinking about the next generation. I think right now it goes into the general fund and, like most things, the general fund just gets piled up and you don't really see what the money that came from energy really led to. So I would like to see us do something with the sovereign wealth fund. I think we're a big enough nation and we have enough ideas that we need something to help people who are operating in these spaces where energy might drop away.

Steve Davenport: 32:00

South Dakota, having a great time. The, the, the, the, the, the shale and the production there has brought jobs and prosperity, but will it last forever? Of course not, of course not. And so, therefore, a good thinking, you know a wise government would say, yeah, let's take a certain percentage of that you know profit the government makes from that lease and put it towards something that has a long-term benefit to the people of South Dakota. I don't think it's, you know, but is this really where we're focused? You know, with the Ukraine and with Israel and Gaza gets, you know, and Russia putting you know, drones into Poland. Is this what we're focused on?

Clem Miller: 32:52

You know, making sure stablecoin gets into 401ks and making sure we have government ownership, because they took a loan there's certainly a lot more important things out there than stablecoin and uh and 10 shareholdings and intel and so on, correct?

Steve Davenport: 33:06

so all I'd say to people is take it in, try to understand it. But if you decide to sell your Intel, I'm not sure that you know we're necessarily the fact that we made this ownership decision. I'm not sure it's a. It's a going to the moon, as they. As they say, now that the support of government is there, intel is unstoppable.

Clem Miller: 33:35

There's definitely no guarantee of that, and I think it's less likely that it would have a surge like that.

Steve Davenport: 33:40

Correct, but I'm trying to be balanced here, clement. I'm not simply a go-go equity guy like you are. That said, yes, the government should own their shares. We have to think in a bigger structure. Government look, look the common good, clem, not just the good for Clem's portfolio, right.

Clem Miller: 34:00

Good Government. You know, the difference between what our government would be doing and an actual sovereign wealth fund is that sovereign wealth funds try to make a profit. Right, they try to generate returns for the taxpayer and I don't know that buying things like a 10 percent shareholding in Intel or a 10 percent shareholding in defense stocks I don't know that that stuff is related to generating a profit. I think it's more trying to achieve strategic goals.

Steve Davenport: 34:39

Okay, I mean, if it's a strategic position, then we should hold it more than five years, not talk about doing anything with it. I just want to know the guardrails. If there are no guardrails, tell me that Well, right now they're going to go off the mountain and it doesn't matter what they build on the mountain.

Clem Miller: 34:58

Yeah, right now there are no guardrails because we've got an administration that is frenetic, right in terms of its policymaking and doing things that are being challenged in the courts and where we really haven't gotten a lot of insight from the Supreme Court as to where some of those guardrails are. I guess we'll see in a few months maybe two, three, four months what the Supreme Court says on tariffs. But about government ownership, who knows right? Who knows?

Steve Davenport: 35:45

I mean, I think it's an exciting. It's a good topic for podcasts, because I think there's so much unknown that we can go down these paths and think about you know, well, maybe it becomes a broader policy and we think about it more holistically. We think about how government and business can work to help each other, and not necessarily in a controlling or negative, you know, manner. Right, I think there's a lot of things we should be thinking about in terms of, you know, immigration and how many of these people who are getting PhDs and masters, how are they influencing our labor force? And if we were to grant them more access to citizenship, you know, would our STEM and our businesses be better off? I think that there's a lot of issues like this, that our growth rate is determined by what issues we focus on.

Steve Davenport: 36:40

And is this going to change the growth rate in the movements of our US technology industry? I don't know. I think it's kind of helping out a hobbled company. I agree A hobbled company isn't likely to suddenly become a leading company just because of this loan. I'd love to believe it could. I'd love to believe it transitions and turns itself around, and companies do turn themselves. So I'm not ruling it out, but it just feels to me like, as you said, overreach, and again I'd put a TBD on this. It's to be determined whether we'll you know. So do you have any final comments?

Clem Miller: 37:23

No, yeah, just one last final comment. Yeah, just one last final comment, and that is you know, for a long time I worked for a government agency that called the Export-Import Bank, that provided financing for US exporters doing business overseas, and I guess you could say in that context that we did do a bit of picking of winners and losers and, you know, we were receptive to applications from companies who really needed the business and I think that the mission of the export import bank was a good one. Uh, but I also know that the you know that the export import bank was really not in the position to pick winners and losers. So I just don't think, extrapolating from my experience there, I just don't think the government has the capability to effectively pick winners and losers. I just don't see it.

Steve Davenport: 38:27

Yeah, and like most things, we squabble and we argue, but I think at ARC we agree on most things. I agree with your statements and I agree that this just doesn't feel right. Could it be right? Absolutely, it could all work out well, but somebody has to be on the contrary to make sure we question the right things so that we ultimately put it in the right position to succeed for the American people. Ultimately. That's what I want, that's what Glenn wants, I think it's what everyone wants, but we've got to somehow analyze it in such a way so that the right questions are asked and the right guardrails are put in, and hopefully that happens and hopefully this Intel position goes from $4 billion to $40 billion and we're all beneficiaries. So I guess I'd say people enjoy the podcast. We appreciate you listening, we appreciate your support, support and we appreciate your likes and shares. Please let us know how we can do better and what else we can do to help you on your journey to financial wellness. Thanks everyone, thank you, bye-bye.