Should retirees be forced to take a pension? G'. Day, this is Neil Benson and you're listening to that Super Show.In this episode, Sarah is rolling her eyes at Donald Trump and I share what I learned about AI at Art, Westpac and TAL before APRA pours cold water all over our AI ambitions. Let's go. Welcome to that super show, the podcast where we talk about all things super from the inside.I'm Neil Benson, Chief Product Officer at Chandler cx.

And I'm Sarah Penn, CEO of Mayflo. Each week we unpack what's changing in the industry, what funds are wrestling with, and how tech and regulation are shaping the landscape.

Sometimes we bring in expert guests, but mostly it's just us having a real conversation about how super is working and what could make it even better.

Let's get into it.

G', Day, Sarah. Welcome to Chandler.

Hello, Neil. Thank you very much for having me. It is very exciting to be here, you know, real office with real people.

For those not in the know. So I've taken a new role at Chandler. Sarah and I are recording in our boardroom today and right outside is one of our big printing presses.So Chandler prints lots of statements and communications for superannuation funds, amongst others. Hopefully there's no big print jobs running this morning because we're going to record a podcast.

It is very cool. You should see the rolls of paper and stuff. It's, it's, it's a long time since I've been near a proper printing, printing setup and it's very cool.

Well, Sarah, let's, let's get into it because there's a bunch more treasury consultation papers that have been released recently and we wanted to cover some of those for our listeners. The first one is the strengthening, what's.

It called, Enhancing Member Protections in the superannuation System.

Thank you.

And it is a beast.

It is. There's a lot to cover in this one. So let's start with. You know, we're just discussing the definition of a platform trustee.So part of this paper is maybe going to bring in some slightly different regulations for what treasury is coining a platform trustee, but they struggle in this paper to kind of define it. Do you want to have a crack at it?

No. So look, this is such a double edged sword.Like on the one hand, having worked in platforms for most of my career, it is endlessly frustrating when you run a platform that APRA and ASIC and everyone else don't seem to understand that it doesn't work quite the same way as an Industry super fund. So prima facie, and probably 20 years ago, I would have gone, good.Now, however, having seen what happens when things are carved out, whether industry funds are basically carved out from having to comply with all these additional things is, generally speaking, arbitrage and bad behavior is exactly what happens next. Be very careful what you wish for. And yeah, defining what a platform is, I think it's the messy middle that's the problem. Right.Because at one end, if you look at Hub, netwealth, Macquarie, they have thousands of investment options. Yep, definitely a platform. If we look at the far other end and we look at Commonwealth SuperCorp, they have four investment options.Definitely not a platform. But it's when you come into the middle, like at what point, how many options do you have to have for it to be a platform?And there's a thing in here around they were sort of saying, oh, well, it depends if they're trustee options or if they're sort of independent third party options. Yeah, third party options.But the problem is you can easily turn a third party option into a trustee option by going, okay, let's pretend we've got a Mayflower super fund and Neil, you can be the Chandler managed fund. So you come to me and say, I'd like to put the Chandler managed Fund on the Mayflower super non platform. And I say, oh, that's lovely.We're not a platform. So what we'll do is we'll call it the Mayflower Printing Investment option.Not only will the normal fee, which would be 70bps, but we're going to keep charging the members 70 bits, but I'm going to keep five of them.

Yeah. There's all sorts of shenanigans that can go on.I love the histogram in the paper of the number of options by Superfund and Premium has got over 9,000 options and none of the industry funds have got anywhere close to 1,000.

No, no, no. I think, yeah.How the funny thing too is I'm pretty sure the way Premium is showing as 9,000 investment options would be the huge number of managed accounts they've got. But a managed account is a collection of other investment options.So if you actually look at the raw number of investment options, it's probably nothing like that. It'll be much more like the net worth.

So very, very messy trying to define a platform trustee and then bring out some different regulations or alternatives and then.

What are you going to do with. Then the question is what are you going to do with the regs after that?

Yeah. See where that one goes? Number two in this paper is to increase the penalties under the SIS act that apply for bad behavior.You know, we've seen lots of penalties waved around last year against super funds for providing poor service and having duplicate accounts and things. My belief at the end of the day, especially for member profit, for member funds is that the members end up paying those fines.So you're just taking money out of the members pockets. You know, nobody learns a lesson at all.It's different when it's shareholder funds that you're penalizing but you know, we're dealing with a very broad sector here where there's a lot of profit from member funds and the penalties just seem perverse.

Well and also if you, even when the penalties do get seemingly enormous, if you do look at Macquarie and the Shield First Guardian, Macquarie just coughed up the $200 million or whatever it was but then their profit last year was 7, 8, 9 billion or something. It's not enough.

It's not material.

It's not material. It's not enough to change behaviour.And again it's not coming out of any particular person's back pocket to make them think twice about what they're, about what they're doing. Also it become again if you really get into bad behavior it becomes an arbitrage thing. It becomes a cost of doing business which is just not good.No, no. So yeah, not down with that one. Okay, what else we got?

So strike one, Strike two, number three. Sarah, I know how you feel about this one. Introducing waiting periods for interfund superannuation switches.So today I can switch from a upper regulated fund into an smsf. Takes a few days, it's largely unregulated.There's a little bit of checking to make sure bank accounts and things are valid but there's not a lot of regulation in that switch. What's treasury proposing?

They want to make it a bit longer. I know SMC has been pushing for five days and I've heard ASFA also speak positively about the five day waiting period.But the thing is team, what is the difference? How is that going to slow someone down from making a bad decision? And even if it was, I don't know, let's go nuts. Let's say three months.Let's say you have to, once you put it in, you have to wait three months before you can switch your super fund. First of all, all you're doing is pissing people off.And secondly it actually plays into the crook sort of approach because part of the thing with Shield And First Guardian, part of their sales pitch was every day that your money is sitting around in an industry super fund, it's losing hundreds of thousands of dollars. And so if you say that the waiting period is going to be some large amount of time, it actually just makes it even easier for them to sell how much.These funds are just looking after their own best interests and are not interested in what you want and they're only keeping the money for themselves. So I don't think changing waiting periods will make any bloody difference at all.And similarly, the fee deductions for switching related financial advice I think again is stupid too because it's anti competitive actually and it's just making a whole lot of good financial advisors who are trying to do the right things and put their client in the right fund for that client making their own lives hard. So yeah, no, I'm a big fan.

Of waiting periods actually Sarah, when it comes to firearms licensing and purchase of firearms. But not for superannuation switching.

No.

I mean you could say the same about switching bank accounts or anything. Why put grit in the system when 99.9% of the time it's perfectly reasonable and honest business?No, not a big fan of the waiting periods for superannuation switches, the fee deductions. I can see what they're trying to do there.But again, it seems a perfectly valid way to pay for the financial advice you're receiving when a financial advisor has found a more appropriate superannuation fund for you that they can deduct those fees from your super account.

Yes, I do. I have to say it's interesting. It was many years ago actually. That was the first time that I saw drafts of legislation being changed considerably.Between drafts and things and actually being inside a large organisation and knowing what lobbying and stuff was going on to understand how much pressure there is on the government from all the various interested parties to get what they want out of legislation. And I have to say I can see SMC still sticky fingers all over this one, especially the waiting period. It just doesn't.I cannot see how it makes any difference.

It protects large super funds more than it protects their members.

Yeah, that's exactly right. Yep, yep.And when you, when you're managing billions and hundreds of billions of dollars keeping hold of members money for a couple of extra days, actually it could make a significant difference to the bottom line. Yeah. So I'm not down with it at all. What I would like to see around switching though is when. Which is not in here at all.But you know, if anyone wants to, you know, think this is a good idea.When people go into a platform or an SMSF and they only invest through those things in one asset, that's when I think the alarm bells have to go off significantly.Because the whole point of getting into, moving into a platform is to have access to lots of different assets and to be able to build a portfolio that balances up risk and has the right asset allocation and does the right thing for that member. If all the money is just in one fund, one investment option, then I think you have to raise your eyebrows and ask why.And I do know, speaking personally, a friend of mine saw a financial advisor who put all her money into a retail fund to put it into a single Vanguard option, which is also available directly via Vanguard Super. That was the only option that they put into.And when I was heard about this and went nuts, as you can imagine, I said to her, go back to the adviser and say, why didn't you just put me straight into Vanguard? And he said, oh, I can't collect my advisor fees through Vanguard. So you didn't want to use it?

Yeah. Well, what's happening for advisors acting with fiduciary, Julia, for the.

Yeah, well, that one's certainly looking at.

The client's interest and he was not.

An independent financial advisor either.

So part three of this set of reforms is compensation for members, and I think it does address those kinds of things. So it's. It proposes to put more obligations on platform trustees to compensate members when those members get themselves in trouble.I'm in two minds about this.I think platforms do have a duty of care over their members to make sure that they're diversified, that the investments that they've chosen are fit and proper, not dodgy private credit options for building contracts that are going to go bust. So they have a duty of care to regulate the investments that they offer and then help make sure members are diversified whenever they come in.

Yes. When I first looked at this, I sort of rolled my eyes and went, oh, really? But I actually, I don't mind this one.And the reason that I don't mind it is I think this, of all the things in here, will force the platforms, won't force them, but will be strong encouragement for them to, to want to do more of that ongoing monitoring that ASIC is looking for for investment options and members. Because this is where it really comes into play. Right.If members have all their money in a single investment option in a platform, as the people who run the platform, you'd be wanting to ask why, like, why is that?And occasionally it might be the case that the only way they can get access to that investment option is via a particular platform, because it's not available to retail clients or whatever. But it's still worth asking, asking the question, I think.And so I think having this there would help encourage the good behaviour that frankly, probably a lot of people who work at the platforms would like to see more of. And it'll help make that sort of internal business case easier to put good governance around. What's happening.

What do you think is a reasonable step? Do you think that they should limit the percentage of your portfolio you can invest in a single option, or is it.If a member has chosen 100% of their super to be invested in one option, you make contact with the member, you warn them of the risk and the member has to acknowledge that they've received that warning and is that sufficient? Or what kind of middle ground are we going to settle on here?

I think what I would like is for the platform to not ask the member because the member will have been sold the investment option and will probably believe it's great.Regardless, I would like the platform to go and look at that investment option, because that was actually one of the big issues with Shield First Guardian is it was kind of flogged as a enhanced cash option. And so the platforms all do have what they call trustee limits around things, but it's all based on the risk of the particular investment option.So there's things like you can't have more than 20% in a high risk investment, but this thing was sort of touted as being pretty similar to a term deposit really.And because it was listed as sort of a cash like option, the standard rules around how much you could have money you could have in it would have said you could have most or if not all of your money in it, because it's a very low risk option. So that idea of trustee limits on different things doesn't really help your cause.So for me it's more about going and looking at, looking under the hood.And the other thing which I think I can't remember if we discussed previously or not, what happens with a platform, generally speaking, is if there's a new managed fund and the money is piling into that managed fund, typical behaviour, especially in the old days, certainly when I was working at a platform, would have been to take those fund managers out for lunch, go, well done guys. This is amazing. Which, if they're good fund managers doing a great job is all good. But when they're crooks seeing money piling in.So I think the thing is, when platforms in future, which I'm sure they will all be, I'm sure they're all already doing right, but when you see tonnes of money piling into one investment.

Option from a very small number of advised advisors.

Yeah, a small number of advisors is always another. But the thing is, that's normally what happens anyway. Like if there's a new fund that's so hot right now, they will often only.There will only often be a small number of advisors selling that fund anyway.So, yeah, it's a bit hard to tell, but just the ratios as well of advisor to number of clients, because the average advisor can only see 100 to 150 clients. So if one adviser's suddenly seen 6,000 clients, you'd be asking questions. I hope in future. I'm sure they will.

So we're broadly supportive of the fifth set of proposals in the paper, but the rest of them are overreach, I think. Just a bit of an overreaction. I can understand the government has to be seen to do something and I think it's just a bit of a knee jerk.And I think they've deferred DBFO tranche too, while they bring in this new set of enhancements. And I think they're going to end up doing more harm than good.And by delaying the better good in DBFO tranche two around nudging and guidance, they're doing a lot more harm to the vast majority of members.

Yes, well, worse than that, my sources on the inside tell me that DBFO is dead.

Are you kidding?

Yep.

Wow.

Yeah, which is just so disappointing because that nudging legislation is the thing that the funds need to be able to talk to their members about all the stuff that every second finfluencer is out there bloody spreaking.

Yep. And yeah, the whole.We've discussed retirement income solutions and the guidance that's required to choose the most appropriate retirement option or set of options. Yeah, it's gonna require a lot more education and guidance and dare you say, advice from funds and clarity on how they're allowed to do that.

Yep, that's exactly right. And apparently all of that's on ice. As I used to say about a failed business venture that I had.The question is, is it cryogenically frozen or has it been chopped up by the mafia and stuck in the deep freeze?

Well, let's.

Hopefully this one's only been cryogenically frozen.

Dr. Molino, the invitation is still open to Come and join us and let us know what's happening next.

Yes, we would love that.

The second paper that Treasure has published is Curbing Lead Generation Activity. Sarah, again, a reaction to the Sheiland first Guardian debacles where there was a lot of third party lead generation going on.These are private marketing companies, they're not regulated, they're not acting on any kind of license and they are using social media, advertising, cold call tactics, sales pressure tactics in order to generate leads and sell those to financial advisors.And the method of remuneration is kind of irrelevant, but sometimes it was per lead, sometimes they were engaged under a contractor and paid a monthly retainer. And treasury is seeking to severely limit that kind of lead generation activity, which I think we're all broadly supportive of.

Oh yeah.

The difficulty is, you know, as a financial advisor and a lot of them are relatively small businesses with, you know, less than a dozen people. They need to do business development activity and they deserve the right to market to their target audience and generate leads.How do we allow them to do that sensibly within the regulations without overstepping the mark? That's what I guess treasury is trying to thread the needle on that one.

Yes.So my view on this is if you are flogging financial products or if you're involved in the chain of flogging financial products, you need to be licensed with an afsl. Oh yeah, Yep. The whole kitten caboodle, that makes life a bit difficult and it's going to put a whole lot of marketing companies out of business.But I don't really care if you're.

Building websites for superannuation funds or banks. Do you need an afsl?

Let's say you hire Mayflower Consulting, who doesn't have an AFSL and we build your very nice looking website. And the website is a super comparator.I think if you're just building the machinery, if Mayfair just built it and then we handed the whole thing over to someone for them to launch and run. I think that's absolutely fine because we're just building the mechanics, we're not driving the car.But I think if you paid Mayflower to run the lead generation website, then I think Mayflower has to be licensed.

Yeah. Okay.

Because part of what has allowed all this to happen is people at the front of the chain, the marketing companies have been able to sort of do the whole, oh well, you know, nothing to see here, it's nothing to do with us, we're just a marketing company, we just collect leads and pass them on. What happens after that, oh, well, goodness me, I would. You know, I'm sure they're very nice people and it's just bullshit.Right, because you know that they're getting paid handsomely.

Yeah, yeah. So a broad set of reforms in this paper. I'll go through them here quickly.Enhance the accountability of conduct for lead generation activities, which I think we just talked about. Extending the anti hawking requirements which is around enhancing the conditions for consent and limit the exemption for financial advice.Then targeting those remuneration structures that may incentivize poor conduct. Yeah. And finally, target advertisements for earlier interventions.So things like having FSL numbers displayed on superannuation advertisements and expand ASIC's stop order powers to take down financial advertisements that may overstep the mark. So, yes, what do we think broadly in support of this paper?

Yeah, I am, I am. Well, this is part of the thing. Right.So ASIC can only for the most part, when people breach their license conditions, if they don't have a licence, it all gets very bloody complicated. Right, Yep.So I think if you're involved in generating leads to flog financial products, you should have or be operating under a financial services licence, even if that means that you're a corporate authorised rep of the company whose stuff you're flogging. But even as a cir, you're still caught then caught by the regime. And that then means that ASIC doesn't have to have the stop order stuff extended.I wouldn't think, because under the current regime they're then able to just go and say, you, you're operating under an ifsl, you need to stop right now.

Yep.

And I think that would be great because I think early intervention.And look, I get it that it probably means that ASIC will go and stop some super ads that probably didn't need to be stopped because they're from real companies, but they've, you know, proper super funds that have somehow got sailed a bit close to the wind.And I accept that a few of those will probably happen, but I think the harm that can be done through the Shield Guardian sort of approach is so massive that the rest of us just have to put up with it.

Yeah, I have visions of Wolf, of Wall street, you know, those high pressure boiler room telephone salespeople.

Well, that is what Shield and First Guardian. That is exactly what they did.

Yep. So let's put a stop to that. I think we like the options presented in this paper by Treasury. They seem very targeted.The potential for unintended consequences seems much lower than the first paper.

So yes.And I think if you're a financial advisor, you're a financial advisor who's done all the financial degrees and financial everything else, then it's perfectly acceptable for you then to get on social media or Facebook or your own website or run webinars or whatever you want to do to generate leads for your own business.

And you've got your fsl. You know what the regulations are. That's right.

And if you run afoul of those, then yes, ASIC should definitely take action. I would like to see them use those stop order powers that they have potentially a bit more.I've certainly seen some pretty shoddy financial planning ads and things in my day. I haven't looked closely for a while, so I'm sure they've all gone. But yes, for the most part, I think this one is all a really good idea.

What do you think on a slightly related topic, probably two years ago now that ASIC brought a whole lot of finfluencers into their office and said, you've got to stop. None of you are licensed.You're all providing general financial advice and some of it is well intended, but some of it's wrong and harmful and because you don't have a license, you're going to get in big trouble. And so a lot of finflancers stopped creating content. Some still do and some have gone, gone and got licensed, which I think is great.But I think it's, it's left a gap that a lot of financial advisers have actually stepped into with YouTube channels and podcasts providing great general advice, educational advice and there's, you know, disclaimers and warnings that start about that it is general and you shouldn't act on it without engaging a professional. Do you think that that is going well? Do you think that was a fair action by ASIC at the time?

I do think it was a fair action by ASIC at the time for me when it's always helpful to look at it, look at another industry that in some ways is similar and the medical industry is always the one that comes up for me. And part of the reason is for that is because what you promote can have long term consequences for people that they won't understand straight away.Also, because you're speaking from a position of authority, people will tend to just believe what you say and they won't have the, they don't have the background and the training and whatever to understand whether it's right, wrong or otherwise.And so the same way, you know, you're not allowed to Stand up and say you're a doctor and give people medical advice, even general medical advice without being appropriately licensed. I don't think you should be allowed to give financial advice without being licensed either.

Yeah, okay, well, let's make sure we don't provide any financial advice on this podcast.

This is not even general advice only.

No advice. No advice at all. We're going to keep our hands clean. The final treasury paper here, Sarah, is changes to the compensation scheme of last resort.I have been pretty critical of this compensation scheme. I think it came out of the Royal Commission, the Henry Royal Commission a few years ago.My big bugbear with it is that it seems like financial advisors are having to cough up an awful lot for this. So this paper aims to address some of the balance of who's responsible for contributing to the the levy. There are some good options in here.Let's go through some of these. One thing that we notice is recent claims against the CSLR. Over 90% of them have been from SMSFs, some of whom are advised, but a lot are not.And I believe that if you run an SMSF that you should pay a levy, should pay a small fee, whether it's at the beneficiary or trustee level or whether it's just the SMSF for the trust itself, but there should be a small levy and then that's one of the options in this paper. A second option there related to that one is the levy would be optional, but you can't claim against the CSLR unless you paid the levy.So it's an opt in insurance scheme which I'm in favour of as well. What do you think of this changes to the cslr, Sarah?

I don't think opt in is a good idea because everyone thinks they're smart enough not to get caught out and then a lot of people still did. I do think that there should be a levy on all SMSFs if we're going to have a CSL. I actually think having a CSLR is absolute bullshit.Again, looking in medical, there's no equivalent like we're up here in Brisbane, sunny Brisbane, it's very nice weather up here.But you know, there's been some terrible floods and things and the government has in dire cases stepped in to support and I think that's part of what we in Australia because we are a little bit socialist. What we do expect the government to do is to step in and sort those things out when they very rare but occasionally do happen.So I think actually having a CSLR and somehow thinking that having an extra fee that all the participants in the industry have to pay, which then just leads to infighting about which participants should pay, which is exactly where we're at, I think is just stupid. However, here we are. One can't reimagine the universe much as one likes to occasionally.So given that we do have a CSLR and it's certainly not going away, I do think that SMSF should absolutely be paying to be part of it. And again, this comes back to that, what we're just talking before about this.When you've got people who are doing lead generation but don't have an afsl, they're completely exempt from any mess they might cause. Right?

That's right. They can just walk away.

They can just, they just don't have to. Oh, well, I'm terribly sorry that didn't work out for you. Oh, imagine. Oh, who would have thought?So I think that everybody who has an AFSL should be contributing some way then that that does include. I know SMSFs don't have an AFSL, but I think SMSFS should as well. I would like to see it be more evenly, evenly distributed though.Maybe, maybe it's some kind of like sort of profit tax or income tax or something.Because what ends up happening is like with at the moment, the money that financial advisors have to pay to be, to operate because they have to be part of the CSLR is enormous.

It's huge. Yeah. It's tens of thousands of dollars per advisor per year.

Yeah. Like what? I can't imagine, like in my business we turn over just under, just under 2 mil a year.Our total insurance costs are about, I think up to about 14 grand a year. Right. If I had to pay another $30,000 on top of that, what the hell, man.

Yeah. So I got financial advice last year.

Yeah.

From a great financial advisor. His fee included his cost of doing business, which includes his levy and the fee that he passed on to me includes that.And it was very sensible advice. I'm still in my industry fund. He recommends industry funds generally and I am no danger of ever claiming from the cslr.Yet my financial advice fee includes his cost of doing business and cost of the levy.So I think targeting it at the recipients of the riskier advice, which would include SMSFs is much better, especially if they're 90% of claimants are SMSFs. To me it's a little bit like the compulsory third party insurance program for driving.

Yes, exactly.

You don't need to pay CTP unless you have a vehicle. If you have a vehicle, then you pay ctp and it's to protect third party. So it's a little bit like that.The people who benefit from it, like the drivers or the SMSFs, should have to pay the levy.

Yeah, I totally agree.I mean, I think the thing is, the reason for me why the whole thing's gotten a bit ludicrous is in Australia, every adult just about has superannuation. There's a few who don't for various reasons, but nearly everybody does. So nearly everybody is a participant in this system already.So, yeah, I'd rather the. I don't know, maybe the Future Fund could put money aside for this or something rather than.And then you end up like, you know, as a result, you end up. This paper is 65. Well, it's probably even longer than that. Appendix D is 67 pages long.And this is just a consultation paper to decide who's going to pay what, what bit of money for this stupid thing.Like the amount of money that goes into managing the bloody consultation paper and all the process and the infighting and everything off the back of it.

Yep.

And it'd be better if the government just put all that aside to pay if something goes horribly wrong.

Yeah. And the cost of running the scheme and processing it and collecting all the levies and paying them all out, you'd be better just have treasury do it.Have some kind of government backstop.

Yeah, exactly.

In the event of.

So the very, you know, very occasional time that they need it.

Okay, well, we've solved lots of things.

There, so we fixed everything.

Neil, that's very good. So if you are working in the superannuation sector and you've got a policy team or an advocacy team, I'm sure you're all over this.You do have a few weeks to respond to treasury with all your good ideas. You're welcome to copy the ideas that Sarah and I have given you on this episode. Yes.

Or if you think we've got it completely wrong, come on and tell us all about it. We'd love to have you.

Do you think FSC or SMC are going to join us on the show anytime soon?

Because probably not after I accuse the SMC of having their sticky fingers all over the paper.

But sure.So they're having a little bit of a disagreement at the moment, a difference of opinion, Because I think the SMC has put out some data that a lot of the people switching from industry funds into SMSFs were younger, small balances, unadvised members, and the FSC disputes that version of events.And says that their data shows that people who switch tend to be older, have higher balances and the vast majority are advised and therefore the SMC proposals to make switching harder with the fees and everything else is unnecessary. So interesting to see those two in the press going head to head. Glancing blows.But you know, we all have our point of view and I think it's good that these things are shared.

Yes, yes, it certainly makes for a more interesting industry to work in.

Yeah, for sure. So I'm sure you've seen that there'll be links to those and everything else that we've discussed in this episode.In the episode description that super show.

And if you want to follow us, we're on all the podcast players. Please subscribe. Tell all your friends.

Yep. Please click Follow if you like this episode.It makes sure that others get to see how many people follow the show, which really helps us and we'd really appreciate that. Thank you so much. Bye for now.

Thanks. See you soon.

Thanks for listening to that super show. We hope today's episode gave you something useful to take back to your team.

If you're thinking we should talk, we'd love to chat. You can book a meeting with either of us via the link in the show notes and don't forget to follow.

The show or share it with a colleague. And drop us a line if there's a topic you want us to tackle.

Catch you next time on that super show.