Inside Structured Leverage: The Artist Formerly known as Back Leverage

Ruth Harris:

Hello and welcome to this podcast on the evolution of debt on debt, or as those that may work in this area call it sometimes, back leverage. AJ and I have decided that we really should find a better, more attractive term for what is fast becoming a wide variety of approaches to managing credit exposures and optimising returns on those exposures. And this includes loan portfolios, but now goes way beyond debt on debt or back leverage. We're going to explore in this podcast how these financial techniques have evolved over the past decade or so, and some of the common drivers and themes that have shaped the market. I'm Ruth Harris, a partner at Ashurst in the global finance team.

AJ Storton:

And I'm AJ Storton, a partner at Art Capital. Just to introduce Art Capital, we are a UK-based real estate debt advisory business. Last year, we closed over two billion of loans across 25 deals in our first full year of trading. I joined Art Capital from JP Morgan in September 2025 and launched Art Capital Structured Finance. We've been working with a wide range of mainly debt funds to advise on back leverage and other structured leveraged products. And actually, it's just been announced that Art Capital have won Real Estate Capital's UK Debt Advisor of the Year, which is an amazing compliment for us in our first full year of trading.

Ruth Harris:

That's great. Well, congratulations on your award, and it's a real pleasure to have you with us on this podcast. So, shall we get started?

The idea behind this podcast is not to provide an educational guide on how to do back leverage. And if you want anything on that, you can visit our videos on structuring and documenting back leverage. What we're going to do on this podcast is look at the story behind back leverage. And AJ, you're perfect for this, because there's not much that you haven't seen when it comes to back leverage, having led the back leverage desk at JPM for the best part of a decade. Looks like a lot has changed in that time. So perhaps we could start with you telling us a bit about what it looked like when you started the BL business at JPM and how it has changed from then to now.

AJ Storton:

Sure. Look, European loan-on-loan has always existed in Europe in some form or other. And actually, I remember syndicating a loan-on-loan back in 2013-ish, I think. But back then, it was more opportunistic. It was probably drawn more out of structural necessity rather than this programmatic approach we have today. The back leverage market that we know and love today has actually evolved from a US repo product into the much talked about area of CRE finance that we're talking about now. CREFC Europe actually last year estimated that the total amount of back leverage financing in Europe is around 24 billion, which is up from 17 billion the previous year, although I suspect that number's significantly underestimated and has increased a lot since then. Interestingly, they estimated that there's over a hundred billion euros of capital raised, which can take some form of structural leverage, and 80% of debt fund managers plan to use back leverage in the next 12 months. Although from my experience, I think this number's significantly higher.

Ruth Harris:

That's really interesting. And I know you said there that you think that the volume of back leverage is probably more than the 24 billion in Europe that you mentioned, and those planning to use it, probably more than CREFC have reported there from their survey. I agree with that. And I think part of the reason there is that actually back leverage is such a wide term, it might not be actually that understood. Some people may include some things and not other things into that.

So maybe perhaps before we say too much more, we could explore what we mean by back leverage at its very simplest level, AJ. So what's the simple definition of back leverage?

AJ Storton:

In its simplest form, in my opinion, it's a form of synthetic, senior and junior.

Ruth Harris:

Now, for many people listening, that's not going to be the simplest form that you could possibly give. Come on, try a bit harder. What do you think is the simplest way of describing back leverage?

AJ Storton:

In its simplest form, it's lending to lenders, Ruth.

Ruth Harris:

So I remember the first time I started thinking about this was post-GFC when there were lots of loan portfolio sales, the NPL market. And we sort of used this term to talk about the investors borrowing to finance their acquisition of these loan portfolios. So that's where I think it came from. So that's right. That fits with your lending to those that are lenders.

AJ Storton:

You're right there, Ruth. And it's evolved since then. The mechanics and the mechanisms and the structures we use are more sophisticated, but yes, that's the basics of it and the origin post-GFC.

Ruth Harris:

Okay, I get it. So it is more mainstream, lots of different structures using these kind of techniques. So I kind of see it if you think about it in that way, it's investors in loans, so lenders, finding ways to enhance their returns on their loan commitments by finding sources of capital that are cheaper than the return on investment that's expected by their investors or their depositors. So I think that probably is our definition.

AJ Storton:

As I said, senior-junior.

Ruth Harris:

I knew you were going to say that. Okay. All right. So one of the key themes, I mean, we've just talked about it. There's obviously an investor, a lender that invests in assets such as debt exposures, and we'll come onto what kind of debt exposures. They're looking to raise money from those loans. So they can, well, let's think about it. They're going to recycle their capital. They're hopefully going to obtain cheaper finance than their cost of funds. That will therefore increase their rate of return. They might be using their underlying debt as collateral in whatever shape or form that collateral, if you like, may be, is in the shape of, like you say, a senior-junior, forward-facing or behind-the-scenes kind of credit, where the junior is credit support. Rather than collateral, it's just credit support for the senior. So the junior is the first loss, the senior is the first out. And so actually, AJ, I'm coming round to your way of thinking it's about this sort of senior junior position. I agree.

AJ Storton:

Yeah, exactly. And it can take so many different forms and it can be done for so many different reasons.

Ruth Harris:

Yeah, you're right. And now I'm thinking about it, back leverage perhaps isn't the right term because it's not always lending to lenders, which is what I sort of see as debt on debt or back leverage. And anyway, back leverage is just not a very attractive way of describing it. I did actually meet interestingly with David Fricker and Charlotte Carnegie at Wells Fargo, and they challenged me to come up with another term. What would you say? I mean, there's lots of ways perhaps we could describe it, but going back to your senior, junior, have you got any other words we could use to describe back leverage that makes it wider and encompasses a wider range of financial techniques?

AJ Storton:

I think that's an interesting idea. You're right that I think now, we're beginning to move beyond just back leverage. There's so many different types of synthetic leverage that are more structured.

So what about structured leverage as a term? I think it's a good way to encompass the fact that there's so many different CRE products, which in essence, always achieve the same result, which is this senior-junior position that I kept mentioning. But yes, you're right. It's not all back leverage now.

Ruth Harris:

I like that. I'm going to start using that. So I'm going to move away from back leverage. I'm going to say structured leverage and I'm going to

AJ Storton:

There we go.

Ruth Harris:

... attribute that to you. Nice one. Well, let's stress test it then.

So I've got a few quickfire questions for you so we can sort of see what falls into your definition and what might fall outside. So I'm going to touch on things like A/B loans, sub-parts, mezz loans, fund financing, but we'll go through these and see what you think.

So question one then for you.

Let's say that a bank lends to an SPV lender. That SPV lender is a subsidiary of a real estate fund. And to put the SPV lender in funds, the investment bank or whoever it is advances a loan to the SPV lender, and it uses that loan to advance to a property owner who is buying the property. So what would you call the loan from the bank to the SPV lender?

AJ Storton:

Yeah, that's exactly loan-on-loan. You just described classic loan-on-loan back leverage.

Ruth Harris:

Yeah, that was the easy one. That was framing it. So does it make any difference, would you say, if the SPV lender borrowed at the same rate that its investors expect by way of return? So it's not enhancing its returns, it's not doing anything like that. It's just taking some money to fund its lending. What would you say about that? Is that back leverage still?

AJ Storton:

I think that's a very, very interesting question, because the sort of traditional historic view of back leverage or structured leverage is that you are trying to boost your returns, it's debt funds taking leverage on their loans. But actually, there are some situations where the primary motive isn't boosting returns such as SRTs or a bank syndicating a junior piece, but instead trying to reduce the risk or the capital burden.

Ruth Harris:

Yeah. Okay. That's why I asked the question, because I think that's one of the motivations, isn't it? So there's a wide variety of getting into this, and we'll come on to that later. But okay, so I think I agree with you so far.

Let's move on to another quickfire. So what about if a lender, this is a different lender, lends to a property owner and then finds another lender to buy part of its loan. It agrees with that new lender that it can rank senior, but because of that, it's going to be paid a lower interest rate to reflect that risk. So there's a number of ways of doing that, as you know. Let's say the original lender just sells some of its loan commitments to that new lender and they agree that a borrower knows nothing about it. They just agree when the interest comes in, you get this, I'll get a bit more than you, and that's the deal. What about that?

AJ Storton:

So what you're describing there is a classic A/B structure where the leverage is actually behind the scenes. So there's still only one whole loan, but you're not creating a loan on that loan. So it wouldn't really fall into our description of back leverage, more into structured leverage. There are technical differences between the A/B enforcement into creditor agreements. As you said, it's behind the scenes. But again, it has lots of common features with back leverage, which is why it's structured leverage.

Ruth Harris:

Okay, that makes sense. Actually, I'm really liking this term, structured leverage. It makes more sense to me than back leverage now.

Ruth Harris:

Okay. Let me delve a bit deeper. What if the lender didn't transfer the full legal title to the loan to the new lender and only transferred the beneficial interest, so like a sub-participation, would you call that still structured leverage?

AJ Storton:

I think it depends on the motivation. If there's a fee strip or interest rate being taken, then I think yes, that is structural leverage. But if it's a sub-part that's being used for pure syndication purposes with a full pass-through, that's probably just structured lending.

Ruth Harris:

Okay, that's interesting. And then going back to the example about the A/B that you mentioned, if instead of it being behind the scenes, let's say now the borrower knows all about this and it just has two tranches of loan in the same loan agreement or two separate loan agreements, and one is subordinated and second pay and the other is senior at a lower interest rate. Would you call that back leverage? It doesn't feel like back leverage, but is it even structured leverage?

AJ Storton:

I don't think it is. I don't think it's back leverage or structured leverage. I think it's just structured lending.

Ruth Harris:

Ah, new term. Structured lending. Like it. Okay. And then so where would you put mezz loans?

AJ Storton:

Again, I think it's just structured lending.

Ruth Harris:

I like this. Okay. Holdco loans, I know what you're going to say, I think.

AJ Storton:

Yeah. Same thing. Look, structured lending again. This is what we just think of as traditional CRE lending at different levels into different vehicles.

Ruth Harris:

Perfect. It's really becoming a lot clearer for me and I hope the listeners can follow that, because what we've got here now is sort of back leverage, which may be a subset of structured leverage, but outside of that, we've got structured lending, which is when the borrower's fully in the picture and we've just got some sort of different kinds of ranking of loan, but there's nothing rinky-dink going on and nobody's really taking any fee strip or interest strip.

AJ Storton:

That's it. Hopefully our listeners are still with us.

Ruth Harris:

Yeah. well I won't push you much longer by, I'm going to ask you one more question before we move on, and that is just lending to a fund then.

So you're lending to a fund. I'm imagining if it's just a real estate fund, then that is just like a fund line, a nav line, a sub-line or whatever. But what if that is a real estate debt fund? So you're lending to a debt fund, but actually, that fund is investing in loans. So there is an element there, isn't there, of debt on top of debt. But what would you call that?

AJ Storton:

Yeah, exactly. And I think the fact that you're lending to a debt fund is where it moves from traditional fund finance into a more structured world. Without getting into all the technicalities, it depends where in that debt fund structure you're lending. Whether it's more sort of fund finance or if it's further down the structure into an SPV, it's probably more structured leverage.

Ruth Harris:

Okay. And then if you suppose you are lending down at the SPV lender level, it's a debt fund SPV lender, we're back to loan-on-loan. So we've done the full circle. That was interesting though. Sorry to push you through that, and hopefully you're right. I hope the listeners are still with us.

It is getting a bit more complicated in the market, and I know some of the listeners will be aware that this whole back leverage market is moving into more derivative type format. So I'm going to ask you one more question. What about if the underlying lender, instead of borrowing monies, just sells its loan to another entity on terms that it's going to buy that loan back in the future at a premium?

AJ Storton:

Yeah, that's right. So you're essentially describing repo there, in the traditional sense is where a loan or a bond is sold from a debt fund to a bank and the debt fund promises to buy that loan or bond back in the future at a certain price. That differs to how we think of loan-on-loan in the traditional sense in that the debt fund never actually sells the loan to the bank where they hold the whole loan and the bank simply provides a loan onto the debt fund's loan. They achieve the same thing, again, as I've said, but they are legally and technically different. Ruth, you're probably better placed to talk about it than I am though.

Ruth Harris:

Yeah, we probably see as much repo as we do loan-on-loon. And I know probably in the US it's used more. We're happy to sort of talk about that a bit more as well. We did do a video a little while back, which you can find on our website, about the repo format as well as TRS. So I think rather than talk about the derivative side of things now, AJ, I think it might be great to do a separate podcast to talk about some of these more derivative related structured leverage, if you like, if you are willing to do that.

AJ Storton:

Absolutely.

Ruth Harris:

I'm sure a lot of the listeners are thinking that they have seen this in the market. I think it's creeping into the market more, and I think it probably would be a good idea to get together our thoughts on that and you can tell us a little bit more about how that's evolving in the market.

AJ Storton:

Sure.

Ruth Harris:

Let's drill down now though into the underlying debt exposures and the assets that support the underlying debt exposure. Do you think that back leverage is more, let's say, typical or appropriate for certain types of credit?

AJ Storton:

I mean, generally it's for senior secured whole loans on average, but it could be for bonds, it could be for loan notes, it could even be for mezzanine loans or bonds. There are solutions for most types of underlying credit exposures, but on average, it's senior secured whole loans.

Ruth Harris:

Okay. And I imagine if it's a whole loan, that just makes it a lot easier.

AJ Storton:

Yeah. Again, back leverage or even structured leverage on a part of a loan is possible, but generally, the structured leverage providers prefer to be secured by a whole loan because if they were to step in, they want to be able to control that position, because if they step in, something's going wrong, so they need control.

Ruth Harris:

Yeah. Makes sense. Totally makes sense. What about, do you see those underlying exposures usually secured over the underlying assets? So secured over property, for example? Are they always supported by mortgages?

AJ Storton:

Yeah, usually they are. They don't have to be. It sort of depends on the underlying asset. So in real estate, yes, then you'd typically be secured by mortgages over the assets. But if you start moving into the ABS and ABF world, you might see consumer loans, car loans, credit loans, et cetera. So those are unsecured lending.

Ruth Harris:

Okay. That's interesting hearing you talk about not just real estate loans, but also more the ABS and the ABF world. But let's not go there at the moment unless you want to say something about that market. But I was thinking in the real estate debt world, I was going to ask you next, what are you seeing by way of those debt exposures that are suitable for structured leverage? Are you seeing a certain size or a certain jurisdiction, certain asset type? What do you see in that market?

AJ Storton:

There's lots of flexibility, lots of flexibility from size to jurisdiction, to whole loan, to back leverage pricing, to asset type currency. You can get structural leverage on a portfolio of loans, on single loans, on development loans. What you really need to do is find the right back leverage or structural leverage provider who can work with you and your origination capacity and build your business together.

Ruth Harris:

That's interesting. Thank you. Let's move on to why are people doing this? We talked about this a bit before the podcast, but what are you seeing? I mean, the market seems to be really buoyant, lots for new entrants, and that's for the providers of back leverage, as well as those looking to actually use back leverage. Why are you seeing the market so buoyant? What is making everybody look at this market and want to play a part? Maybe talking first from the sort of those that are using back leverage, why do they want to do that?

AJ Storton:

Yeah, so those using the back leverage at the moment are typically debt funds providing whole loans. And from their perspective, generally it is to boost returns, and they can do that through essentially owning the whole loan and owning a borrower relationship. What that means is they have the more flexibility on their origination. They're able to originate with borrowers that they know well, they know like, build relationships and essentially de-risk the loan or de-risk the senior part of the loan in the background and they control the whole process. And equally, if things start to go wrong, they have more flexibility in negotiating with the underlying borrower than they would if they were sat in a, say, structurally subordinated mezzanine position.

Ruth Harris:

That's right. They sort of own that relationship still, which is really important to some, isn't it?

And then I suppose taking it from the provider side, it's giving them, I suppose, greater exposure to an asset class that they might not be able to get a look in on and also maybe using someone else's resources to actually find that origination and just coming in, deploying their resources, but in a sort of lighter way. Can you think of any other reasons why? What are you seeing as the reasons for those taking or providing, sorry, the back leverage?

AJ Storton:

Yeah, you're right. Look, most structural leverage providers are using this as a way to supplement their direct lending origination efforts. So as you said, it's an extra origination channel, it can boost lending volumes. And for investment banks, it's a very capital-efficient way of doing essentially senior lending on commercial real estate. And then of course, there's a whole capital markets exit potential through CRE CLOs or CMBS, but that's a whole different topic.

Ruth Harris:

Yeah. Well, maybe that's another one for another podcast in the future, so we've got them all lined up. But you're right, that capital efficiency point for the providers of back leverage, I think sometimes some of the commercial banks now when they're providing the direct loans to the borrowers are finding it increasingly hard to compete because of the reg cap rules and they're finding it more efficient to actually get their money out there in this way. So we're hearing a lot from some of the banks in relation to that, which is really interesting. Who are you seeing? I mean, obviously now at Art Capital, you're going to be reaching out to a lot of your contacts on the buy side, on the sell side. Who are you seeing really active in this market, AJ?

AJ Storton:

Yeah, look, the large US credit funds and US investment banks have very well established platforms. They've transferred the technology and sometimes even the people over from the US, one of which platforms I ran at JP Morgan. I think the best way to navigate it is with an experienced advisor and a good law firm to make sure that you're getting the best deal.

Ruth Harris:

Of course you do. And no one better than Art Capital to do that. And I really mean that. I mean, there can't be many people, AJ, in this industry that have the breadth and depth of experience that you've got. And to help them guide them through the different interpretations of all the banking and capital regulations, the tax and accounting treatment, that is a real minefield. That's before you even lay over all the geographical differences and internal approaches. So obviously reach out to AJ if you want to be guided through this minefield, for sure.

AJ Storton:

I had a few questions for you, Ruth.

Ruth Harris:

Oh, okay. Go on then.

AJ Storton:

Is that okay?

Ruth Harris:

Yeah.

AJ Storton:

So they're slightly more from a legal angle, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. So as we know, structural leverage can take a number of different forms and the documentation can take a number of different forms. So it could be, I've seen MRA, I've seen GMRA, GMRA, I've seen LMA style. Who decides on each deal which structure, which documents to use?

Ruth Harris:

Yeah, that's a really interesting question. So it very much depends on which desk within the provider of the back leverage is leading, and of course, the law or location of the underlying asset or loan. So if it's a US desk, then it's going to be an MRA. And if it's a UK nexus, it's going to be a GMRA. But your question of who decides what format, then... So I suppose are you going to use a loan-on-loan or a repo, a repack to repo, a total return swap or an SRT or something else? I'd say that is driven primarily by the provider of the back leverage. They'll be looking at whether there are any constraints as an organisation, so what can they do, what can't they do, and also what structure will provide the best reg cap treatment. And so therefore, what structure will enable them to provide the best pricing for the advance to the back leverage taker.

It may need the financing to be a securitisation, for example, and that might be the best way for it to get the best price due to the sort of more beneficial risk weighting. But each case is going to be really different. So you need to consider lots of things like the reg cap treatment that I've just mentioned, tax and accounting considerations, as well as things like the jurisdiction of incorporation of the borrower. So of course, the characteristics of the underlying exposure will also be relevant. So you need to look at the underlying loan. Is it transferable? That might be important. And whether or not the underlying borrower is supposed to know about the existence of the back lever, or should I say structured lever?

So since so much time and money is put at the start to put these documents together, I'd say one of the other relevant factors is, are we going to be able to use this again? Are we going to be able to use this as a rinse and repeat by way of a programme or just using the same documents again? So that will be also at the back of everyone's minds to keep the cost as low as possible, but also keep that transaction speed as fast as possible. Other than that, can't really think of anything. But if some people think that I'll use a repack or a repo, or I'll use a loan-on-loan and they're guided by whether or not they can agree to a mark-to-market or variation margin or whether or not they can give recourse guarantees, I'd say that they're not associated with one or other product. So in my experience, it's not the case that you only get those structural features with a repo or a repack to repo. It could be on any format whatsoever.

AJ Storton:

Interesting. And got another question on securitisation. There are a number of banks who insist that back leverage or structural leverage is a securitisation. Some insist it's not. And clearly most non-bank lenders in back leverage don't need a securitisation. If I'm a back leverage borrower, should I be concerned or not concerned about whether the back leverage is considered securitisation or not?

Ruth Harris:

Okay. I think the answer is yes, the taker of the back lever is going to need to be switched on. Well, I suppose, so actually it first needs to consider whether the transaction is in scope and whether or not any specialised lending exemption would apply, even if it is in scope. But let's say it is a securitisation that's been chosen as the desired structure, then yes, the borrower or the seller, if it's a repo, is going to need to make sure it complies with all the relevant securitisation rules and regulations. So in short, you don't get those preferential rates for free. There's going to be some operational rigidities, unless you have got an exemption available, but assuming there's no exemption, you're going to need to comply with the risk retention rules. So they're going to need to hold onto a part of the exposure and sort of be frozen into a position where they can't sell that on, at least without unwinding the back lever.

And then there's the disclosure and transparency requirements. So that might mean there's more operational costs to make sure that you comply with that. And of course, they need to make sure that they haven't selected the exposure for the securitisation in a way that is adversely selecting for the securitisation so that they've used the same origination and selection criteria for the loans that apply to their non-securitised assets, if you like. So plenty to think about.

AJ Storton:

Interesting.

Ruth Harris:

AJ, do you know what? We're nearly out of time, but before we do close this podcast, I would just like to touch briefly on what we see as some of the key structural features, whatever format you're taking. So whatever you're doing, repo, loan-on-loan, something more rinky-dink, what are the structural features? Let's go top 10, shall we? What are we going to see in these structures in the documentation? So I'll go first to give you an idea. So we're going to see maybe recourse. So this is going to be talked about at the top. Sponsor guarantees, full or partial, non-bad boy guarantees.

What would be your choice of a structural feature?

AJ Storton:

I think whether it's single back leverage or whether it's an umbrella facility that covers lots of cross-collateralised loans and would probably have a diversification requirement.

Ruth Harris:

Yep. I would definitely agree with that. Reserve matters always come up. Lender consent matters, what's in the bag, what's not out, not in the bag.

AJ Storton:

Another one's mark-to-market. You could have spread mark-to-market, credit mark-to-market. I mean, there's multiple different types of credit mark-to-market, or even no mark-to-market.

Ruth Harris:

Very true. Enforcement. I mean, it's sort of in the lender consent matters, but I think a bit more detail on what happens when it all goes wrong, what's the workout framework? Definitely think we should discuss that at the start of any transaction.

AJ Storton:

I think touching on the diversification, you would have a ramp up and ramp down ability within a cross-collateralised diverse facility.

Ruth Harris:

Yeah. I like that one. And I suppose actually what I should have said before enforcement and workout, the default triggers, what are going to be the default triggers that send you into that process? So they are probably one of the top ones. What would be your last one? Have you got another one?

AJ Storton:

I think the last one would be a bit of a softer structural feature, would be ensuring that the valuation and DD processes of the underlying lender and the structural leverage provider are fully aligned.

Ruth Harris:

Yeah, definitely include that. Okay. Look, we've run out of time, but it was fun. I'd love to do it again sometime soon because there's so much more we can cover. I think we've sort of touched on things and then sort of shied away because we knew we wouldn't be able to get around to covering it in any decent detail. But let's get together again. What kind of things could we cover?

AJ Storton:

Look, I think it's a great idea. We could cover what to look for in your structured leverage partner, what the documentation and first transaction looks and feels like.

Ruth Harris:

Yeah. Like the first match, the making it official. I know that your colleague, Ella, had some great ideas on how to maybe follow on from this podcast. So we should definitely tune in with Ella and see what she suggests.

AJ Storton:

Hopefully.

Ruth Harris:

But we could also mention some of those structural features that we've just chatted through maybe in a bit more detail and what we're seeing as the common stances.

AJ Storton:

Yeah. And look, and maybe some of the other considerations such as whether the structure will be a securitisation. Some want it, some don't, as we discussed, or whether AIFMD2 is applicable.

Ruth Harris:

True. That's getting on the techie side, so might get some of my colleagues to join us on that certainly and for all the accounting tax and other reg considerations. But yeah, I think that is very worth doing.

AJ Storton:

Definitely. I think we should definitely get some guest speakers on. Lots to cover, and I'm looking forward to it.

Ruth Harris:

Yeah, me too. Okay. Well, listen, thanks to our listeners for tuning in. It sounds like there may well be more to follow. AJ, we know where to find you at Art Capital, and no doubt you'll be at MIPIM next week?

AJ Storton:

I am at MIPIM, yes. So look forward to seeing anyone there who wants to meet.

Ruth Harris:

For those that aren't at MIPIM next week, I know that Art are featuring at CREFC Europe Spring Conference on the 16th of April, and I'm sure they'll cover some of the points we've discussed today. And for listeners who don't know about CREFC Europe, it's an excellent working group. Look them up. You might want to join in some of the chats or some of the more detailed working groups that they run. They're super. And if you want to get in touch with any questions, we'd really love to hear from you and perhaps we can answer them on the next podcast.