Founder Quality Is Still the Gate

(upbeat music) - This is one of my favorite investor in a views of the year. My guest today is Jeremy Evans from AeroVC. A consumer-focused seed and series A fund that invests across Australia, the UK and Europe, and the US. And that global vantage point gives Jeremy a really sharp perspective on something we don't talk about enough. How founder psychology, capital efficiency, and scale, ambition change depending on where you're building. In this conversation we get into the real differences between the US, Australia, UK, and European consumer founders, not just regulation but mindset. How era underwrites consumer businesses in smaller markets and why international expansion often isn't optional. The tension between building a great lifestyle business and building a venture scale outcome. Why era is comfortable as secondaries in minority liquidity, but cautious about misaligned founder incentives? Lessons from era portfolio companies like Seed in the US and Pillar Performance in Australia. What categories are most excited about heading into 26 with wellness optimization to measurement driven health? Why founder quality is still the true gate at Seed and what separates a $20 million business and $100 million one. And wait till the end because Jeremy's most important advice for founders don't go in optionality chasing the next fund or anything else, don't. Welcome to In The Money, an exploration where you can still make money in D to C and CPG. We talk to some of the most interesting $50 million to $50 million founders, operators, investors and acquires. To ultimately answer the question is D to C and CPG still a good business? Jeremy, era is quite unique in that it's a consumers Seed Series A firm that invests across Australia, UK, Europe, US, maybe a good place to jump off from is, what differences are there between US consumer businesses, UK, Europe consumer businesses and Australian consumer businesses that the audience might find interesting? Yeah, sure. There's sort of some obvious differences there, like different regulations, retailers, consumer preferences, things like that. But the biggest thing, you know, it's kind of obvious seeing is market size. So I guess there's a limited way we think about it. Like we out sort of roots are in Australia, but there are limited number of categories here where you can build a $100 million revenue business, which is sort of what we sort of try to underwrite too. So we need to underwrite international expansion. That's sort of one thing, like if you're underwriting a US business, to be honest, you really don't need to think about international money times in a lot of categories. That's changing, but it's historically true. An interesting one that people maybe don't reflect on as much is like the different founder personalities in each market, which I'm sure he's sort of come across. Like Australian founders generalizing a pretty modest in their sort of describing their backgrounds, even describing like the ambitions of their actual brand. They sort of sometimes even embarrassed to say things like they want to, you know, be the number one in their category. Whereas if you sort of talk to a US founder, that's a very different conversation. I would say, you know, there are some advantages of building an Australia as well that we find. Like you can build in the early stages a lot cheaper here. The staff are, you know, meaningfully cheaper. You can sort of test things out at a lower cost. Even though ultimately things that resonate here, you usually do find the customers relatively similar, at least in markets like LA, maybe not the whole of the US. What about UK and European consumer? Where did they fit along the spectrum of kind of, I suffer from top off East syndrome and I'm an Australian founder and like, I'm ready to take over the world and I'm an American founder. I think the founder personality is much closer to Australia. The UK I would say is very similar. European, you know, every, like it's a broad brush, like every country there is different. But I would say closer to Australia than US in that sense. And certainly in how they think about cash flow, like US founders are used to being able to raise lots of capital and things like that. So cash burns less than issuers. That, you know, the Australian and European founders will often try and set up their business so it's cash flow positive within like a year or two. - Yeah, I was chatting with the folks over at Ecoma's equation, which also maps both the US and Australia. And they had an interesting perspective, which was in Australia, they said kind of the median Shopify founder or consumer founder is very happy to start a business and run a small business. It could be like the local language shop. Like, hey, if we got to 10 staff and a couple of million dollars in revenue, like that's a good business that you know, can support our life. And whereas in the US, it's you have, no, we're gonna build a team, we're gonna raise money and we're gonna go for growth. That's kind of the default view. I guess like as an investor, how do you align incentives, connect that psychology with something that you can get behind? - Yeah, I think like, and it's important, there are lots of great businesses that don't raise venture capital. We are a venture capital fund and that obviously comes with certain constraints. So, you know, we ultimately need to return money to our investors. It's a relatively long time window, but it's still say five to 10 years. We need to make certain returns, which obviously, you know, are harder to achieve if a company doesn't wanna grow. You need to have a buyer at the end of it, like that sort of wanting to buy that business. So, like, it's a, the way we approach it is a relatively frank conversation on those lines. And, you know, we're still very like every fund, like for every hundred or so deals, we look at, you know, we'll say no to nine of them. But the type of founder that we are looking to back is aligned on those points. And so, we find the ones that do, we, like, that do wanna grow really big businesses and sort of work with us. - Yeah. And again, sticking with that theme, capital efficiency, I think in the last few years, we're now, you know, 15, 16 years and digitally native consumer brands. People are getting more efficient, smarter, maybe have less need for capital, like you said, they're great businesses that don't need to raise money. Putting that on one set, I have a European investor friend that said that he's had to get into the best deals via secondaries 'cause they just don't need the money. - Yeah, but I think much of the US mentality is still like you raise money to burn, slash invest in growth, but like, do you have two different investing styles as a result of that? - Yeah, it's a good question. And so I think the second reason is one endpoint. And we've done that before for one about brands that, you know, we really liked and was significantly cash flow positive. We don't love buying out, like one thing that concerns us a little bit is sort of giving significant cash to the founders as part of that. Well, okay, we've done like, you know, de-stressing them, you don't want them like having everything in on the company, but you know, for obvious reasons, we want a lot of it with the founders and we want them to upskill in the game. But the best is like taking out other investors that are sort of looking for liquidity we're very happy to do that if we love the business. So we don't really distinguish that much between it. You'll usually find that the second reason will be at a discount to like a primary round. And you can, there's sort of obvious reasons for that. But the other thing, we do have cases where, you know, a brand is cash flow positive, could get by 100% without raising capital, but they're like, you know, an extra million, two million, three million, takes a little bit of pressure off them, lets them experiment a little bit, maybe like get rid of a debt facility, things like that. And in some cases, frankly, we've had other examples where they didn't need the cash, but sort of wanted a partner to help them, both to, you know, help them improve the business along the way or to help them with the actual exit at the end. And then, yeah, so like, number of reasons for it. - Yeah. Given that you're global by nature, but still a nascent firm, talk to me about leading the, co-leading, the waiting for a lead. Like how do you guys think about that? - Yeah, so in Australia, we would, for an Australian investment, we would pretty much always be lead. We know the market really well here. There's frankly a lot of consumer investors here. And even like when other people are like co-investing where I say often sort of prefer us to lead, lead as I guess the local expert. In US and international, we've done a mixture. We've probably, I think we might have led half the deals and sort of participated in the other half, something like that. We don't really care to be perfectly honest. Like as long as we're investing, we're the like-minded fund. We obviously get the docs. If we don't like the documents, we sort of won't invest or we'll at least try and improve them. And it can be helpful to have like other people that think like us along the journey as well. So I really, we don't distinguish at all between them. It's a little bit easier at our fund size. We have a relatively flexible check. So as usually, we are wanting co-investors anyway, particularly if it's a US company, where it's raising a bit more capital. So yeah, we don't need to sort of like often the. fun that wants to lead is partly doing that, just to get at the draw location right. If you're running operations for an e-commerce brand, you know how hard it can be to keep fulfillment running smoothly as you grow. As your e-commerce brand expands to new markets and channels, logistics only gets more complex. So how do you make sure your fulfillment solution actually helps you scale? ShipBob is a modern fulfillment partner built for fast-galing e-commerce businesses. Their hub and spoke network lets your business store inventory and ship from over 60 fulfillment centers. Across the US, the UK, Europe, Canada, and Australia, giving you flexibility to reach new customers and reduce cross-border complexity. Their dashboard shows real-time inventory across every location and channel, giving you a clear view of what's where. That kind of global network advantage helps streamline your operations, improve delivery experiences, and support expansion into new markets. If you oversee operations and one fulfillment to work for you, not against you, visit shipbob.com/podcast for a quote. That's s-h-i-p-b-o-b.com/podcast. Are there a couple of investments, portgos that the audience might know that are fun stories to talk about? The one that probably, a lot of people will be familiar with. Certainly when we talk to other companies about, it's one they look up to is seed. It's a product that's business in the US. So we invested that in that. I think the first round was 2017 and 2018. And then we've done a couple of follow-on around since. That's just like an incredible business. Amazing founders, amazing products, frankly. And this sort of mixture of, which is quite rare is very science-led business. Spends a ton of money on R&D and making the very best products they can. But also being able to tell the story. And actually being able to sell frankly, not just beautiful storytelling or anything, but actually convert. And so that's a sort of business that we got in, when Revan U was very low. And it's a sort of multi-hundred million dollar revenue business at the moment. And also quite profitable. The other one that's a US business. First congrats, well done. Let's just pause and see if like, let's learn a little bit more about science-backed, continued scale, doing it profitably, just why they're winning. And I guess maybe my first question is back in 2017, science-backed wellness was a little bit more noble. I think almost everything that's coming out today is now science-backed wellness. So how are they continuing to win in market? And what other attributes have made seed so successful? Yeah, I think. Yeah, you're right. Backed back then, I would say, both less science-led brands and, although probiotics were obviously a category that was growing, it's still probably had a massive option, particularly in the US. We had seen that, by the way, in Australia a little bit earlier. So it wasn't a surprise that, like, that got, would take off like that to us. I do think like people, look, there is, you know, in terms of number of competitors, defensibility, all that sort of stuff. It is true that in consumer, you can sort of copy the formulations of a lot of products. See, it does have some secret sauce that is a little harder to copy, but like, by and large, you know, a successful brand copycats appear and their formulations are often very similar. But I think it is very hard to copy the actual branding of it. Like, if you're the second person and all you do is copy the messaging that really doesn't resonate with customers. And like, you've seen it over and over again. You might carve out a small niche of super budget-conscious customers at a lower price point or something like that, but you're starting behind because your price point has to be a lot lower. If you're going to go down that strategy, you've got less to invest in R&D marketing. And yeah, you just don't have the same sort of cut through with consumers. So, although in theory, you sort of go, how defensible is this? The first mover advantage tends to be pretty strong. And like, I don't think it's unique to consumer either. You know, if you look at, we kind of get pushed back from some people that are used to investing software or whatever talking about, like what is your modes? And if you really dig down to a lot of software businesses, not all of them, but a lot of them, the actual physical product is pretty easy to copy. I mean, it's very easy and hour-to-hour. But what they've built is like this huge customer base, the cash flow from that customer base to support future growth. And just like that community is, you can't replicate a community. And that's sort of what I think people miss a little bit is it's ultimately brand in both those instances. I don't know if you can talk about this, but when I researched seed, it seems like there's only more recently gone into retail distribution. And I know over the last five years, every consumer investor, I said, "Hey, if it's not Omni Channel, "we're not interested, everything needs to be Omni Channel." It sounds like seed succeeded for a long time at significant scale, profitably online only. I'm sure they would have gotten multiple by interests to go into, maybe just talk about how to think about whether you should stay online if it's going well. - Yeah, I think there's sort of a couple of things there. One thing is the acquirers of brands, largely the big sort of strategic companies that everyone knows. You can even have a proctor gamble, et cetera. These guys sort of bought a lot of DTC brands 10 years ago that have gone very poorly. The obvious one, I won't name names, but everyone sort of knows those are ones I'm talking about. And it haven't been that many success stories, frankly, where they're bought and online only brand and scaled it and sort of made their acquisition worthwhile. So like the strategics that you're exiting to, ultimately, for better or worse, they have decided that what they want to see is some level of retail success. You don't have to be conquering the world, like proof that it works in retail and then sort of the playbook to some extent is to scale that into more stores potentially globally and sort of turbocharging that with their own distribution and sort of selling abilities. So that's like one reason. The second reason which everyone's probably also aware of is just the cost of acquisition is gone a lot over a lot. Like they used to be, you know, people used to talk about the sort of arbitrage of DTC brands which sort of probably switched. And now it's got to the point where maybe the cost of acquisition is effectively less than the margin you paid at a retailer. And so I think it's really like those plus, there is just still a large percentage like we talk about online, depends on the category, but let's say it's somewhere between 10 and 50% of the total market. Like why would you leave that remaining, you know, 50 to 90% there, like you should be in store. And there's a little bit of the issue that a lot of brands run into when they're going into retail. Here's the met, they're used to measuring really precise metrics like CAC, LTV, all these things that you can basically calculate perfectly with online data. As soon as you go into retail, like you'll get some measures from the retailer, but that all sort of goes out the window and the exact metrics that you have, you don't know, you don't know the lifetime value of someone shopping at Walmart. You don't know what the repeat versus new revenue is. And so it's sort of, it becomes a lot more complicated. But if you're willing to deal with that, that the kind of prize, the revenue that you can get, the profitability is sort of there for the taking, but it's a different playbook, it really is. So it sounds like seed staying online. - That's right. - It's very much the exception to the rule. - No, so it's a bit clear, sorry, that I didn't mean to imply that there are 100% brands that do it well. And most of our portfolio are on each channel. So I should have probably, like we actually do, we have liked on each channel from the start, our history going right back for our sort of, our found it like the, some of our founding team is part of Swiss Vitamins, which was a multi-billion dollar sort of exit. And that was effectively 100% retail. And so, you know, well aware of that channel. But to clarify and see, yes, it basically launched into target, you're right, two or three years ago, after a long period of doing really well online. And yeah, they've done really well. You just have to play the game right, you need to understand what stores you're gonna be in, you still need to support it with marketing spend, you can't just expect it to fly off the shelves. It no longer is like some people sort of put their brand in target and expect target to sell it. But that doesn't happen anymore. You still need to have the advertising dollars. And if it doesn't fly off, well, if it doesn't sell enough for to meet the retailers, targets, you'll be off shelf. - Why do we love you, Amul? Well, here's the good and the bad, the ugly. The good is that over 2000's e-commerce store owners, just like you, used them for sales tax compliance, including brands like Groons, Graza, Ridge, and 8th Sleep. The bad is that none of us got into this to spend a ton of time on sales tax in Admin, which is why Numerol is able to help you in 5 minutes or less get full coverage, deal with registrations, ongoing filings, and compliance. It all just happens in the background. And the ugly is that not a lot of store owners know that sales tax is actually personally guaranteed. But another way that the states could end up coming off to you personally if you're not on top of it. Even being a modest $5 million store owner, you could have nexus in 20 to 30 states. Again, Numerol helps you stay compliant and they even guarantee their work. That's why we love them. Go check them out at numeral.com. Jeremy, you were going to maybe give us another one or two other portfolio and loonings. Yeah, I thought maybe just contrast it with an Australian company that's done really well as slightly slower, slightly slower journey than C, which probably gives you a contrast. It's called killer performance. So it was a brand started by an ex new South Wales rugby player called Damien Fitzpatrick. And he went through, you know, he was the first player to come back from three knee reconstruction effectively. He went through a journey of, you know, pie performance supplements effectively. So you had this whole, he had a really, and this is what we really love and found is when they're really invested in the thing that they're trying to sell. Like he was selling the formulations that he sort of light worked up and used for himself initially. And just the way they started out really targeting that premium, premium segment of like performance athletes. And then you get these performance athletes using it and then it sort of works its way to the weekend warrior style and then sort of works its way downwards. And they're just being really considered. They were actually started online retail effectively from day one. They built it through specialty running and cycling stores rather than sort of going mass and just created this like incredible community to the extent that most cyclists and runners in Australia are increasingly globally. Like they know pillar it's it's even if they don't take it, it's everywhere. They just like that they know their product inside out and know their customer and they go and sell. A lot of brands we find are they sort of like there's a little bit of not wanting to like get their hands dirty if it doesn't make sense. Like they don't want to go to the trade shows, go to these like you know go and visit the retailers, visit their customers whereas like pillars done and it's been a grind like they've but they've built it. They've like revenue is is well into the double digits. But that maintain profitability almost the whole way and they've also got like a relatively material amount of international revenue while building out of Australia. Are seeded pillar both subscription? They succeed. Seat when you check out effectively only offer subscription. You can obviously cancel it but it's essentially subscription only. Pillar is a combination. What you usually find is like if you offer both you get kind of 25% or so of people subscribe depending on the offer that you put that could be up to 50% it depends on the discounts and stuff you offer. When I looked at pillar in the past there's some big name endorsers. Yeah, how do you think about that as an investor? I don't know if you're comfortable sharing like how you get names like that on board. There's a cash equity without going into too much detail but yeah maybe as an investor do you like these heavily endorsed brands? Have you guys invested in I think you actually have invested in another kind of celebrity kind of first brand you've obviously invested in non celebrity like yeah just that matrix. Yeah, it's done the right well. It's really powerful. I mean that the ambassador or celebrity really it really has to be authentic to what you're selling. That's the that's the number one thing. And they kind of like you want them so you want them to really love the product like to the extent that like you'll always have a contract that says they have to do this and that but the ones that really work is when that ambassador loves the product so much they're just going above and beyond that. And whenever we see them doing exactly what the contract says it's usually a sign that it might not work out. It's kind of one thing it sort of translates as well like particularly at the early stages of a company like pillar wouldn't have been able to afford probably what you're thinking those people might have been paid but again there's a little bit of you know selling from day in and like getting getting these people on board a little bit of the brand and the celebrity really resonating with each other. So I just think like it can work but if you go out and pay the market rate that they're getting from uni level like it's very unlikely for that to be to be viable in a lot of cases. The other thing is like if you become you just got to be really careful of becoming too attached to one person it doesn't get can lead to some issues in terms of even exiting the brand right like the acquires are going to rightly ask like what happens in five years if this person goes off contract. Subscription, wellness, other things that errors looking for maybe let's talk about 2026 what's the thing that you want to be you know landing on your desk next week. Yeah we I mean we just like like subscription. Subscription urban is good in the sense that it's usually high. Either recurring rates usually relatively high but like whether it's subscription or not doesn't really matter. It's certainly on the channel does in terms of what we're interested like I would wellness to category but within that it's really like people taking charge of their health more effectively and some of this has come from GLP one and things like that like this there's a whole class of people that you know until you feel like you suddenly to say you lose a lot of weight and you're suddenly feeling better that way. Now taking protein, taking creatine, taking collagen as an example and sort of optimizing your health even further we see a lot of that like that that you can really see it in the data even in in in protein like it's it's it's it's it's pretty incredible so that's a big trend. The other thing that we that we are super interesting we haven't quite found the right one but is just like to defeat back loop between measurement and and then improving you know measuring your blood effectively and improving those results and there's a you know function in the US there's rhythm now which is an Aussie in the US they're sort of examples of that trend but yeah they're the sort of categories right. AI AI. Everyone's talking about it and your world you're getting left behind meet rich panel and AI first customer support platform that's built for one thing making support faster, smarter and cheaper for e-commerce brands. Suddenly you can actually feel smarter about using rich panel combines a unified inbox across email chat and socials a customizable self service portal that customers actually use and sidekick AI which learns from your post tickets to suggest on brand replies. Does it actually work? Well with rich panels guarantee you get guaranteed 30% cost savings when you switch from zen desk or gorgeous 30% automation to reduce your ticket volume and a no risk guarantee that if rich panel doesn't deliver those results in 60 days you get a full refund. That's why top brands like Ridge wallet, Jones or beauty and Pella cases are already using rich panel to save hundreds of thousands in support costs. Time to start letting AI work for you. Head to richpanel.com and start your free trial today. Rich savings, real automation and real AI that actually works. Is there stuff outside of other categories outside of wellness that you're turning over rocks, researching, developing a thesis around? We've long categorized it as health, wellness and beauty. So we still look at what we call beauty pretty broadly but within that, sort of like the intersection of beauty and wellness is more interesting. So a skincare product that potentially delivers you benefits beyond just looking a little better or just moisturizing your skin. We've got a brand and a portfolio called ODA Beauty that's leading with that messaging and is doing really well. We have the flexibility to do other categories within consumer and we look at them regularly like food and beverage is the biggest one. We haven't yet done an investment in food and beverage but we will. It's just a very different structure. The price points are very different. The margin you're playing with is a lot smaller. The distribute is very different and that category as an example is very hard to do in Australia. You really do have to do it in a bigger market. But yeah, that's one where we will spend probably two years on it before we do a deal. the seed stage. Are you more quantitatively underwriting the business and saying, look, this velocity is flying, this retention cohorts are amazing. Is it more, hey, this is level 12 founder, they're willing to grind, they have a vision, but they're also super dialed. Is it more, hey, this is category and thesis driven. This is kind of protein in 2022. What gets you most excited? You have to have a lot of those things together, but the thing that there's a lot more, I guess, companies in interesting categories that we like as an example, then there are sort of founders that we think can build like a hundred million dollar revenue business. It really does take a certain type of founder team, type of founder to do that. Look, it's not, obviously, we make a lot of mistakes in terms of interpreting that, but it's an imperfect science. The types of founders that we've found that succeed in doing that, they tend to be just relentless. They know everything about the company. If you ask them a question, they can almost always answer it, and if they don't, they have a great answer very soon afterwards. They learn what they don't know very quickly. They just across every detail there. You do get a sense for that, and we spend a lot of time with them. Of course, they still need to be in the category that we're interested in a good market, but certainly the one that is the gate, I guess, is the founder at the seed stage. We can tweak a lot of things. If the price point's not quite right or whatever, that's all tweakable, you obviously can't really change out the founding team. Do you have a couple of quick-fire questions? Is there a tactic, a piece of tech that's working especially well for port codes right now? You probably had a little bit of this, but the one that, by far, is having the biggest impact on meta is just volume of content. From very deep brands that are getting a lot of noise right now to small ones, free, for instance, it's like a brand we know quite well. They've gone from 100 ads a month to a thousand others a much higher. That's actually just that alone, they were sort of getting a roadblock and that's sort of broken them through the next hurdle of growth. We see that pretty regularly. That's quite hard to do, but is a bit easier, obviously, with AI tools and things like that. What that effectively means is you throw a thousand ads that meta their algorithm is essentially working out which ones are resonating the most. You'll only end up investing between say five to ten to cent of those ads, but you just have to throw a lot of content at the machine to sort of, it's just changing. It just changes all the time and the type of content that works six months ago doesn't work now because it's been done too often and so on. It's really like a daily, weekly kind of thing. Anyone that's too statement on that will quickly sort of tail off. That's the biggest thing right now. What's your biggest piece of advice for founders, whether in portfolio or just new ones that you're meeting for a 2026 in terms of capital planning? Big one right now is, and this has been the case for probably the last two, three years. Consumer market became a lot more challenging around 2022, 23. We see a lot of founders out there that they're doing say low single digit, million of revenue and they'll meet a big fund that sort of tells them they only write three, five million, ten million dollar checks, whatever the number is. So they'll only do the series A or B, when you're doing ten million, fifteen, twenty million revenue, sort of come and talk to us and something will happen. There's nothing untoward in those statements. These funds are just doing their job 100%. Usually, by the way, they are not over promising, but you have a way of interpreting things to make them what you want them to be. But what that often leads to is sort of found as effectively thinking like, "I just got to get to this number." And then when I get to it, I'll have all this cash. And so they throw everything at getting to the number. They lose sight a little bit of their metrics, like cash burns, too high, etc. They obviously lose the optionality of staying alive because they then kind of need this capital to stay alive. And then the funding doesn't happen. And maybe in parliets because they probably lost sight of some of those metrics, like suddenly the cash doesn't look great or whatever. And parliets just like, you know, funds are very picky. Like, it's still less to go through their invest. There's still so much work to do, like that one meeting or two meetings you've had. You know, it's still like a one in a hundred shot at one particular fund. So I just think it's being like really careful of around cash, making sure that you're sort of, you know, you're alive even if you miss your fundraising deadlines and starting your fundraising as early as possible. Well, in advance of some company still out there trying to raise capital with like three months of headroom left, like at least six months, but I would be encouraging even more than that. Yeah, what a great perspective. I recently had an investor, Connor Ryan from Bridge in the US on, and he said something so simple that I never thought about it this way, but it was so I found a really poignant. And he said that revenue growth isn't the indicator of product market fit unit economics are. Yeah. I heard what you just said as kind of another way of interpreting that. I'm like, maybe some consumer businesses are really great $20 million businesses and maybe they aren't very good $100 million businesses. But you to economics is maybe a bigger tell, hey, is there enough customer demand on matter? Is there enough retention through the product and customer than revenue velocity, which you can kind of force through spend, but yeah, not to kind of lose sight of that. Yeah, just to get to the next milestone. Yeah. Yeah. Jeremy, as we wrap, is there anything that you're seeking from listeners, types of brands you want to see operators, collaborators? Yeah, look, obviously always looking for great brands to invest in, but also great people. So, if you have an absolute top tier person that you think could be a great founder or you are one yourself, like a loved idea from you, we would also like all of our portfolio companies are essentially always hiring the right sort of person. And yeah, so anyone particularly, the number one across all our business right now is marketing talent as you probably expect. And number two is probably financial resource. So yeah, we kind of run little like recruitment processes for our firms to help them out on certain roles. So, yeah, that would be great. Awesome. Jeremy, thanks so much for coming on and look forward to next time. Thanks, man. (upbeat music)