Hello and welcome to the Download. I'm your host, Dave Richardson, and it is one of our favorite times every month—actually, we do it a couple of times a month, that's how much we like it—to check in with Canada's hardest working economist, and that would be Eric Lascelles, who is the chief economist at RBC Global Asset Management. I think you've actually extended your title recently, too. You've got a big, long title, which makes you unbelievably important. And I'm imagining what they've done as they usually have done with you in your career, is now you're working even harder and not making any more money.

Twice as hard. That's right. Well, you're right. There was a little promotion in there. Generally, the more words in your title, as I was telling you just a moment ago offline, Dave, the less important you are. You aspire to be the President or something and not have a whole lot of words. And so I've now got a whole whack of words. But nevertheless, the gist of it is that in addition to all this economic stuff, which will, I think, remain the central focus, I'm leading a little team of investment strategists who have always been there and have always done great work in terms of stock market valuations and bond valuations and technical analysis and earnings forecasting and all the top-down things that go into having a market view, which is incredibly important. Historically, Dan Chornous, our retiring chief investment officer, has led that team among many other tasks that a chief investment officer does. I think as he is set to ride off into the sunset in retirement in the next couple of weeks, they've chiseled off a small fraction of what he did and handed it to me. And hopefully I can be a good custodian of that group and we can be generating good research. And who knows, over time, talk more markets and not just the economy here and maybe step badly on Stu Kedwell's toes. What do you think about that?

That would be a strategy for you. That could be career limiting for both of us. So we won't do that. But we always wedge into some investment strategy. And what we're trying to do whenever we have you on is connect what's going on in the global economy to what's happening in terms of investment strategy and what investors need to think about with respect to their own portfolios and their own financial plans. So it is all connected in a way. And I think my only disappointment is that I'm wearing our traditional plaid shirt to reflect hard work and a strong work ethic, as a woodsman would have, and you've gone corporate on me. So hopefully, you don't get too high-flying with the language and we'll be good. Then everyone will continue to appreciate your fine advice.

Well, I've always said you're a lumberjack and you're okay, Dave.

Well, that's good. So talk about okay—which is probably the way you’d describe it—that would be US jobs numbers. Or would you say it's less than okay? Or just kind of okay, right?

Yeah, I think that's right. I don't know. I almost want to maybe hand off this job to somebody else because it's so frustrating trying to interpret these job numbers. You just get three good things and two bad things, and they contradict each other. I mean, it's just been challenging. But I think we can look through the messiness and say—so this is now the December job numbers and here we in a new year, in January—it was slightly disappointing, but okay. US created 50,000 jobs in December. Market had thought it might be 20,000 more than that or so. So it was slightly shy of that. There were some negative revisions. So again, there were some things not to like. But I think at the end of the day, the unemployment rate was the place to look. And you may recall the prior month, the unemployment rate had actually jumped from 4.4 to 4.6%. And not to put too fine a point on because it's not that different, but loosely, we think 4 to 4.5% is a normal labor market. Maybe it was a 10th of a percentage point worse than normal. And that made you start to think a little bit and did maybe crystallize a little bit about how the job market hasn't been super strong in the US. We just got a reversal of that. So ignore everything I just said. You can just maybe excise it from the podcast. We're back from a 4.6 unemployment rate to 4.4%. And so, again, not to make too big a deal of that, but it undid the unexpected deterioration the month before. It's in the range of what we would describe as being loosely normal. You can argue that, hey, maybe the trend isn't upward now. We'll see. It takes more than a single month to really say an intelligent thing about it. But at the end of the day, it held together. It didn't seem to be in perilous straits. There have been some concerns, particularly as AI has come on, could we have a strong economy, but a really weak labor market? And I would say that is a risk, and we are a little bit nervous, and we know there's been a little bit of displacement of workers due to AI, and it's just not clear how big that gets, and if it's a temporary displacement or the start of some structural thing. And let the record show, historically, technological advance has not permanently increased the unemployment rate. And so it's worth keeping all that in mind. But nevertheless, some anxiety about that. And it did seem as though things weren't quite so bad in the latest month. I will note, here we are now in year two of this Trump era of tariffs. And I'm afraid to say—I shouldn't say, I'm afraid to say—but let me start by saying one of the purposes of that was to onshore manufacturing for the US. And the part I'm afraid to say is just that we're not really seeing evidence of that from a labor market perspective yet. So manufacturing employment actually declined for an eighth straight month. Essentially, all the months in which we've seen tariffs go on. Now, it's early going. It could be that manufacturers are coming back and just running low worker. What do they call them? Dark factories, I think. Plausibly there is still some on-shoring, but we’re not really seeing it in the job numbers at the moment. So overall, things are okay. We would still say there's been at least a slight deceleration in the US economy over the last four or five months, but not much. Actually the latest ISM numbers I thought held in okay, too. So things are holding roughly steady.

One of the things that I look at as all these numbers come out and as I talk to people, it's hard to really wrap your head around everything, right? So again, if you look at some of the GDP numbers that are coming out of the US. Productivity numbers. You've got the Atlanta Fed that does the forward look on GDP. It's running, I think, in a 4.5 to 5% now for Q4. So that would say that that's unbelievable growth for the US economy. But again, you see these jobs numbers and they bounce all over the place. How do we wrap our head around the accuracy of those over the last six months? Not just with the commentary that's out there, but then the way they bounce around and the massive revisions. Is the economy slow and weak or is it really starting to take off? What would be your overall assessment of where the US sits right now?

Oh, gee, don't do this to me, Dave. I mean, you're quite right to express this mystification with what's going on. I feel the same way from day to day, and I feel like I'm running two or three pair of totally distinct lines of analysis here on the labor market side. Definitely been weakening a bit, though this month was looking pretty decent. The GDP numbers, as you say, have just been incredibly strong and we just ran a 4% annualized GDP growth in Q2 and Q3. And as you say—and I was just loading it so you wouldn't catch me totally off guard here—but tracking over 5% for the fourth quarter. I mean, it's supposed to be the quarter with the shutdown damage that takes a percentage point off. And so it looks incredibly strong. And so you could say, I can reconcile the labor market versus GDP by saying, well, I guess productivity growth is awfully strong. And it has been pretty good and it has picked up, and that's really important. We like that quite a bit, and maybe it links into AI and CapEx and some other useful things that are happening. And so that's nice. However, you would think, though, that businesses would be feeling amazing if that was actually the case. And I just mentioned briefly, but we've got an ISM manufacturing index. It's in contraction mode. You have an ISM service. It's got a bit better. It actually got a bit better the latest month. It looks pretty normal. You have the Beige Book, which is this qualitative assessment of what's going on. And we insist on quantifying it, defeating the purpose. But nevertheless, the Beige Book is steady, but definitely weaker than it was pre-pandemic. And you look at consumer surveys, they're not great. It's a funny economy right now. I think CapEx is kind of boosting it, but of course, maybe benefiting only a fairly small number of chip makers and specialized companies. Maybe it's not being felt that broadly, if that makes sense. And so you got a few businesses doing unbelievably well. A lot of businesses that are feeling underwhelmed. The growth that we're seeing doesn't happen to be growth that includes a lot of employment. And so at the end of the day, the GDP numbers are good. And so I guess things are pretty good. And that is usually where push comes to shove for me, but maybe not perfect in the labor market and maybe not equally shared across businesses.

Yeah, and that's what we've seen reflected in the stock market in the US and many stock markets around the world, is that you've got a small group of companies that seem to be benefiting from the current environment and where they sit within the economy, and then a lot of other businesses that are doing fine, but it's only okay, coming back to the okay comment from earlier. So I guess it's not that surprising. And then, is this something maybe we're going to expect when you see something that could be as transformational as AI coming into play, that you're going to get all these disjointed numbers as different companies in different parts of the AI space start to take advantage of that new technology?

Yeah, that's right. I mean, things are changing, and it's just hard to judge how radically. I was just reviewing. We've put together 10 different estimates for how much faster productivity growth could run thanks to AI. And maybe this was cherry picking by us, but all 10 say positive, so that's not a great shock. They think there is going to be some additional productivity growth, but massive variation in opinion on how much. You got some very smart people saying, well, it's important, but it might be an extra couple of 10th of a percentage point of productivity growth per year over the next decade, which we'll take, we'll welcome it for sure, but it's not a game changer. You have other credible sources saying it could be two, two and a half percentage points of extra productivity growth. It'd be doubling, tripling of productivity growth, conservatively a doubling of economic growth. And suddenly, economies running twice as fast, it’s just a brave new world and an amazing thing for wage growth, hopefully, and for earnings growth, certainly, and for other things. And again, depending on whether it is a huge thing or a more modest thing, just what happens on the worker side is an open question. I mentioned earlier, historically technological change does displace, but doesn't permanently increase unemployment. And so I think it's not a bad idea to start with that assumption, particularly since we are genuinely just coming off the lowest unemployment rate in generations as recently as a couple of years ago. So we have not seen great, great damage at this point. But nevertheless, I think you do have to be a little bit nervous that maybe there could be more displacement just given how remarkable these technologies are and how broadly they can be applied and so on. We were playing a new video game over the Christmas break in my household and quizzing a certain AI—that will go unnamed—as to, gee, I can't make a railroad between these two cities. How do I do that? And it gave me the most preposterous incorrect answers over and over. Oh, you got to go find oil and drill. There's no oil in this game, Dave. It was just like sending me down the garden path. You did this about 15 times in a row, and I said, okay, this is not a perfect technology yet at this point. So we will see. It's not replacing us quite yet, but in all seriousness, it is a big thing. It is probably going to be the theme of the next several years, perhaps several decades, we will see. And we're not quite clear the extent to which it's amazing for earnings and profits in businesses and okay for workers or maybe not okay at all for workers. And that remains to be seen.

Yeah. And the reason I ask that and try to make the connection is, we've had so many investment managers come on over the last six months on the podcast and say, hey, we've obviously got the plumbing of AI, the chips and the data centers and all of that. There's been enormous growth there and enormous opportunity from an investment perspective. But you're going to get to a point somewhere, and it's likely in 2026, where the rubber has got to hit the road. You got to start to see some benefits from this technology drop down to the bottom line of some companies. And one of the ways they could do that is through reduced costs, which is the labor connection. And then it's what companies are you going to see that benefit first? Because those companies may get the biggest advantage. It's that connection between, again, something that's happening and ultimately what happens in investment markets.

Yeah, that's exactly right. I deferred every one of those investment managers since they're thinking in a more applied way than I am, I'm sure, about this. I will say we were doing work, in fact, on our Macro Memo that's just been coming out now as we record this. We were doing work into China and China's state of technological advancement. First of all, it is pretty amazing. I mean, it's easy to say, well, they're lagging behind the US a bit in AI and in computer chips and in a variety of critical technologies. But equally, they are clearly the number two in all of those regards. And you stop and say, this is a country that is still technically an emerging economy to me. It is only about 70th in GDP per capita. It's not a super wealthy place at this point in time. And to be that advanced technologically, I think, unprecedented as a starting point and would suggest this is a country that can enjoy massive productivity gains and massive income gains over a long period of time. So that's me, despite some recent economic weakness, saying, I guess I'm an optimist on China's economic prospects. But equally, pulling it back to AI thinking about, you've got this competition certainly between companies within the US, but also Chinese competitors who seem to be doing maybe not quite as well, but I've been looking at metrics and those metrics would say China not lagging that much in terms of the AI capacity, but doing it in a much capital lighter way, which is interesting, not costing nearly as much. Similarly, I guess the open question is, is this a winner-take-all technology? Does the first person to get here just get everything forever? Or is it okay to be a fast follower? Is there room for more than one player? I'm tempted to say there is room for more than one player. And maybe it's not the worst thing to be a fast follower if you can do it 10 times cheaper and avoid all the pitfalls. And that raises questions and malinvestment risks and so on. Again, I think the long-term investors need to be focused on the productivity potential that comes out of this and not even necessarily on the AI companies, though they're awfully exciting and more on all of the other companies that are going to benefit from this technology. And so I think that's probably where the long-term money is going to be made. But nevertheless, it's just this fascinating time. And you try and make these intelligent calculations and, okay, how much electricity usage is this going to need? And how many computer chips are they going to need? And at what rate will the eye get smarter going forward? And will there be some nonlinear leaps or will they run into roadblocks and they got to go find a new way to go. And you try and forecast these things, and you realize every variable, you could be off by a factor of 10 in either direction. And so not to say that it's folly trying to forecast, but to say that there are big, big error bars around this. It is hard to say exactly with precision. And there is a risk that it's too much CapEx and that it needs to pull back at some point in time. I would say I'm not convinced that's happening at this exact moment or will happen in the very near term just because I still see these big companies have some free cash flow they haven't deployed. There is a bit of space. They're not going to run out of cash. They are borrowing in the bond market. The bond market seems to be absorbing it semi-well and they're not over-levered or anything like that. You look at some of the private players, Open AI and some of the others, and they're doing fundraising, which is all fine and good, but it gives you a window into their valuation, and the valuations are rising still quite quickly. Somebody thinks there's a lot of value to this. So whether or not there was too much CapEx that eventually will have happened, I don't think that's going to be known in the near term, and I don't know that there's going to be a near-term reckoning either. I may have said this before, Dave, but even if eventually it's found to be a bubble and there was a bit too much that was done or too many companies crowding into the same space, I would say it could be one of those good bubbles where from a societal perspective, we just got this massive advancement in AI and this new technology, a little bit like when all the fiber-optic cable was laid in the late '90s and early 2000s and didn't work out perfectly for every one of those companies, but it did lay the groundwork for the Internet that we all enjoy today. And so I guess that's me feeling more positive than negative about this whole thing but acknowledging it's hard to be precise about any of it.

And the connection to investment, just to obviously be very careful because sometimes the enthusiasm around these areas gets ahead of what it's actually going to generate in results and that the enthusiasm gets centered into one area of the market when it's more, as you say, either societal or more broadly, the market and more players in the market benefit overall. So just don't get too attached to one particular sector of the market. And I think we're already starting to see a little bit of that early in 2026. Eric, let's never forget that this is a Canadian podcast, and you are a Canadian economist. How are the jobs numbers looking in Canada? And are you seeing anything interesting in the Canadian economy? I think the perception when I talk to people is that things have started to move in the right direction. But are you seeing that in the data?

Yeah, I would say mixed. And so as an example, we got the latest job numbers for Canada, also for the month of December. They were better than expected, 8,000 jobs created, which is nothing to write home about. But keep in mind, there had been those three mysteriously strong months of job creation beforehand, and I think we were all so dubious of it. Everyone wanted to pencil in some big negative just to fix it, to make more sense. And so we didn't actually get that big negative. We got a small positive. It actually beat the consensus slightly, and it was all full-time. In fact, there was quite a bit of full-time hiring, and I guess some part-time firing, technically, but we'll take that trade in general. And so that's nice. However—and this is again, further to the «don't stop at the first analysis», as with the US numbers—the unemployment rate pulled the opposite trick as the US. So the US came down quite a bit, a couple of 10ths, back to where we like to see it. In Canada, the unemployment rate, the prior month, in November, had plummeted by 0.4 percentage points, and suddenly went from being troubled to being, it doesn't look too bad. It did bounce back up. So it went up 0.3 percentage points, almost unwound its improvement, and it's a 6.8 unemployment rate. So to me, though, that makes sense. I think normal for Canada is 6%, maybe 6.25%, something like that. And so we're definitely in a position where Canada has some economic slack. I don't think that's up for debate. That's why the Bank of Canada is sitting below it's neutral rate. It's a low 2% overnight rate. And so we saw the unemployment rate retreat a little bit, not in the 7s, though. We spent some time in the 7s. Interestingly, it is only 0.1 percentage points higher than a year ago. I think if we'd go around a year and said, tariffs are coming and some other tricky things are about to happen, I would take that trade. I would say, okay, 0.1 sounds not too bad. And so let's put that into perspective. There's a couple of surveys for both countries, but for Canada, there's two surveys. We're talking about the labor force survey right now. Interestingly, when we're talking about the US, we're talking about the payroll surveys, the other one. Each one prioritizes a different survey. If we were to use Canada's payroll survey, the hiring would have definitely not been as strong over the last year. It's still positive given that the population is shrinking. That's still okay, but it's a bit less positive. So I would say in the end, the labor market has probably sent more positive than negative messages over the last three or four months, but there's still a bit of slack is maybe how I would land on it. Canadian GDP wasn't great in terms of the latest monthly figures and tracking we got toward the end of the year. So nothing super strong there. I'm going to finish with a little more optimism, Dave, but just to give you one more item in my trifecta—or to create a trifecta of negativity for Canada—obviously, recent developments in Venezuela are actually more consequential for Canada than you might initially think. So I'm skeptical that the Venezuelan economy bounces back in a big way. I'm not convinced that Venezuelan oil production surges or anything magical like that. At best that is a long-term story, and that is truly at best that they managed to pull that off with the help of American oil companies. However, as you probably know, Venezuelan oil is heavy oil. Canadian oil is heavy oil. Both traditionally have relied upon Gulf oil refiners. If Venezuelan oil production were to surge, you'd say, oh, that's crowding Canada a little bit. That sounds tricky. I'm not expecting that. I guess that's good for Canada. However, something else, though, is likely, which is as the US has imposed an embargo on Venezuela, essentially, and it's preventing these shadow fleet of oil tankers from shipping Venezuelan oil to other markets, prominently including China, which is the destination for almost half of Venezuelan oil, suddenly, the Venezuelan oil may end up having to go instead towards the US. And so the US will enjoy that maybe. So the global oil supply doesn't change necessarily or demand. US oil prices may end up a little bit lower as they get this just extra option of places to get heavy oil from. Rest of world oil prices could be a little bit higher just because China suddenly short oil and scrambling a little bit plausibly. Venezuela is not necessarily making any more of it. And then Canada is stuck a little bit in the sense that Canada sends a lot of oil to the US. Canada will still send a lot of oil to the US, but plausibly Canada could lose a couple of hundred thousand barrels of oil per day it sends to the US. And it's not easy given constraints and mountains and lack of pipeline access and so on and simple logistics to shift to China. That's the aspiration over five years, say, but that's not necessarily the realistic outcome in the short term. And so we saw that in some of the Canadian oil company stocks that went down. There is an understanding of that, but in a funny way, and this is not even assuming Venezuela produces more oil. It's just a reshuffling of where it all goes. It could be on the margin a bit negative for Canada. I said, though, I’d finished with some positivity. As you've said, though, it does make sense if the Canadian economy starts to bounce before too long or maybe is starting to bounce a little bit. And so that's because, again, the tariff hit actually in the end. The official number is a 7% theoretical rate, which isn't that high. The actual collected tariff revenue is only equivalent to a 3 or 4% rate, which is really not that high, again, with special exceptions for a few sectors that are hit especially hard. And so if we can just get this USMCA trade deal sorted out and clarity to that—not a miracle outcome, but just clarity—it seems to me that there's going to be a time for business investment really to pick up. On other fronts, of course, we do see some fiscal stimulus happening and the removal of some red tape. And for Canada and the broader picture, we've seen some rate cuts, monetary policy is stimulative. The market's expecting possibly rate hikes in Canada. As much as I'm a bit skeptical, it’s a vote of confidence that things are going okay for Canada. I'm not sure where we go from here. I would say I still think if there were to be an action in the next six months, a cut is more likely than a hike, is the way I'm thinking of it right now. But we think the Canadian economy can pick up somewhat over the second half of the year, and maybe it is right to be thinking about pulling monetary policy closer to neutral at some point later in the year. We'll see.

I think I've got a couple of research projects for you because I know you don't have a lot on your plate. But one is, there's a whole territorial dispute between Venezuela and Guyana. I'm not sure how that impacts the situation. Could a different leadership in Venezuela shift the way that dispute is going? It stems back to the early 1900s with British Guyana. It's actually a very interesting story from a historical perspective. Because Guyana has been an area where there has been a lot of investment in the energy sector. And then the other one, which I'm going to guess you already have an opinion on and you're probably doing some work on. But as we look at these numbers in the US, and we talk about the inconsistency of the labor numbers and how it's difficult to piece all the numbers together, and Canada as well, is there a time where we've seen such a 100 km/h to zero in immigration, like you slam the brakes on in your car when you're going 100 km/h? Have you ever seen that historically? Is that something that messes around with the numbers when you have such an extreme from very much an aggressive immigration policy, or more of an open door policy in the US, and then you just lock it down almost overnight?

Yeah, not a lot of precedent. I mean, you could go World War II. It's not a perfect parallel. I mean, immigration just was slowing, though there were sometimes refugees. It may be practically, though, just you had a lot of soldiers overseas. And so functionally, the population was lower for a moment. So you could say that there was some similarity, but no, it's unusual to see these immigration regulatory swings. There have been aeras, particularly in the US, where the country was more or less open to immigration. There have been periods where, particularly for the US, there was a surge in illegal immigration, and then there was a lull. So there have been movements like this. In Canada's case, the latest quarterly number, actually a decline in population. That is the first time in the post-World War II data. So I can't say we've seen exactly that. And then even more astonishingly, of course, coming on the heels of what I think briefly was more than 3% population growth, which is just unbelievable. Normal was 0.8, it went to 3%. Now it's minus point something. So pretty unusual stuff. Certainly distorting in terms of all sorts of things. But the obvious one just being we've had to completely revisit what our definition of normal hiring is. A couple of years ago in Canada, 60,000 jobs a month for a moment was what you needed just to absorb all of the people coming in. Right now, the number is probably negative, what you need on a monthly basis just to maintain a steady keel and a steady unemployment rate, notwithstanding some movement in the latest month. For the US, it's a bit less extreme. But if the US has gone from 0.8% population growth per year, let's call it to 0.2%, maybe normal hiring is 50,000 a month, not 150,000 a month. So we need to know that. You would think all else equal for both countries that their economic growth rate just should be lower just on a steady-state basis because economic growth is more workers plus more productivity, and you're not doing half of that. You would think that you would get less. That's why it's doubly fascinating that US GDP growth, according to the numbers, is so fast right now because it's almost all coming from the productivity side, which we love because productivity growth is rising financial prosperity. It's the thing that you really want to deliver over the long run if you can sustain it in particular. And so I guess as we talk about AI, it takes on this great long-term relevance in any number of ways, but it takes on some short-term relevance too, because if we can get the productivity growing faster now, that fills a very real hole that exists right now. It's important there too. I won't bore you with too much more, but I would say, traditionally, you would say more immigration, less immigration, it doesn't necessarily have that much of an impact on inflation just because you're working, you're making things, but you're also buying things, and that balances out. You're not necessarily overheating or underheating because you have one more or one fewer immigrant. In the US case, though, it does seem as though you can make an argument maybe that this decline in immigration could be inflationary. That's been the argument. Not that the inflation numbers are looking too bad. The argument there is a couple of things. One is that that immigrants did save a lot of money. They were definitely producing more than they were spending, which is deflationary. They were sending money back home in some cases. Similarly, they're working in super low-cost sectors. They were low-cost workers, construction and a few other areas where they were probably delivering more value than they were getting. And so it's just expensive to have to replace them. So maybe you get a little more inflation in the US from that. I'm less clear if that's true for Canada. For Canada, it really is just there was such a surge, it actually did the opposite of what you would have thought. Maybe you did a number on Canada's productivity numbers and made productivity a lot worse, we think for a moment. And so you would think then that reversing that would maybe help Canadian productivity a bit. We are waiting on that, Dave, but we are hopeful we will get a bit of that for Canada, too.

Well, let's try to wrap this up because we're getting past a half an hour together. So the US inflation number was out today. Pretty decent number. But let's just wrap it into the discussion around economic growth, a little uncertainty around the job market, unemployment still in a decent spot in both countries. So if I run off the premise, which is what I've generally been running off and talking about on the podcast over the last year, we've got good economic growth. We likely still have lower interest rates or at least interest rates that are going to settle down in an area that's fairly low. Lots of people working. Inflation, not much of a problem. That's not a bad environment for the stock market.

That's right. Historically, that's been fairly friendly. Rate cuts plus economic growth is a good combo, and we seem to be in that mode right now. That's a positive thing. The thing that makes me most nervous about the stock market is just how much everybody agrees that it's a good outlook. I think plausibly and analytically, it is a good environment. A lot of people do expect that. And so maybe that limits the scale of the gains, but I still think there's room for growth.

Yeah. And for those of you who want some forecasts and thoughts about what's going to happen in 2026, just prior to this taping, Eric, we had a series of investment managers managing money from all over the world. We're going to continue that series with a look back at 2025 forecast into 2026. So please subscribe or follow us on YouTube. Love to get comments and reviews as well. We popped in with Eric because we missed a couple of reports. And as you can tell, because we've gone on quite a bit, that we were a little bit behind in just tracking where we are in the economy right now. But we'll get you on shortly again, Eric, and then maybe get some forecasting thoughts on 2026. And if you want to get that before Eric's next appearance on the Download, you can always follow Eric on social media, the Macro Memo. Where's the best place for people to get the Macro Memo, Eric?

I think it's just rbcgam.com/insights. That insights tab has got my stuff, it's got everybody's stuff. It's very good, including our Global Investment Outlook, which is our economic outlook for 2026.

Oh, there you go. So that's already out and documented. So Eric, we'll get you on in the next week or two. Thanks for everything today. That was a whirlwind. We had a lot of stuff. We covered a lot of ground, and you've got your homework for the next podcast. So we'll let you go here. Thanks, Eric, and see you shortly.

Thank you. Bye, everybody.