Capital Funding Strategies in Higher Education: How Universities Are Solving Infrastructure and Student Housing Challenges:

Changing Higher Ed podcast 256 with host Dr. Drumm McNaughton and guest Brent Miller of HED

Transcript: Changing Higher Ed podcast  – with host Dr. Drumm McNaughton and guest

Introduction to Changing Higher Ed^®

Welcome to Changing Higher Ed^®, a podcast dedicated to helping higher education leaders improve their institutions. With your host, Dr. Drumm McNaughton, CEO of The Change Leader, a consultancy that helps higher ed leaders holistically transform their institutions. Learn more at changinghighered.com. And now, here’s your host, Drumm McNaughton.

[00:00:20] Podcast and Guest Introduction

Drumm McNaughton: Thank you, David. My guest today is Brent Miller, business leader for the higher education division at HED, one of the largest integrated architecture and engineering firms in the us. With over 30 years of experience, Brent has established himself as a national leader in designing sustainable and interactive education spaces that enhance student learning and success. Brent’s work focuses on developing student life projects that integrate innovative learning spaces within a campus environment, fostering connections between people and places.

Brent joins me today to talk about a topic that’s different from most of my podcasts. The side of building new construction and funding, especially public-private partnerships. Something that’s becoming increasingly important as institutions refresh and refurbish their plant equipment and infrastructure.

Brent, welcome to the show.

Brent Miller: Thank you.

Drumm McNaughton: Looking forward to a good conversation with you. Your interview today is going to be a little different for me because we generally talk about academic issues. Today we’re going to talk about some design issues and how you get funding as a president for different projects. So, this is a new area for me. I’m looking forward to exploring it.

Brent Miller: Yeah, I think this is a really interesting topic, especially with some of the economic constraints we’re starting to see in the marketplace.

Drumm McNaughton: Absolutely, especially with all the things going on in Washington, so before we get into that stuff, please give our listeners a little bit of your background.

[00:01:55] Brent Miller’s Background and Experience

Brent Miller: Sure. I am an architect. I’ve been practicing for about 35 years now. Started off in healthcare, then worked at Frank Gary’s office for about five years doing international museums and concert halls. But then for the last, oh I know about 25 years plus, really been in the higher education market and it’s really where I’ve found my passion. Really where I think I can make the biggest impacts on the future of the youth and the impacts that it makes on really being able to affect the ability for students to be successful.

Drumm McNaughton: Well, thank you.

[00:02:33] Funding Methods for Higher Education Projects

Drumm McNaughton: That’s a great lead into our conversation today about, ” how do institutions build new facilities?” Traditionally they got capital from states, but there’s now a lot more funding opportunities out there, so take us through that, if you would. I.

Brent Miller: Sure. We’re starting to see a lot more delivery methods and opportunities for funding. And like I said earlier, I think the constraints in some of the traditional state capital programs is starting to dwindle a little bit, right? So, institutions are looking for alternative funding mechanisms.

I look at it as, really, three or four categories beyond what the states would support.

[00:03:16] Donations and Corporate Sponsorships

Brent Miller: So there’s things like donations from individuals or corporate sponsors is a way for additional funding. We’re starting to see a lot more in local bonds, and we’ll talk a little bit more about what that is, but basically approved by local voters to support local higher education institutions. And then the last one we’re starting to see more and more of in higher education is P3 delivery. And this is a public, private relationship where really a developer comes in and finances a project. And so those are really the, probably the four funding sources that maybe we can dig into a little bit deeper.

Drumm McNaughton: Yeah, I’d like to do that because I’m familiar with the P3, the public private partnerships. Back when we used to live in California, Cal State, San Marcos did one of those things. It was a joint use project where there were married dormitories, et cetera, but underneath there were shops, and it was all built by a local developer.

Brent Miller: Yeah, that’s right. And we can dig that into that little deeper. But maybe we can just take these in order. Maybe we talk about the donors or gifts first and then we’ll kind of work our way down the list to the P3s.

Drumm McNaughton: It works for me.

Brent Miller: Everyone’s familiar, I think with the donors and gifts. It is a lot of how private institutions get buildings built. We’re also seeing more and more on the public side within that.

Here’s a couple examples of things that we’ve worked on. One is the Iovine and Young Academy at USC. What’s interesting is a $70 million donation by Jimmy Iovine and Andre Young, or as some of your listeners may know him as a Dr. Dre, right? So here are people that are moguls of the music industry coming back and like giving back to USC. And particularly they’re interested in creating unique learning experience to pair students to think critically and create and innovate across industries, intersections of technology, design, and business. And what’s interesting about this is it just wasn’t the capital upfront, but they developed a program that also brings in corporate sponsors. So not only was it an individual gift, but now they figured out a way from a programmatic standpoint to bring corporate sponsors in.

This academy looks to develop dynamic partnership support, extensive programs, and experiences, which include taking the real world opportunities for companies to come in and have students work on those. So today there’s been collaborations targeted on a wide variety of areas of interest, human performance. In the future mobility, global communications. Partners such as Adidas, ADI, Volkswagen, Verizon, and Fender Guitars to just, name a few. So, here’s where they’ve mixed that and have a continuing ability to really finance their program long term by engaging corporate sponsors along the way.

Drumm McNaughton: And we typically see this with individuals and building naming rights, correct.

Brent Miller: Yeah, exactly right. But I think you find individuals have passions also towards certain things, and that’s really what motivates them to donate large sums of money. I have another example where UC Irvine, and this is interesting and I’ll explain why, but there’s the Susan Samueli College of Health Sciences. This was the largest gift that UC Irvine had actually received. It was a $200 million gift. It’s a really interesting institute. It’s really combining research, education, clinical care, integrating conventional and complementary medicines. We usually talk about this as a nice mix of Western and eastern medicine, right?

So the institute’s vision is to be the preeminent National and International Academic Institute for pioneering multiple disciplinary research, education, healthcare, for the whole person. And so it’s not just going in to a typical clinic and getting prescribed pharmaceuticals, right? But the other part to that is looking at the eastern medicine side. And so you may get a prescription for doing a yoga session. Or you may get a prescription to doing a walk in the woods, for example. Right? But what’s interesting about this institute is they’re actually looking at the research component of it, really trying to understand what that does to someone’s health. What are the benefits for doing that?

The interesting piece to this is that at the same time, the university received another $40 million gift by Bella Sue Gross for the school of nursing.  The university had these two gifts, but the university only wanted one building. So, from an architectural standpoint, it was really interesting to us because we had to design a building that was a single building, but actually had individual characters for each building.

So, each donor has their name on a building that’s very specific to them that at the end of the day it holistically, it has to look and work together. And the programs, basically benefit from each other being adjacent and connected through spaces so, interesting sometimes what they’ll give architects to solve along the way.

Drumm McNaughton: And that is interesting. I wouldn’t have thought that would be an architectural issue, but you’re absolutely right. It’s trying to bring the donors together and build out one building that’s going to be able to satisfy multiple donors.

Brent Miller: Yeah, exactly.

Drumm McNaughton: And, another great example of that is with donors and corporations is University of Oregon and Nike. They have an incredible partnership. In fact, many people walk into the university of Oregon Stadium, they go into the locker room and they say, that’s much better than many of the pro locker rooms for football.

Brent Miller: You’re absolutely right. And that’s the segue into, the next set, which is really corporate sponsorships. Oregon is a, it’s a unique combination of Phil Knight and Nike, both doing donations for that campus, which really transformed the University of Oregon, basically since the 1990s is when the money started flowing in. And since the 1990s Knight and Nike has donated over a billion dollars to that university. Really impacting, especially athletic sides, of that campus, significantly,

Drumm McNaughton: I didn’t realize it was that much money.

Brent Miller: It adds up over time.

Drumm McNaughton: You know a million here, a million there. Pretty soon we’re talking real money, right?

Brent Miller: Absolutely. And another really interesting example is a project we worked on at the University of Michigan called the Ford Motor Company Robotics Building. So, in collaboration with Ford and the University of Michigan, is a four-story building and basically Ford leases the fourth floor as a research lab, to encourage collaboration and crosspollination between its researchers and then the university PhD students as a part of that. It was a $75 million project, 134,000 square foot complex. It’s really the new hub for the University of Michigan Robotics Institute.

It includes labs for robots, flying, walking, and rolling, and augments for the human body as well as classrooms and offices and maker spaces. Where Ford has about a hundred researchers on that fourth floor to integrate and move forward. And it’s important to Ford because they’re actually transforming their company, which was really one of the oldest car companies into what is the future of mobility, right?

They continue to do those profound transformations in their history to electrification, connectivity, and automation, right? So that collaboration between Ford and University of Michigan is transformational for Ford itself to really become a company for the future.

Drumm McNaughton: Well, I’m going to date myself here because I remember when tech transfer was a big deal and that’s exactly what’s happening here with the Ford -University of Michigan complex.

Brent Miller: Yeah, you’re exactly right. I. And we see this more and more, where you get corporations really wanting to get engaged with higher education facilities to really further their research. It’s a benefit back and forth for the corporation and for the higher education institution and the students that attend it.

Drumm McNaughton: I’m going to get a little geeky here and say, this seems like a great opportunity to bring in a new program, academic program or something like that, into an institution, if you can cultivate these donors to help finance this. Is that a fair statement?

Brent Miller: Yeah, no, absolutely. So, I think higher education institutions will go out and float ideas to the corporations, to get them engaged in some type of financial impact on the campus. And if they see the mutual benefits back and forth, we’re starting to see more of that occur. As one’s, kind of, way to finance and capitalize these buildings on university campuses.

Drumm McNaughton: Now there’s got to be some pros and some cons between these type of things. Can you run us through a list of those?

Brent Miller: Sure. Well, we’ll start with the main pro which is the money. Right?

Drumm McNaughton: Really? Money’s a pro?

Brent Miller: Well for the university it is, I guess it’s what side of the table you’re sitting on for sure. For the university, one of the reasons we’re having this talk is to talk about what other type of funding mechanisms are out there besides the traditional kind of state allocated process.

I think anytime you can get a donor to come in. Private institutions are used to this, I think a lot of public institutions, it’s newer to them, but a lot of public institutions have been also very successful with this over the years. And so obviously I think from the university side, the pro is the additional funds, because they’re able to develop a program to further their student engagement and student knowledge. And they get a great partner in that process. Right?

So, it’s just not forward learning from, say, University of Michigan, but it’s working the other way around. You’ve got students now learning from Ford and for them, the other positive for say Ford in that process is that now there is access for students into a professional career. Right? And if they already understand components about Ford, it’s going to be much easier for them to get a job within that corporation and for that corporation to find students that they can hire that are really going to push them further along in their goals. So, seems to be a good mutual benefit back and forth.

Drumm McNaughton: I remember years ago, when I say years ago, I truly mean years ago it was over 50, when I was applying for college, and one of the places that I had looked at was the General Motors University. They actually had a university that was part of General Motors that they would be training people on how to engineer automobiles.

Brent Miller: Sure. When you go back and look at even community colleges, that was really the goal of community colleges. Right? To really provide those vocational skills to go out into the marketplace directly and be ready with the skill sets to move forward in their careers. And I think what you’ve seen now is a little bit of transition from kind of the hands-on manufacturing to the technological advances that we’re seeing now within the marketplace.

Drumm McNaughton: And it makes perfect sense. Robotics, how much of a automobile is built with human hands and how much with robots?

Brent Miller: Yeah. We just finished another robotics, project at UCLA. These robots, they’re teaching them to climb, walk, stand, all types of things that will then go into what they learned into the automation that you see say, in an auto plant, for example. And now they’re getting engaged in AI within the robot, so they’re now learning, along the way. It’s fascinating.

Drumm McNaughton: It is fascinating.

Some of the cons?

Brent Miller: Yeah. Well, some of the cons, I think for universities, they have to give up a little bit of the control in the process. Right? When you’ve got a sponsor coming in, they’re going to want a say in how the building functions and what it may look like. Right? So, the university has to be willing to give up some of that control along the way. And I think that’s probably the biggest con. The other thing that universities need to make sure though is when they get these gifts. Right? There’s not only the capital building, which is the cost to build the building

but these buildings are lasting 50 to 80 years. So, it is the maintenance that they also need to be concerned with. So, you see a lot of the universities not only ask for, the gift upfront for the capital cost of the building, but an ongoing maintenance and operations program through some duration of that building because sometimes it’s just still too much for the university to take on, all at once.

Drumm McNaughton: And deferred maintenance is a huge issue nowadays with most higher education institutions.

Brent Miller: Absolutely. We’re starting to see a aged set of buildings across campuses, that are reaching 50, 60, 70 years old, and if there isn’t funding coming in from the states to rebuild buildings or even to just maintain their current buildings, that’s why these institutions are now looking for alternate funding. Just to make sure that they can either upkeep the buildings they have or can they come up with enough capital to replace those buildings. Because at some point, an aged building will cost you more and more, even from an energy standpoint. Right? You look at some of the things that are going into new buildings, these older buildings don’t have those. So even to upgrade to say LED lighting, which would have the ability to save the client or the university money in energy, if there isn’t the capital to go change those lights, they’re not going to have that benefit from saving on the energy cost.

Drumm McNaughton: And plus, plant equipment, heating, air conditioning, et cetera, all of those things. I know a good friend of mine, Rob Hartman, who is a CFO at One University, he made a deal with a plant company to come in and replace out all of their plant equipment at cost. And the savings paid it back. He was very smart when structuring the contract, but the savings, if they didn’t save money to be able to pay that back in x number of years, it would’ve been free.

So, it was a brilliant piece of financial strategy, but more importantly, it upgraded the plant equipment.

Brent Miller: I think you’re absolutely right. We’re starting to see, we’re not going to jump too deep into P3s right now, but we will talk about an example where the P3 delivery has actually looked at infrastructure projects on campuses. It’s once again, not necessarily the sexy buildings you have on campus, but really things that make big impacts to the financial side, so you have a campus.

Maybe we can jump into local bonds?

[00:17:45] Local Bonds and Their Impact

Drumm McNaughton: Yeah, I was going to suggest that.

Brent Miller: Perfect. I think we’re starting to see, for those that don’t know, it basically takes your state legislation to allow this type of funding to occur. And it really occurs through local taxpayers approving, a bond program. We’ve started to see more and more states approve this. We see a lot of it in local community colleges and in high school districts. Independent school districts also do a lot of the local bonds to raise money through tax bonds and really called general obligation bonds”. There are about 19 states in the US that allow this type of funding. California and Texas are two of the larger states that allow bond programming.

Just to give you a sense of the numbers. So here in California, our November ballots of ’24 passed, it was about 14 bonds for just community colleges, and it was just under $10 billion. And so, it’s significant amounts of money. And within that, you look at some of the districts that are receiving money, so, the San Diego Community College District, and I think this is one of the larger bonds that’s been approved in the US, right? So once again, this past November, the San Diego Community College District, with its voters, approved a bond that was $3.5 billion for their program. And that program, once again, these aren’t all new buildings. Right? These are going to be a combination of maintenance and renovation and some new buildings for that system. That will make significant impacts really for the students moving forward.

And these bond programs, they tend to last anywhere from eight to 14, 15 years, depending on the size of it and what the spend is for the districts. And so there really is a long path ahead for these districts to pass the bonds.

Drumm McNaughton: And they’re all voter-approved, so it’s got to get on the ballot. So, there’s that whole timing issue. It’s a great option. You can get a awful lot of money to do it, but it certainly takes a lot of time.

Brent Miller: It does. And you have to, for, $3.5 billion program. You have to put a lot of infrastructure in place to manage a program like that. Your maintenance facility that’s been there for 30 years and your design and construction group that’s been there, this is far beyond what they do day to day. Right?

So you get bond oversight committees that come in. You get bond managers that come in that help you run these programs. And so it’s actually created, throughout the environment, all new types of new jobs and ventures for people to part in. Really and just like managing programs here in California and Texas.

Drumm McNaughton: Well,  I had no idea it needed to build infrastructure.

I want to jump into the PP cubed, the P3.

Brent Miller: The P3s. No, that’s perfect.

[00:20:25] Public-Private Partnerships (P3) Explained

Brent Miller: So, let’s talk a little about those and let me just kind of explain what they are for people that may not know. So, the 3Ps are the “public private partnerships”, and their collaboration between usually government entity and a private sector company, say a developer. And then it includes the design, the build, the finance, the operating, and maintaining of the projects. And part of the advantage of this is allows the project to be completed, ahead of time and of schedule, sometimes. The sell is typically for lower costs than what you would have if you went out a traditional manner. Especially the time.

I think when you have a state run process and all of the programs that they have to go through to really actually give an a project on the street before you even design it, and then the process have, you have to go through to get it approved. Once you bring a developer in, a developer wants to move this very quickly. Right? And so you typically can get it in quicker and usually quicker means less money to do that.

Little bit of the history, so P3 is not new. In the US it goes back to the 1700s. They weren’t necessarily building buildings back then, but it was really transportation projects. There’s examples of, bridges and ferries that were built in the US. To give you a sense of how often delivery methods and models are used, if you just look at the past 35 years, there’s been about $10 billion worth of projects here in the US. In all, the US has been doing it for a long time, over 150 years. It does pale in comparison when you look at some other countries, say the UK. So the US in the last 35 years is about $10 billion. For the UK, it’s a big part of their delivery method over there. They’ve delivered about $50 billion in P3 over that same 35 year period.

Drumm McNaughton: What are some of the types of projects that generally work for P3s?

Brent Miller: Typically, the P3 projects, they really need some type of building that is revenue generating, because that’s how they finance it, and the university pays back the developer over time, the project. And that’s really what drives this, right? So if you’ve got an owner that needs a building built and it’s a hundred million dollars building, and the university doesn’t have money, what they can do is they’ll bring that developer in, the developer has access to capital that, say a university doesn’t, they can basically finance that a hundred million dollars, but over time, the university has to pay that money back. So usually look at revenue generating projects that are best for P3.

So, parking, dining, rec center, student housing, campus infrastructure. All these are generating revenue. And you may say, what about classroom building? Yes, a classroom building, there are the fees that students do pay when they go to universities, but it’s usually, not of the level and focused enough for paying back the financing for P3 delivery.

We see a lot of this throughout the US. Whether it’s here in California, where I’m from, at UC Davis. We see it in Florida Polytechnic. University of Hawaii uses it. So this is a model that’s used wide throughout the US really to develop higher education projects.

 I went and I did a little research on what, the three largest projects are and I’m going to focus on student housing because that’s really where my expertise is and interest is. So, coming in third, is what’s called the Park West at Texas A&M. It was completed in 2017. This was a $245 million project that increased the capacity to about 3,400 beds, totaling 2.2 million square feet. So, these are not small projects, these can be very large.

Another one is UC Davis, West Village. So, this is the second most expensive P3 for student housing. This was $575 million development, adding almost 3,300 beds completed just about four years ago in 2021.

Then the largest P3 I could find is just finishing up at the University of Michigan, coming in at a whopping $631 million, adding five residence halls, totaling about 2300 beds and a large dining facility and the other amenities that go along with that.

Drumm McNaughton: Wow. Well, like I said earlier, million here, million there…. We’re talking some serious money. That is definitely serious money, especially when you talk about doubling the enrollment for a particular institution.

Brent Miller: Sure. Well, that’s a nice lead in, right? So, let me tell you about the largest P3 ever in the US higher education market. So, it’s called UC Merced 2020. And it did exactly what you talked about. It basically doubled the capacity of the university, all built at once. So it was a, it was 1.2 million square foot expansion, delivered in 2020. Basically, the name UC Merced 2020. The project’s going to enable UC’s newest and fastest growing campus to serve up to 10,000 students and increase access to research, teaching, public service, and really providing a world class research institution.

The $1.3 billion project includes student housing, classrooms, teaching, research, wellness, counseling facilities, recspace. It was actually delivered in three phases. The P3 team, as part of the Plenary Properties, which is a large developer we see doing a lot more of the P3s throughout the us.

Now the earlier I talked about these contract terms being anywhere from like eight to 15 years. This particular one, because of the scale of it at $1.3 billion, is a 39-year contract term. So each university and president CFO kind of works with the developer to determine what that contract term is for that P3 financing.

Drumm McNaughton: Wow. $1.3 billion. That’s serious, serious greenbacks.

Brent Miller: It is.

Drumm McNaughton: So when commissioning one of these kind of projects, what are some of the structures that universities need to put in place to make sure of their success?

Brent Miller: Yeah, that’s a good, it’s a good point, right? You just can’t throw this out there, and expect a developer to come in and deliver what you really want. Ultimately it’s the university’s project. Right? So the university needs to put some time upfront, really, to clearly define what that project needs to be for them. They really need to establish clear goals and desired outcomes. So, once again, if we’re talking student housing, how many beds do they want deliver within that process? They may even define how tall the building is, for example. They should also put together a comprehensive and detailed scope of work, to really avoid any confusion or scope creep during the project so there’s a very clear understanding, what the deal is from the beginning of what the developer is providing and if it includes maintenance operations for a certain period of time, or even to the details of, are we talking about single or double occupancy rooms within, say, student housing? It’s really important, and then the university needs to have really strong, well-defined legal agreement, that governs that partnership. It sets forth the roles, responsibilities, financial terms, timelines, and then obviously the performance metrics. Right? These need to be delivered at a certain time so that they correspond, typically, with the opening of a fall school year.

Drumm McNaughton: So it’s the due diligence upfront, the vision, the goals required, the program well-defined by the university, and then project structure, organization and funding. I can say that in 15 seconds, but it’s a little more complex than that.

Brent Miller: Yeah, you’ll spend quite a bit of time making sure you’ve got all your ducks in a row before you put this out for an RFP process.

Drumm McNaughton: Yeah.

[00:27:52] Key Takeaways and Conclusion

Drumm McNaughton: Well, Brent, this has been fascinating. It’s not every day I get to learn new stuff, and this is completely new. I appreciate your taking the time with us. Any takeaways before we go into our standard three takeaways for presidents and boards?

Have we missed anything?

Brent Miller: No, I don’t think we’ve missed anything. I listen and I am not a P3 expert. I just know enough to at least give the highlights from an architectural standpoint. So when we get into these relationships with developers, we know what to look for, what the challenges are, what the benefits are, as a part of that. And I think as we see the economy turning the way it is, then I think we’ll see more and more of P3 as delivery method throughout the US.

[00:28:31] Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Presidents and Boards

Brent Miller: I think you’re absolutely right. So, three takeaways for presidents and boards planning on doing something like this.

When you get to that level of leadership at an institution, it’s really important to make sure that this P3 project supports the university’s strategic goals. Right? And that the private partner aligns with the university’s educational mission and commitment to the public benefit. I think that’s really important that they look deep into, who they are and what they are, before diving into the P3 to make sure there is an alignment within that.

Brent Miller: I think another one is really carefully assess the financial model. Right? What are the potential risk sharing agreements. How can we ensure that the long-term operational costs are manageable for the university? Particularly if the institution’s on the hook for future payments. Right? So, what we see is to make sure that if there’s a certain energy compliance that you want the developer to drive, say with an EUI number, which is gonna keep long-term energy costs down, that you put that within the framework of the contract.

And I think the other one is the involvement of key stakeholders in the decision-making process to make sure you keep communications open. I think it’s good for the leadership at the university to let the stakeholders know the process they’re getting into, what it entails, and how much influence they’ll be able to have over that process. And just ensuring that the project reflects the needs, the diversities, the community, and the public. I think all these are key takeaways that any leadership at a university should take into consideration before jumping into a P3 delivery.

Drumm McNaughton: Thank you. Those are great takeaways and, one thing I keyed in on was the stakeholders, and you were very smart in saying both the internal and the external stakeholders, because you’ve gotta have buy-in from the community for these.

Brent Miller: That’s absolutely correct, and you can see the scale of some of these P3s are enormous. Right? And so they are gonna impact beyond just the boundaries of your campus.

Drumm McNaughton: Yeah. Well, thank you. What’s next for you? What’s next for your firm?

Brent Miller: Wow. Well, I’m gonna stay focused on housing. We just recently won a very large project down at UC San Diego, where we’re master planning, 6,000 beds for the university. That phase one will be around 3,000 to 4,000 beds that they’ll build, all at once. Now they are not using their funding, they’re a well financed organization at that campus, and so they’re able to finance this on their own. And when you get to a university like that, they’ve got their entire portfolio to look at. It’s just not this building. Right? But they have a large housing portfolio that they can look at what that looks like to help finance a project of this scale.

But for us, it’s a very exciting project. It’s been a great client and it’s gonna be a great project by the time we get done with it.

Drumm McNaughton: Great. Well, Brent, again, thank you so much for being on the show. Thank you for teaching me as much as you have and best of luck going forward.

Brent Miller: I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Drumm McNaughton: Thank you.

Thanks for listening today and a special thank you to my guest, Brett Miller from Higher Education Division of HED. Brent, thank you so much for being on the program. It’s not often I get a whole bunch of opportunities to learn new things, but you gave it to me today. Thank you so much.

To my listeners, thanks for listening. See you next week.