Episode 55 - Code & Co.

Speaker A: Hey guys, I'm alex agren and this is the private equity technology podcast. Hey, welcome back to the Private Equity Technology Podcast. I'm Alex Agran here with co host Lisa Weaver Lambert. It's been a while, uh, but we're back. It's a brand new year and we're ready to talk tech due diligence, which is a topic that we've covered a couple different times. I think it's always a relevant topic because the folks that are doing the tech due diligence are really at the forefront of how technology is creating value in private equity owned companies today. And this one is a bit unique in that we're talking to a firm called Code and Co. This is a European based technology diligence company. We have not talked specifically to a European focused firm. And today we welcome in the founding partners Dan Bender and Lucas Ingelheim from Code and Co. Guys, welcome. Say hello.

Speaker B: Hi there. Thank you for having us.

Speaker A: If you would briefly tell us about Code and Co. What do you guys specifically do?

Speaker B: Right, happy to do that. Um, yeah, again thank you for having us. Code and Co. And the name does give it away already a little bit. We like tech and we are an independent advisory firm and we're specialized in advising global funds in. On tech and product due diligence. And uh, we do this, we've been doing this for the past seven years. We operate out of Berlin, Germany but we work globally quite a bit with US funds for example, but also mena, ah, um, UK of course and Asia. Um, and uh, I think what sets us apart is that we aim to function as translators, translators between the worlds of tech and product and business and finance. Because in, in private equity as you, as you know there are many stakeholders in every deal, right? There's, there's a deal team that you work with, there are other advisors as part of a deal. For example, open source is a topic that's both interesting from legal and a tech perspective. Um, and then there's the IC that the team has to go through and then there's secondary stakeholders such as lenders and WI insurers and, and our goal is that our work product which is a modern and holistic tech and product due diligence report answers the questions that each and every stakeholder may have to well dearly make a positive investment decision.

Speaker A: Thanks for that intro. Let's start with a topic that is of interest to me. Is there a big difference between. Given that you guys work with U.S. firms and European firms, is the tech diligence markedly different? In any way, uh, in Europe versus the United States, is it further along in one place or the other? Are there things that you're looking for in one place or the other? Uh, what's the difference between the two, if any?

Speaker B: Right. I think it's an interesting question. And uh, I think on the one hand side, the um, TechD market in the US tends to be a bit more mature in a sense that doing tech due diligence alongside, you know, commercial and tax and legal and all that other stuff has been around for longer than in Europe. But Europe is, you know, not like far behind. But it's. I would assume that in the U.S. you know, in Europe sometimes we have calls with funds and they're like, hey, this is the first tech that we're doing, right. And we kind of explained it a concept. And in the U.S. you wait, there's

Speaker A: still funds that are doing this for the first time?

Speaker B: Yes, absolutely. Especially when you're doing not just technique, you're not a tech first investor, but you're also doing like tech neighbor investments. Right. Then you're kind of easing into this idea of that tech is the, a core, a primary value driver. Right. And therefore, you know, if the services bit was bigger than the tech enabled bid, then maybe so far you've gotten away without doing a tech dd. But this changes, right? And everybody understands that tech is a big decision maker or a difference maker, Apologies. And therefore, um, more and more funds do it. And I think, yeah, but there are funds that do it for the first time. And uh, we're happy when they find us because we aim to ensure that the work product that we deliver does not require a CS degree.

Speaker A: I'm sure you're happy. You'll look like you'll be a hero.

Speaker B: Well, we try to be supportive.

Speaker C: Yeah. Dan, how does your work then stack up, um, against the advisory firms? What was the gap in the market you saw? Because the advisory firms are moving rapidly into this space as well. And also the commercial diligence. Typical firms that P go to, um, are trying to get into tech diligence and have partners that do that. So how have you created your space in the market? What's made you different?

Speaker B: Excellent question. I think the key difference is what I said in the beginning. This is why it's so important to us. We try to not be smarter than anyone else that are in the room. Like everybody, um, that is part of these conversations has achieved something quite remarkable. Right. The private equity guys are smart. The companies they're auditing, the fact that A PE talk to them in order to invest in them means they've built a successful organization. Right. And I think we just try to add value in a sense that we try to understand as much as we can and aim to be forward looking and quite uh, constructive. And we kind of stumbled into this industry. A friend of ours actually who's an M and A advisor, he was raising funds for the startup in Berlin, like a csb, CSC kind of situation. He was like, guys, you speak both tech and business and I kind of don't really understand what they're doing here. Can you help me translate? And this is how this whole quote unquote thing was born. And uh, in the past seven years we built it into a small boutique firm that focuses on exactly that, understanding tech and helping people and translating this into something that uh, investors care about, which is their investment hypotheses. Right. And I think that's a key difference. So we try to be modern, we try to be holistic and also quite importantly, we don't aim to deliver an itd. Right. In the end it doesn't matter whether you use Java or JavaScript, Ruby or whatnot. Right. It's about can you deliver on your core value proposition, are there hiring constraints or so. Right. The actual technology is not that important. And so we try to take a fairly commercial view. So we dive deep but then dive back up in order to answer questions from a commercial perspective, which is the perspective that the investor cares about more than the pure tech perspective.

Speaker A: Doesn't it kind of matter if you're using Ruby though?

Speaker B: Well, I'm a person, I'm a huge fan of. Fan, huge fan of Ruby. So, but yeah, I mean obviously there's, there's, I think that's a. You're raising. I mean you were joking. But this is, this is a good point. Right. In the end there's um, there's specific technology for specific use cases. Right. And our job is to understand is the technology in use able to, you know, help the company continue to grow in the future. And, and that's, that's what we get excited about.

Speaker A: Yeah, there's, there's, there's so many other things too, right. In, in certain markets, the talent that's available though now with a lot of people, okay. With the stay at home, you can find talent in anywhere in the world really now, nowadays. Right. It's, you're not just saying, hey, we're in Chicago and there's a big dot net market here and so I'm going to build that way because I can find the talent. You can go anywhere now to get to talent. It's really kind of it, it's almost become to the point you're making less important, uh, because you can go global and find uh, people to help.

Speaker C: I'd uh, love to get into the talent in your business. So what is the operating model? Do you have fixed term employees? Do they do consulting work as well or do you subcontract?

Speaker B: Uh, actually we don't subcontract and maybe that's another differentiator to others. Um, we figured, um, we've seen reports from others that are known to subcontract and some of which are amazing, some of which not so much. And we just said we are a boutique firm and we aim to build relationships with the funds we work with. And this works really well. I mean we've sort of like a 100% wallet share, uh, with many of our funds. So we built like really trustful relationships with them. And I think one of the key things while we are able to do that is because they want to talk to Lucas or David or Andrew or myself and they reach out and they get us on the line. And it's not just freelancers that then deliver on this project. So we have a dedicated team. The team is spread out and because we're remote first, that's us.

Speaker A: Let's talk about just tech diligence itself for a moment. For folks that aren't familiar with it, we've talked about it, like I said in the beginning, we've talked about this topic a couple different times. For people that might be tuning in first, not so familiar with tech diligence. Can you give an overview and let's keep it from what we'll call a tech enabled business versus a software business because we do try our audience, uh, we're really trying to teach people a bit about what from a technology perspective where value creation, uh, lies in the portfolio. Companies and folks that are running software firms kind of get it already. Right? So that's why we talk more tech enabled. So from a tech enabled perspective, when you guys are doing tech diligence, maybe just the high level bullets of what an engagement looks like for you guys in terms of the boxes that you're looking to check, the conversations that you're looking to have, uh, and where you're uncovering the value for your clients.

Speaker D: Right.

Speaker B: Um, so I think if I were to summarize tick toc in a nutshell, I would say it's about identifying opportunities and risks, right? That may impact asset valuation but also hopefully accelerate growth. So we look at three things, or actually three plus one things. We always say tech, product, organization, capabilities and then the plus one thing is situation specific. So what does this mean? Um, a product is kind of the art of knowing what not to build. Right. So is a team able of deploying resources effectively and can they alleviate pain points for their customers? Right. Do they um, have an efficient onboarding process? What are the data integration strategies to for example support, land and expand, um, um. Opportunities. Opportunities. Then tech is what you would probably expect from an itd and that is all the hard facts such as architecture, infrastructure. We briefly talked about, um, Ruby or not or Net or whatever. Right? So which technologies are in use? Are they up to the task? We look at security, we look at um, resilience, business continuity, we look at machine learning, IP and open source, which I said in the beginning is both a legal and a tech topic. Right. So there's a lot of conversations between the legal DD stream and us. And then lastly engineering people and processes. This is, you know, agility, software development, life cycle, uh, are there any key person dependencies? So if this person leaves the team, you know, one knows how to operate the software anymore. But also tech that, and that's a topic I could talk about for a long time. I will not bore you guys, but just you know, very briefly, um, we're here to answer a business case profitably, right? So it's okay to take shortcuts and learn from customers. So we're big fans of taking up, you know, some sort of tech debt. But it's just um, you need to, need to have a process in place to stay on top of that. Right? Is this kind of tech debt, is the shortcut really, um, an abbreviation, something that allows us to accelerate or is this something that may hinder us in the future?

Speaker A: You want to define tech debt for people listening?

Speaker B: Sure, of course. So yeah, tech debt is when you take a shortcut and this is something that is um, a shortcut that may lead to um, potential um, gaps in the future. For example, because you don't think about edge cases or you hard code, something even, or just some performance constraints if you hit a certain threshold of scale. And that's perfectly fine because it's much easier to build in the beginning, but you need to be aware of it and at some point you need to probably address it and other types of tech that you do not. And um, and yeah, this is how we define it and this is also how we look at it, it's okay to be fast, but you need to be careful in the sense, um, that you want to stay on top of the shortcuts that you took.

Speaker A: Real quick though, there's no avoiding tech debt really. Right. Even if you're. Sometimes you're not taking shortcuts purposefully necessarily. Right. Just the function of the business at the time and the speed at which you need to work. It's m. From my perspective, it's a lot of what you said, but it can be a result of that was the nature of the business at the time. And now the business is different, it's grown, it's changed. And so you've got to go back and update. It's really update old technology, uh, to either fix something or modernize it or allow it to scale or name something else.

Speaker B: Right. I guess in the end it's a suboptimal solution to a problem. Right. And this suboptimal solution may incur interest over time and therefore you want to take care of it potentially, um, possibly likely, maybe even so, when you guys

Speaker A: are doing uh, your in the tech enabled diligence that you guys have done, uh, and maybe it's in, in this product diligence as well, what are some of the big, are there commonalities that you're finding in the diligence you're doing that you kind of go and you're like, yep, data is a huge opportunity if we're able to do X, Y and Z. Or are there a bunch of things that you guys are seeing as you go still from diligence to diligence? Or is it really just. I know there's a uniqueness to every single one, but are there commonalities?

Speaker B: Right? I mean, there sure are, and especially in private equity. And this is both for tech first and tech enabled businesses. When you look at more, um, mature businesses, some businesses are decades old. You know, some of them maybe remain a bit worried of open source. So they have something called the not invented here syndrome in the sense that, um, unless we've written it ourselves, we cannot trust it, which is wrong. Open source is the backbone for code that was developed and maintained by the community of thousands of developers, um, globally. And um, there are companies that we've seen that just have not yet caught up to this trend. And this eats into their velocity, of course, and leads to, well, worse code that's harder to maintain at slower development speed. That's one thing. Um, we see more and more that composability of software is important because we live in an integration, uh, economy, of course there's specific solutions to most problems and good companies are good at orchestrating different uh, solutions. Um, this is again both true and sometimes even more true for tech enabled businesses because they may not even have the resources that a quote unquote tech first organization has. So um, they need to be more um, creative in finding um, shortcuts. And these shortcuts may also involve, you know, finding partners, third party services, integrations you can rely on for example. Then things such as the move to the cloud from on premise installations, which puts a lot of pressure on teams in a sense that you suddenly also need to operate software. Right. You don't just ship it anymore, but you need to operate it on behalf of your customers. So you need to be available for support, you need to continuously roll out updates, et cetera, et cetera. So they're common themes that we have observed over the last years. But as I said there's of course a degree of uniqueness to every deal that we do.

Speaker A: What about if I were to go into that last one a bit? Uh, the last one about the cloud? Uh, are you, do you guys see between us and Europe, is there a difference there in terms of businesses that have already moved to the cloud versus ones that are still on prem?

Speaker B: I would say there's not a huge difference. There are large companies, maybe we've seen a bunch of companies in the US that were um, more behind, uh, in a sense more on premises than in Europe. But this is also because their tech companies, just more tech companies that have been around and successful for decades. Right. So uh, Europe's Internet economy is a bit younger in general. So, so there's even the large, there's many larger companies that have already caught, you know, um, joined the cloud train. Others, you know, um, in the US could be a bit more old school, but this is because they've been around maybe 40 years or so.

Speaker A: Yep.

Speaker B: Yeah. And maybe regulation is also a catalyst.

Speaker D: Right.

Speaker B: That we see. That's a difference. So it's not necessarily cloud only, but just impacts every type of the business. But for example in Germany we have GDPR, um, and the U.S. except for California, it doesn't really have one, uh, sort of unified protocol for handling um, user, um, privacy and user data. Right. So there's certain limitations in Europe, um, that also impact technology.

Speaker C: And Dan, how do you quantify the value of the different areas that you're talking about? So when you bring a tech diligence back to the investors, beyond the sort of licenses, etcetera the obvious cost areas. How do you, how do you assess the value of what you're proposing or assessing?

Speaker D: Mhm.

Speaker B: So we've been doing this for seven years. Ish. And we've done, I want to say 250 or 300 yields all over the world. So we've seen quite a bit in various stages of maturity. So we can tap into a fairly large trunk of data ourselves in order to benchmark. And then obviously there are industry related best practices and that's, that sort of feeds into a um, rating matrix and framework that we have developed over time. But also something that we truly care about is we want to be forward looking because you know, by the time you mandate a techdb, um, the investor has invested probably months of effort in you know, market, um, analysis. Talk to competitors, talk to customers, talk to maybe they've completed a CDD already. So the commercial, um, due diligence already. Um, and so there it's, it's confirmatory. Right. Unless you guys find something truly critical, we want to invest and if you find something truly critical, we want to know is it repairable or not. Right. So, so we try to both qualify, um, the opportunity, um, that exists in both things that a company is good at. Moats for example. So those are usps, but also in shortcomings and gaps of a company, like if you fix this, this could turn into that. And we want to quantify sort of materiality, uh, of the findings. So what's the potential revenue impact? Right, so both from a bowl and a bear case perspective. So a glass half full and half empty perspective.

Speaker C: All right.

Speaker A: If I were to turn to forward looking, uh, what the future holds for, call it tech diligence. One of the things that I've been uh, expecting and it's playing out a bit, is PE firms starting to build out these capabilities. Even the ones that are buying tech enabled companies starting to build out operating teams that can do the diligence, the tech diligence themselves. Uh, so I guess the question is, are you guys waiting on a knock from a PE firm here soon to bring you guys in house? Um, and that's half a joke, but also it serves as the basis for hey, what are you guys seeing in terms of PE firms competing with you? I'm sure as Lisa noted before, there's plenty of advisory firms out there and other firms doing tech diligence. But um, are the PE firms. We're seeing some movement over here. Are you seeing movement there?

Speaker B: First of all, yes, we do. And something that we really like about US Funds is they have, very many of them have operational teams. And that's um, a trend that's kind of coming over to Europe too. But it's still relatively new for many funds. So we love the fact that in us um, private equity funds, um, um, actively guide value creation. This is not to say that European funds do not do that. Um, um, of course. But this is, this is to say that there's more structure and more maturity in a sense. Hey, we've acquired the company now what? Right. And our report tries to support this in the sense that one, we, our findings are forward looking. But two, we use proprietary software that we've built, we call it bionic. That um, allows us to not only do our work better but also sort of export, uh, for the lack of a better word, like value creation roadmaps. And then we present our findings to the former targets, now portfolio firms in order to support them. Um, but. Yeah, yeah. Did this answer your question?

Speaker A: Yeah, I think it's really a function of. Do you see there'll probably always be a market for external tech diligence because certain firms just can't bring their own team in house. Right. Um, I guess the question is more along the lines of just like how um, how much competition do you guys are you getting now from just in house private act, uh, in house tech diligence teams. Um, and do you see that increasing?

Speaker B: Um, actually no. Um, I mean we love working with operation teams like operating partners. We have tech ids, um, with summer funds where the operating partners actually participate in our workshops. And we think that's great because we do. You know, again this is confirmatory.

Speaker D: Right.

Speaker B: So once if we find um, that the company is good and the fund wants to invest and we learn so much in such a short amount of time that um, after the acquisition they can begin with the value creation process. So it's great to have people that remain well involved in the long term as part of these DD workshops. And in terms of competition, um, regarding in house DD, I mean PEs finance deals. Right. So you do LBOs and stuff like that. So you need, and for that external advisory work. And external uh, unbiased opinions are super helpful. Right. So uh, funds evaluate um, outside in opinions. So um, I don't think there's a huge competition when it comes to in house dd. But I very much value the fact that more and more funds greatly care about the results of techdd in order to accelerate growth afterwards.

Speaker D: I think I would totally agree with Dan. I mean in the end it's not a choice of the pe, um like to fully in house every dd um that they can. Right. It's almost like the external stakeholders require them to have um, um external advisors that are independent. Right. And um, therefore I as a lender or WI insurance believe that whatever this DD report says is true. Right. So if a dd, If a um. Sorry, if a PE would do every DD stream in house, um, then I as a lender or WI insurance would be a bit cautious of the findings likely. Right. So I feel more comfortable um, as a lender, as an example um to lend out and finance this deal if I don't know. McKinsey said the uh, CDD is great, market is growing and stuff like that. If a leading law firm is doing the legal due diligence and then code and co for example is doing a tech and product DD instead of an internal team of operating partners that is on the payroll of the fund is doing the UM DD in house and nobody else from m the outside uh is um, giving an um opinion that is um, almost like very objective and not subjective to the fund and internal um, politics for instance.

Speaker C: So I'd like to ask um, Dan and Lucas about their experience in investors understanding and integrating what they're finding in the tech due diligence into the value creation plan or into the investment thesis. So what I've seen, when there's three parties, there's a financial DD done by one party, there's a commercial DD done by another and then tech or you know, sometimes it's ops and tech takes very much a third position and it may not be red because it doesn't have the numbers in it that are contained within the financial and the commercial due diligence. And I've come across situations where um, yeah, investor. Investors have missed key elements that are going to be important for the value creation because this triangulation hasn't taken place. But I'd like to get your perspective what's going on and how do you get your. How do you get your insights to land?

Speaker B: Um. I think, I think it's a great question. I'm smiling because I think um, in the end the beauty of our job and this is m why we feel quite fortunate to be in this position. Ah. And this role is one. Tech is most of the time repairable and even gaps, once you fix them can become actual strength. Like monetizable strength. Right. So um, there's a lot of opportunity when it comes to tech. Um, obviously you cannot force anyone to read the report and grasp these Opportunities. But I think the general trend is so strongly towards many, many tech themes such as you know from on Prem to Cloud, SaaS as a distribution um, model but also as a billing model like recurring revenue, all that stuff. There's so much opportunity that people are just quite motivated to explore these topics. Um, and um, I think something that's also worth mentioning is that in general just you know tech is sort of the core investment hypothesis for or many tech topics are core investment hypotheses even for tech enabled businesses. Right. Because you want to you know, increase efficiency, pay down key personal risk and all that stuff. And technology can help here. So we've seen that um, companies are actually quite keen to, or funds are quite keen to, to explore findings. And um, how do we make it land? I think first of all our report is a product. It's, it's not. Well it's a PDF as an interface but it's a product. So the report I can share with you guys today will be different um, to the report from last week or two weeks from now. Right. So, so our software helps us here in a sense too. We try to iterate very very quickly with the um, feedback that we get from our clients. We recently added like a uh, specific overview chapter and more graphs to just kind of visualize the impact that we expect from our findings. Um, without forcing anyone to read the words I guess. Right. So it's not just like a word document with text but it's also fairly visual. We iterate very quickly as a, as a living product. So I think we've heard quite often um, which is a key metric for us is hey, I've Never read a DD TechDB report before or I've never understood these findings to guys. This is the first, first report that I actually understood and so I think it's about making it digestible. It's about um, trying to be optimistic and forward looking and yeah, I think that's, that's. How would it, how I would answer it.

Speaker C: Do you standardize the reports for PE firms as well? So when you're working with one firm it sounds like you have a mechanism to standardize the output so that there are comparables for the investors.

Speaker B: Absolutely. That's quite important to us. We, we as a small firm we really want to build relationships. Right. So we have funds that do two dozen deals a year or so with us and we know what these guys are looking for and therefore the report structure and the report findings also mirror that too. So we emphasize and deprioritize Specific items for specific funds. Um, and we do continue to do so as we get to know funds and their needs, uh, better. Right. So there's funds that care. We have funds that care so much about security. I mean, everybody should do that. Right. But they care just more than others about the topic of security. So this is. If there's something that's not great, this is an idiot immediate red flag on a board. Other funds, they care more about, I don't know, product topics. Right. Um, and therefore we try to, um, configure M, I guess, or customize by fund as we learn about them and their needs. And then this leads to standardization. Yes.

Speaker C: And you must get pulled into value creation as well. So do you go down that, uh, path or do you just stay in the diligence area?

Speaker B: Uh, the latter, actually. Don't do value creation work. I mean, we always offer, we never charge for that actually, because we think the difference, um, between tech and other DD streams is that the company, sort of the company that's being assessed needs to invite us. Right? They need to draw up architecture diagrams, they need to share their roadmaps with us. They need to share the internal diagrams with us. So they need to do some work for us. So it's a Q and A and there's not much work that we can do from the outside sign. Um, and this means that we kind of almost want to give back.

Speaker D: Right.

Speaker B: Because teams tend to be, we tend to have really good relationships with the teams too because we're all relatively young and we're techies ourselves. We're not kind of the suit wearing consultant type of guys, but we're more techies ourselves. So we speak their language as well. And we speak the funds language, um, uh, too. And I think for both sides it's a very, uh, constructive, uh, relationship. So after a dd, we always offer a readout and repair like a value creation roadmap and things like that. Um, but we don't stay involved in long term. We're very happy to make recommendations because we have a fairly broad network of partners, but we wouldn't have the resources to stay involved in a very long term.

Speaker C: I just want to go back to your core team, um, internally. How do you maintain the edge of your skills and um, keep them up to date across all these different areas of technology and different industries. How do you approach that, growing your team?

Speaker B: That's a great question. I think, um, my answer would be we get paid to learn. Right? We learn so much from every company that we audit. So it's not just us auditing others, but it's very much us also learning from other firms. And you know, from growth stage to two companies that are public and have been taken private again. So we've seen so much and every day we actually had a workshop just before this call. We learned about a really nice way how they onboard their um, new joiners. And that's something you know, that we will almost take from them. Right. That's something that we, that we benefit from too. And this is, this is really, really important to us. Also when we look for new colleagues, we'd like people that um, show excellence in a very healthy interest in learning and in both tech and the commercial side of things. Because again we're translators right between these two worlds. That's, that's one, one answer. And the second answer would be um, we use.

Speaker A: We.

Speaker B: We have invested about five or for the past five years we've had a dedicated development team working on our internal software bionic. Um, and this helps us spot trends. Right? And this helps us spot themes and, and we can, we can sort of almost generalize and I don't want to say forecast, but we can see trends as they evolve. And this also helps us to stay up uh, to date if that makes sense.

Speaker D: Maybe something to add to that is also for us uh, in the end it's really hard to find people that are like us. Right. Um, so by that I mean they have um, professional experience in both technology and or product. Right. As well as um, business uh, and finance. Right. So feel comfortable to be a translator between those two worlds. Which is in the end our profession. So we rather. So we optimize uh, for quality and experience when onboarding new people rather than just like onboarding a bunch of new um hires without um, looking at that or not requiring this as um, a core requirement for joining Code and Co. So for us uh, we uh, grow slow on the people side and optimize for uh, finding really excellent people that are also interested in for uh, instance becoming a partner at Code and Co. Right. So following this boutique approach and therefore also uh, this was the reason we didn't really want to grow and uh, accelerate uh, our business with freelance support because quality control and also making sure that we stay uh, on top of trends, uh, for us really important and therefore we want to make sure that almost like the quote unquote house view is always the same regardless of who's doing the dd. Um, and it's not like changing depending on who's being staffed on what project right. So for us, um, this is key. And yeah, we try to, um, add quality control and scalability into our business with the help of software as much as possible. Um, as well as then focusing on very senior hires.

Speaker A: Dan and Lucas, thank you very much for the insights for being with us today. Where can folks find out more information about code and co?

Speaker B: You, uh, can head to our website@, um, codecode.com um, or you can shoot us an email, first name odenco.com so be Lucas or Dan, codenco.com and yeah, thank you so much for having us and for your questions. A pleasure and pleasure to join you guys today.

Speaker A: All right, guys, thank you, thank you.

Speaker D: Thank you very much.

Speaker A: Thanks for listening to the private equity technology podcast. Please support the production of this podcast by subscribing in itunes and leaving a review. If you want to reach out with any questions or comments, you can get me at alexagrenmail. Uh.com that's a L E X a G-R-A-N dot com.