Hello and welcome to The Download. I'm your host, Dave Richardson. And after a brief hiatus, we are back. It's been a couple of weeks. It's been a couple of eventful weeks, so I can't think of a better guest to have on to catch up. And it's jobs Friday anyways. So we should probably get Canada's hardest working economist, Eric Lascelles, who is the chief economist at RBC Global Asset Management. We should formally... I mean, everyone knows you're a hard worker, but you do have that really cool title that we should throw it there just in case anyone in your family is listening and they want to feel that sense of pride.

Let's do it. Well, thank you. Yes, I do have that title. It has not changed in 14 years.

We got a lot of new listeners because we keep adding listeners every week. Even when we took two weeks off, we added listeners, which you could say, gives us, I guess, a couple of options that we could take from learning that. But anyways, just to make sure that everyone knows who we're talking to, Eric is, just as some background, a Princeton graduate. That is part of the Ivy League, isn't it? So I'm told. It's like the «iviest» of the Ivy League. And how long have you been the chief economist?

Well, I just stuck that in a moment ago. It's been 14 and some years, shockingly. I was a baby when I came, and now I'm not, clearly. It's been a good while. I was at another bank—we won't mention there was a green color in the mix there or something like that—for almost a decade, but it's been a lovely run and a lovely partnership.

Excellent. Well, that's a great catch up. And remember, Eric is on with us about every two weeks. We have him on certainly every jobs Friday because these are important numbers, and we'll get to those in a second. But if you haven't already, please go and subscribe on anywhere that you listen to your podcast. That's in audio. If you do, and we question your sanity, if you do want to watch us on video because we think we're better in audio, then you can subscribe to our YouTube channel. And please give us a five-star review. We'd love you to watch regularly. And more and more Canadians are because as you're about to see, Eric's got great stuff. So Eric, US jobs number. For Canada it's only the second of May. Canada tends to be the following week. So we'll catch up on that the next time you're on. But what did the US job number look like? Because that's a pretty important number as we're looking at all this stuff around tariffs and GDP, which we'll get into. What are your thoughts?

Yeah, I think the important point is just it held together. And so here we are waiting with bated breath for evidence of profound economic weakness, worried about the effects of tariffs, thinking about possibly empty store shelves and all the things that tariffs could possibly bring. This is from a US perspective. And so we really didn't get that in the April numbers. And so, of course, that's good news. The April numbers revealed 177,000 new jobs; the consensus had been for 138,000. Of course, the risk had been it could be even worse than that. There was an ADP report which rimes with the payrolls that was actually in the double digits as opposed to the triple digits. So I would say it's just good that we're seeing an approximately normal amount of job creation. You could definitely poke a hole in and just say there were some negative revisions to the prior months. And it's not quite sound math, but if you were to subtract that from today's headline, you would get back to where the consensus had been or even a hair below. I wouldn't say it was a massive beat or anything like that. But ultimately, it showed an economy that was still, as of April, creating jobs. Do be aware that the way they do these things—the survey that gets sent out to companies, because this is a payroll survey, so they're surveying or canvassing companies—tell me who was working for you during the pay period that spanned April 12th. And so the point therein is just that it is the first half of the month, you could say, and therefore might not have fully picked up some of the tariff adventures that came along. You'll recall, reciprocal tariffs went on April 2nd, and then some things were pulled back. And the bottom line is it's now at least several weeks old. And I mentioned that in part just because we've been watching weekly jobless claims very closely, which in principle should rhyme this and give us an even fresher sense. Actually, they've held together really well in general, up until the number that came out yesterday, which was a little bit softer. And so we did see seemingly a mini surge in people applying for unemployment. And so there is the risk that maybe May will show some additional weakness. But from a sector perspective, Dave, there was a big gain in health care and social assistance, which is really just neither here nor there in the context of tariffs or really much else. Interestingly, and this may speak to that front-loading effect still playing out in this data—which is to say that businesses were scrambling to pull in imports and build up inventories before the big tariffs hit—we did see a surge in transportation and warehouse hiring. So that does, I think, smack of front loading. It probably does then maybe flatter the numbers a little bit, but that wasn't the whole hiring, obviously, but that was in the numbers. Interestingly, perplexingly, unless you've got a good reason, leisure and hospitality was up pretty notably as well. And that's actually pretty contrary to what we're seeing. We're seeing flights down in the US, we're seeing hotel bookings down. And so I would struggle a little bit to square that. I guess all I could say is I'm not convinced that particular trend will persist. And then, I guess, as we look at the government sector and look for evidence of cuts there and this sort of things, federal government employment was down 9,000 in April. It is now down 26,000 across the first—I’m doing the math in my head here—the first four months of the year. And so we're seeing a bit of weakness there, too. But bottom line was it did hold together, and we have to look elsewhere for signs of problematic economic weakness.

But again, and stressing the importance of the number—because markets have reacted quite positively to this this morning—but again, we're looking for signs that everything that's come out of the whole process of applying tariffs, taking them off, Liberation Day and no Liberation Day, all these things, it’s having a long term impact on the economy that ultimately is going to affect employment, that could result in a different policy coming out of the Federal Reserve and then ultimately spill across the border into the Bank of Canada. Really, from a stock market perspective, hurt profit and from a fixed-income perspective, shove inflation higher and put us in a position where lower growth, higher rates, which is ultimately not where you want to be. But as you say, if you're just looking at it on the surface anyways—and as always, this is why we listen to Eric, because he gets in deep. He got that report. He's probably read it through already five times. That's how fast he reads. But digging down on the transport number, very interesting. Again, and as we talk about GDP, all that forward bringing in of extra inventory in anticipation of future tariffs, that sets up for the May report, and we'll see where that goes. And as you said, they took, I think, 58,000 jobs off earlier months. The government, just on the front, one of the things that's been striking this year about US employment, and if I'm going to take the other side and say, well, the administration, there's a method to their madness. Government jobs down 26. By this time this year, you would expect them to have added about 100, right? Somewhere in that area. That would be the normal pace of hiring. So on a net basis, you're actually down. It's a bit more expensive because government tends to not shrink. It tends to grow less quickly. And so it's still growing. And then that adds more jobs in manufacturing. But it's still tenuous. You really do need to see the effect, not just the tariffs themselves, but the uncertainty that's been created around it. That is the bigger problem.

Yeah, that's right. A couple of thoughts. Great comments, Dave. We should switch this around and I'll ask you questions for a bit. But no, this is great insight. The one on uncertainty. It is still quite high. It is down, though. So for instance, we track a measure of trade policy uncertainty—and it is imperfectly defined, I'm sure—but it's still very high, higher than any other point we've seen other than the last few months, but it's down a lot in the last month or so. And I think that's right because, at a minimum, of course, uncertainty can be resolved in a happy way or an unhappy way. Uncertainty is down in part because we've had some unhappy tariffs put on, and now at least we know what they are. And so that's part of it. But I think uncertainty is also down in the sense that we have seen that there are limits to the White House's tolerance for economic and market pain. There's been a bit of blinking there. The fact that the White House is keen to negotiate with China suggests they don't actually want tariffs of 145%—and I think it’s actually technically up to 245%—on Chinese goods indefinitely. And indeed, I think as much as the market's up today—and some of that is, hey, these job numbers look okay—I think some as well is, hey, the White House just actually lessened the auto parts tariffs that are set to come on tomorrow in a couple of ways. And I think China said, okay, maybe we'll talk with the US. So the way I would describe tariffs—and it's one of these good news, bad news, good news, back and forth things—is there are real tariffs on, and so that needs to be taken seriously, and that is problematic. And we are budgeting for weaker job numbers to come in the coming months. One little thought process is it does take about eight weeks for a product to go from a Chinese factory floor to a US retail shelf. Based on the tracking we're doing of shipments across the Pacific right now, those are down, depending on the metric, between 30, 40, even 50%. And the expectation is that the months of May and June are probably going to be pretty telling in terms of possibly some shortages and possibly some consequences. So we are braced for that. We are expecting some extra weakness. And so pre-existing tariffs are still going to hurt to some extent, and we need to be braced for that. And that will constitute bad news and likely will create a bit of concern as that progresses. But equally, we're seeing some lessening of tariffs. And we saw the delay of the reciprocal tariffs, of course, in early April. And since then, on a number of fronts, whether it's electronic exemptions—those iPhones aren't being hit by tariffs into the US—or these auto part tweaks that are being made or on a number of other fronts, we're seeing a willingness to negotiate and some pragmatism in the context of, oh, this product would really hurt if it was hit with a tariff. And so I think there's scope for that very much as well. And we're still budgeting for more moderate level tariffs ultimately prevailing and probably something like that 10% baseline tariff on a lot of countries, but maybe not enormously more than that.

Yeah. And it was interesting. I had to go to a conference in Phoenix earlier this week. I know when I talk to friends and family, they have largely decided that they are not going to go to the US, while any language around 51st state and anything that has obviously angered and upset Canadians over the last several months, they're not going down there. So interesting to hear that travel and hospitality is up. Actually, I happen to be with some friends from Europe over the last couple of days. Same thing at dinner. They're not going to go to the US. Their friends, people they know. And again, this is a very small measure, obviously. This is not a broad survey that I'm doing, but it's interesting to see that there seems to be a commitment to that, and you would think that that would have already shown up in the numbers. But this is the vagaries of employment numbers that we've also spent a lot of time over the years. And of course, you can go back and look at other Fridays. If you subscribe, you can go back and you can look at previous appearances from Eric. And at different points in time, we do talk about the differences between the different reports. And then again, the inconsistencies month to month that you've really got to look at this over several months to really pick up a trend to understand what's going on. But again, once the Fed starts cutting rates, as they did back last September, the employment numbers become quite important because what you hope is that the lower rates trigger more hiring, and that avoids your recession. Whereas if you get weak job numbers, that increases the chances of a recession at some point in the future, which is my transition into the GDP number for the first quarter out in the US. That number was negative, Mr. Lascelles, no?

Yes, Mr. Lascelles. It was. I will say, by the way, as much as we don't see the tourism hit in the employment numbers, we can look at border crossings. I'm forgetting just in general what border crossings to the US number is, but it's softer. But I know the land crossings from Canada is now down 25%. It's now down a quarter from where it was a year ago. So there is a real effect despite its lack of appearance in the job numbers. So the US GDP print was softer. It was down 0.3% annualized. And so that's an undesirable negative number, it gets tongues wagging about recessions and so on. I'm the fool who for some period of years was talking about recessions and seeing negative numbers here and there. And I always say, oh, but that's not the real recession. And so I would say this doesn't seem to be the real recession either. At some point, what is a real number, I guess, is the question. But I would just say, the minus point three, it's a funny one, but certainly, I don't think it is a real recession. I guess that's the starting point as much as there are some risks to that going forward from tariffs. What seems to have happened is it was further to the front-loading story. And so we had imports surged. And for anyone who didn't study economics 101, certainly one of the ways of adding up GDP is how much investment—makes sense—how much exports—makes sense—but minus how much imports. Imports are a minus in that equation. I won't get into all the weeds as to why that's minus. It doesn't mean imports are bad or anything like that. Just keep in mind, GDP is measuring how much stuff you're making. If the easy way to calculate that is how much stuff are you buying, there's a difference between how much you're making and how much you're buying. And one of the differences can be inventories. And so you could make something and then no one buys it and it's in your inventories. And so they adjust for that. But the other one is, of course, you could make something and then no one at home buys it, someone abroad buys it. So exports add. Conversely, you could be buying something, but your country didn't make it. That doesn't actually add to your GDP. That's import. So they have to subtract that off. Anyway, that's how you get imports that are negative.

The old equation. I can see it on the board in my high school economics class: the in-brackets «X minus M» at the end of the equation. That's your net. And not only the front loading, but there was an unusual circumstance: gold.

Gold. Yeah, that's right. So let's talk about those imports. We first thought those imports were front loading—so businesses and households, to an extent. For a moment, it looked like those iPhones were going to be $3,000 products, luxury items. And that didn't happen. So there was front loading, both at the consumer and the business level, but that involved more imports. And so we don't think there was anything sinister about that. They're expecting to sell these goods at a later date. In theory, you would have thought most of that should showed up in inventories and neutralize the negative effect. In practice, I don't think I've got a perfect answer, but the consensus seems to be, well, some of these things just didn't quite get in soon enough to show up formally in the inventory numbers. It's pretty clear that's what was going on. I could say this, and I shouldn't say the history of recessions, but certainly in the modern history of recessions, we've never seen one happen where imports were going wild. Usually in a recession, everything's collapsing. Consumption, investment, exports are down. Imports are usually down quite a bit, actually, even more than most things. And so, again, I don't think this was a sign of any weakness. It was a distortion. And then, as you say, Dave, there was this extra funny thing, which was gold. And so gold went up a lot. Now, I guess that does reflect tariffs to the extent that part of the reason people are nervous is tariffs. And part of the reason they're maybe fearing a bit of inflation and hence interested in gold is tariffs. So there's a connection there. But we did see a significant physical inflow of gold. Also, maybe the US dollar losing some of its luster as well. And so import of gold. And the thing about gold is that it definitely doesn't show up in inventories. So in theory, if you import something and then you put it in your inventories, it offsets. Retailers are not stocking up on gold bricks. Maybe Costco is, I guess. But anyway, most are not. Most of this is just going into safes. And so it just showed up as a pure negative. They did make some adjustments for that. So I think that maybe the final minus 0.3 numbers didn't have that in. But that was another distorting factor. Maybe the more important thing is that consumer spending was up. Not incredibly up, but up quasi-normally. Business investment was up a lot, which again, probably was the front loading; let's get those Chinese machines in before it becomes problematic. And I guess reflecting that, if you looked at measures like domestic demand and this sort of things, actually it looked pretty normal. So again, I think the concern there is overstated. We do need to be a bit nervous about the quarters that come after that. Clearly, as we see some softness in the ISM manufacturing tilting lower and some of these things. But Q1 was just a funny quarter, in my opinion.

Being down there for four days, I wore my Canadian pin the whole time and got a pleasant reception everywhere I went. So just for the record, particularly in Arizona, because I think they might be worried about the hit they're about to take from Canadians not going down there. And I read a few stories about Canadians selling their homes there. We've seen a little bit of that in Florida, but apparently it's a little bit more extreme in Arizona. But again, a friendly reception. But I think for anyone who's gone down to the US in the bounce coming out of COVID, you feel how busy the economy is. You're out at a restaurant, you're out at a mall, and that's something I do. I'm always watching. Because we think about these things, you and I. And it just seems like the business activity is still there. So I'm not surprised that the consumer number continues to look strong. And I guess that is another one that we're going to watch. For a sign that things are starting to weaken or that confidence is reduced because you'd expect businesses through uncertainty to go: we're not sure what way we're going to go. You'd think that that would trickle into the consumer. But the US consumer is an avaricious beast, I guess would be the word you'd use. The consumption is something we do in North America.

I did not know that was the word we use, but I like it. A little colorful language. That's quite right. The US consumer, famously, is keen on spending and has mostly held up so far. We do see some evidence that consumer confidence has softened. And I would think if tariffs stick and prices go up, we'll probably see some further diminished enthusiasm. To be clear, our forecasts do assume the second and third quarter are notably softer—not negative numbers or anything like that, but notably softer. So that's what we're assuming right now. If we get lucky, maybe some of these tariffs come off faster than we're budgeting for, and it doesn't have to be quite so visible, but there should be some softness. But going into this, it's not such a bad handoff.

So then let's come back home here and let's take a look at Canada. We had an election. We should probably talk about that, which is something quite interesting in terms of the way that played out. And we want to think about impact that that could have on the Canadian economy. And it's a Canadian economy that also had a negative GDP report. Is that one that has a little bit more concern to it? Because we were seeing immigration. We were seeing a pretty slow Canadian economy for a while. And then what do you think the new government is going to do to try and spur economic activity from a policy perspective?

Yeah. So Canada did seem to have a weaker GDP number. This was monthly data, to be clear. This is February data. We don't have the first quarter fully in place just yet. It was down 0.2 so obviously not ideal. Monthly numbers do tend to be choppier. I wouldn't say it was in the obvious places you would look if you were worried about the effect of tariffs. And so retail was flat. There were some weather impacts, lots of snowstorms across Canada in that month. So I suspect it wasn't quite as bad as that. But I would say the uncertainty effect has, I think, done real damage in Canada. And you may recall March employment. We were waiting on April till next Friday, but March employment was down. February employment was roughly flat. There has been some actual softness. The weird thing or the funny thing in Canada is we'd all been so fearful of those big blanket 25% tariffs, and they didn't come in early April. And so, again, this February data that was down. And so we didn't know that in February or in March. And we'll see, of course, where it all lands. But you almost debate, is there room for a bounce back in Canada? I don't think so. That's probably too cute by half. And I would say we should probably continue to expect some real caution in the numbers here. But a bit of softness there. Curiously, though, Dave, they also give a little hint as to what the March number might be, and they're looking at tracking a slight positive. That does let us piece together a possible Q1 number for Canada. Recall, the US number was minus 0.3 annualized. Canada is actually tracking between 1.5 and 2% positive annualized. There was a big January. So Q1 will not have been a disaster for Canada. I think there may be some softer bits toward the latter part of the quarter. And I think as with the US, we should be a bit nervous about Q2 and Q3, possibly having some genuine softness there. But that said, just hot off the presses in the last 24 hours is that, if I'm reading this correctly, Canadian auto parts will not be hit by the additional auto part tariff. So there is an auto tariff, and that is hitting Canada—it is consequential from an assembly standpoint—but the parts business is quite big by some metrics, more important even than the assembly business, I think, and so that part actually has dodged a bullet. So some positives there. And then the political side, Dave. And so, yes, I won't rehash all the election results. But of course, it was a liberal minority win, just short of a majority. In fact, I guess it settled at three seats, I think, short of a majority, though often there's a bit of additional accounting that dribbles on for a few days. And the close ridings, I think I read there's even some effort to flip some MPs, and maybe they can get themselves a majority, but I'm going to assume it's a minority right now.

I got my call, Eric. They called me, but I didn't actually win a seat. I said, hey, I'd help you out, but I'm not going to help you. They'll probably be calling you next.

Right. Fair enough. I do believe it needs to be someone with a seat, Dave. So we're lacking that important characteristic, but I'm sure we're completely qualified by every other metric. But from a policy standpoint, well, just looking at that liberal platform, I mean, the first thought is just keep in mind a minority government is in a trickier position and can't necessarily do everything it likes to do. And if the NDP is the most conventional dance partner for the Liberals in terms of forming a functioning government, keep in mind, even the two together don't exactly have a big honking majority. I think it would be a four-seat majority. You put a speaker in place and now it's three seats, and that's not a whole lot. And so it may be difficult to accomplish big things. If there was a big economic problem, I think everybody from all parties comes together. But short of that, it might be more difficult. Similarly, it's tricky because this liberal party, I would say, is pivoted more toward the center. And so from that standpoint, probably a little bit less ideologically aligned with a left-leading NDP, so a bit harder to find common ground, you might imagine. And then just similarly, and this was very much true regardless of which of the two leading parties had won, but it's pretty clear that economic policy is going to be the focal point, as it probably should be, just given the threat of tariffs and woeful productivity and so on going forward. There was probably more alignment between the Liberals and NDP over the last decade on social policy and environmental policy and things like that. We'll see just how well any alignment works. It might be difficult to get things done. We'll see how long anyone lasts as well. Now, I think it's going to last for a while because you've got an NDP that needs a new leader, and the Conservatives are sorting through their own bit of a mess in terms of their leader not having won his seat. And indeed, most of the parties probably are short of cash right now in a way that doesn't suggest anyone's looking for an election three weeks from now. But equally, you could imagine this is not necessarily going to be a totally stable, long, long-lived government. We'll just have to see. In terms of the policies, some fraction of them, if they get implemented, do seem to be reasonably pro-growth. There are some, I would say, very modest tax cuts being proposed. There are some potential enhancements to make it easier for resource projects to get off the ground. A fair push in the infrastructure direction as well. And a number of other fronts that I think you can say on the net do suggest at a minimum, more of a focus on the economy. And if I wasn't looking in the face at tariffs, which, of course, will be the dominant story in the near term, I would say, it can set Canada potentially for some extra growth and some resumption of productivity gains as well over the next several years. But right now, it's all about the tariffs. And I think we're probably in reasonably good hands in terms of negotiations on the Canadian side. That was true also four to eight years ago when those negotiations were last so critical. But so much of the decision making is in the White House hands that it's difficult to say whether the story is altered because one party versus another won a couple of days ago.

Well, I keep coming back to the first podcast that we did off the initial tariff announcement in late January. I know at different points, that podcast has looked incredibly prescient and then incredibly wrong. Almost hour to hour. But again, as I look back at it and put the total package together, it seems like it had a pretty good view of the way things would play out. And maybe I'm putting too much of a positive spin on this, but it looks like this was, again, more about a negotiation than a firm policy. As you posited, if you think the policy is right, just put the tariffs in place and go from there. But if you don't do that, then it seems like it's something else. And again, it's gone back and forth, and we're way too early to figure out exactly how this is going to play out. There's a lot of volatility in terms of some of the policy, but markets seem to be friendlier to it. And some of these numbers seem to suggest that business is certainly putting up a, hey, this is not what we want, but taking it in stride in terms of what they're doing behind the scenes. So I guess we'll wait for another jobs report next month to firm that up. The only other thing I just wanted to check in because I happened to be out in Alberta last week as well. Oil is now down well under $60. Natural gas, which had a little bit of a pop coming out of the election, has settled back down into around high twos, low three dollar in terms of the measure that's used there, the cubic metric super ton of natural gas—whatever that is, you probably know it off the top of your head. But any concerns for the commodity producing areas, oil, natural gas, and prices softening? And that does seem to be something that is going to hold in the face of current policy south of the border.

Yeah, well, certainly oil is lower, as you say. That wasn't your question, but in terms of why, of course, some of it is concerned about global growth. Some is just OPEC that seems to be opting to produce more, not less, and maybe punishing some of its non-compliant partners who have been overproducing themselves and creating a lesson in the need for them to cooperate. And maybe even as you hear little mumblings of US-Iran talks, perhaps that's at the margin also contributing to the lower oil because it speaks to the possibility of extra oil production out there. If you really wanted to squint your eyes, I guess «drill baby drill» is still theoretically an objective in the US, which could unleash US supply, though it doesn't seem to be quite as central to the narrative right now. And so the bottom line is oil prices are lower. I'm looking at West Texas, that's $59 as we're saying these words. And so that is pretty soft. And of course, that's net as support for global growth. And indeed, it's one of the possible offsets to tariffs. But of course, if you are an oil producer or a region oriented in that direction, of course, it's a negative. As I understand, and I'm sure many know better than I, but as I understand, prices of these levels are still viable in terms of being profitable and justifying ongoing production and so on. I'm speaking, I would say, both in a shale US context and an oil sands Canadian context. I think that continues. But of course, it's just less lucrative than it would have been. And it's a tricky moment because if you could imagine, hey, maybe resource projects get easier to implement going forward on the basis of government policy that streamlines perhaps the process, it's not necessarily the moment which you'd say, you know what I need? I need a 50-year commitment to a big new oil well. It is consequential and it is somewhat dimming for at a minimum, Alberta, but more broadly, you can say Canada as well. So that's in the mix, too, for sure. And you look at a Canadian stock market. The oil side is therefore not thriving to the same extent. The gold side, though, of course, suddenly has become quite a remarkable share of the Canadian market. And so it's good that even within a resource rubric that there is some diversity that exists in Canada and some resource prices are doing very well indeed right now. But on the oil side, yeah, it is somewhat more challenging. I would stubbornly say without necessarily a ton of credibility on this particular subject, fast forward a year and my guess would be oil prices will be higher, not lower. And that would be on the view that we'll be through maybe the peak pain point of any tariffs that do stick. I think that's going to be the next quarter or two. I think that OPEC is playing some games and likely will impose additional discipline and will choose to pull back. And I'm a bit of a skeptic on the Iranian deal type stuff, not that I have any business on that. But bottom line is, it wouldn't surprise me if oil was somewhat higher, but it doesn't seem like it's a triple digit environment right now.

Yeah. And you did make a really important point from a Canadian perspective. We produce a lot of gold, a lot of silver, a lot of copper, and those commodities have held up quite well.

Yeah, that's right. And indeed, the Canadian stock market, of course, is a funny beast and isn't exactly the most diversified across all the traditional economic sector and that sort of things. But it's holding up pretty well given some of the concentrations that it does have.

Yeah. And something we always say—I talk to a lot of advisors about this, and I was out with clients last week in Alberta—the question, when gold is hitting an all-time high, that's a typical question you get around a table with investors. For most Canadians, you have a diversified Canadian portfolio, or you have a Canadian index, you've got quite a bit of gold exposure in there relative to what you'd have out of some other areas of the world. So Eric, great. We got a lot covered in there. We covered a lot of ground. And we may check in with you a little bit early. We got that Canadian jobs report next week. If that's a stunner, we'll try and get you on again. But otherwise, we'll see you in a couple of weeks. Thanks for this. Just incredibly interesting times. Incredibly interesting.

Sure. Absolutely. Thanks, Dave. Thanks, everybody. Bye.

Thanks, Eric.