Layered: The Business of Additive Manufacturing. Greg Morris
Welcome to Layered. The business of additive manufacturing. Brought to you by Xerox. I'm Todd Grimm, a 32 year veteran in the additive manufacturing industry. The future of additive manufacturing is promising and exciting, yet many challenges lie ahead. Our goal is to be your source for reliable information backed by data and presented by the experts.
We address some of the major issues manufacturers are facing with additive manufacturing solutions and how they are approaching adoption of technology in their own workflows and industries. Through conversations with industry experts, we discuss the complexity of offerings, technology compatibility and best practices and integration, among other topics. We're here to navigate with you these big questions as we talk about the business of additive manufacturing.
In this fourth episode of Layered, we've invited Greg Morris to join us. Greg is chief executive officer of Vertex Manufacturing, which is a Cincinnati area contract manufacturer with an emphasis on Metal AM. Vertex serves the industrial markets and is the production arm for medical parts from PrinterPrezz, which recently acquired Vertex. Now it's very likely that you know of Greg and respect his knowledge and experience since he has been in the metal additive game since 2003. 19 years ago, his company, Morris Technologies, was the first in North America to install a metal additive manufacturing machine.
Through lots of research and development. That company did some fantastic things. Then in 2013, GE Aviation acquired Morse Technologies, and Gregg served as growth and strategy leader for additive technologies through mid 2018 after a two year hiatus. He co-founded Vertex. Write welcome, Greg, to the program.
Thank you. Well, no, thank you. I appreciate your time, Greg. I'd like to start with a question. Based on you being in the industry metal additive manufacturing game, I should say, for two decades. So in those two decades, how far have we come? What has changed? Only a fair amount has probably changed relative to some of the technology.
You know, I'll focus a lot today on probably what I would call the metals portion of additive just because that's where I have a lot more of the back room. But clearly in polymers and other materials, there's been a lot of change. But, you know, there's been huge amounts of change relative to new machines, new OEMs creating machines. You know, all these all these technologies are fantastic and enabling and doing wonderful things. But we've had talking for how long now as an industry about how can the technology really get itself inserted into mainstream production and get it get more widespread, you know, be in more OEM shops or be utilized more? You know, it's almost like Groundhog Day. I mean, we go back to the I go back to ten years ago when I was trying to be out there, along with many other people in our industry trying to sell additive as an enabling technology and the capability.
Today, interestingly, there are some companies clearly that have embraced additive. We know many of those publicly at this point and what their applications have been. But wow, there's still a lot of companies that have very little true understanding of how additive can affect them or how additive can enhance their products, reduce their cost, perhaps reduce their lead times. So I find myself sometimes, ironically, talking to some of these companies and I scratch my head. Major OEM still global players who are now wanting to jump into additive.
And let me just you know go off on a tangent on additive metals. There's one OEM that's an international company. They are sophisticated, they're big. And recently they've approached us to say, hey, can you help develop or can you grow these parts that we need to have made in metal? We looked at the parts and clearly they were just machine parts in the file that basically a traditional design being sent out. So there was no design element given on their part.
So I find that stunning to some degree because we're now in a position of having to go and educate them as to you. You can do that maybe, but you're not going to get an optimal result. So those are examples. Well, I heard you explicitly state, you know, the why do you use it? So the value proposition, the benefit for the company. Then you also explicitly stated, you know, that was not designed in this example you offered for additive. It was obviously a machined part, which makes it not an ideal candidate.
What about everything in between materials, material capabilities, material qualification, QC workflow? Or are people also blind or inexperienced at this present time in the fall? It's called the entire workflow to go from idea to deliver part. I think it's a great observation. It's not just I mean, it's very simplistic to think, in my opinion, you put a machine in and you hit the go button. And yes, technology has come a long way. We've taken some of the
guesswork and the and the blackmagic out of out of how to work with these technologies, not all of it. Clearly, there are still things that are frustrating to operators of the equipment. But, you know, to go in simplistically with I just put a piece of equipment on the floor and expect that I'm going to have parts that I can functionally use in my products is is a bit naive. And and I'm not being critical of that. I'm just saying it's eye popping to me.
How many companies really do not have their arms around the basic elements of additive how to design for it? How do you qualify it? What kind of different technology machines are out there? What are the pros and cons of each? Frankly, that's why there are a number of folks that are out there helping to advise is because I think people need a lot of guidance. And this is I see it on my level, which is as a contract manufacturer or service provider, if you will. I'm sure you and others see it on a different level, and it exists by and large. The majority of people are nowhere near where some of some of the OEMs have been able to get to. So, you know, the famous examples of the OEM OEMs we know about that have embraced additive, you know, they've spent millions, they've put a ton of people into these positions. They're well on their
way. But there are many who are just now basically dipping their toe in the water. What elements have causes? Are these people lazy? Do they want to be deaf, dumb and blind? Is it an industry problem? Is it a technology problem? Is there one or two things that you can point to and say that's where the difficult that's where the challenge originates from that makes them less experienced than they need to be. Yeah, that's a great question, too.
I mean, I you know, my theory would be I think change is hard. And I think some companies are more adept at embracing change and innovation and others are not so much. I think some people embrace the technology and love technology will jump at it. Other companies, their culture is one of them, not so much. And you can understand that if you have a system, if you have a company that's producing the product, you pick the product doesn't matter and you're profitable and you're successful. Unless you're goaded into trying something different, there's not a huge amount of incentive to say, Let me be innovative.
So it takes really from the top down. In many cases, it takes support for these engineers and designers to say, Yeah, I want to go ahead and jump into a new technology. They have to have that support from the top. And if that culture doesn't exist in the company and it's not I'm not faulting that because I think there could be very good reasons why one doesn't want to just constantly try new things that's expensive and risky. And, you know, most people are risk averse. But,
you know, I think a culture of innovation is super important. And I think that's what's left. It's not the people are lazy. It's not people don't want to do it. And I think many engineers and designers really love the idea of the space opening up. So that's broad. I think in a in a
more a more specific reason could also be if there isn't that support mechanism or if they haven't taken that journey yet because they've been busy or whatever the case is, where do you start if you're an engineering designer? I mean, it's easy to say, Great, I'll go print something. But this is the situation you end up. It's exactly what I described before, where we're getting a traditionally manufactured, whatever it was, six or seven traditional machine parts that obviously would get praised or well together said to us to say, Can you go print this? And clearly they're all machine parts so they don't know where to start. Is the other problem they don't really have the background of how do I even begin to design for additive? And I am extremely sympathetic to the the issue of there are multiple different technologies, there are multiple different modalities within those technologies. And so if you're talking metal or you going to design for laser powder bed fusion directed energy deposition, electron beam, binder jet, you know, what are you going to what are you going to design to? Because all of these technologies have pros and cons and nuances that you need to be aware of.
Yeah. Another challenge that I see is. Chicken and the egg. So let's say we have an investment of time and resources and management support to master design for additive manufacturing in this class of technology. That's great. But if you don't have the support and the follow through in actually doing the part production, the quality control, the characterization and knowing what you're going to get out, you've just invested your time and it's all for naught because you don't have the rest of the team supporting you.
So, you know, that's back to your where do we start? You pick where you want to start. But you may also want to make sure that everything else before and after it is at least open to, if not fully on board, to go down the journey. Would you agree with that? Totally. And I think you have to understand the journey you're on. So, you know, it's not just like put in, say, a metal machine or polymer or what have you. What other equipment, what other capabilities does the organization need on the front end? It's clearly understanding of how to design the process, the right software, the right connections within the industry.
On the back end, it's probably especially with metal, you better have an answer for how do you pull parts off platforms, what other post steps are required, whether that's post machining or surface finishing or the inspection element of it. Some companies are already set up for that. Fantastic. Others would have to look at that as another big part of their investment. And, you know, that really brings up another point, Todd, is that I think some of these companies, whomever they are, OEMs or even existing machine shops that want to jump in, feel like they need to be involved in this business. Not only does the culture of innovation have to be present within these companies or at least some element of the culture of innovation, as I'm calling this, I also think that people have to be in this for the long haul. So if you think you're going to just get into this funded for the first year or two and everything is magically going to be turning out great, I think that can be a bit of a false promise.
I think one needs to expect you got probably a minimum of five years. You need to figure on funding whatever you're trying to grow or start internally. And that could be as simple as I just want to hire an engineer, designer or two. We'll use outside people, but we're going to spend five years to really figure this out. It's more much more appropriate to say you'll need five years if you're thinking of bringing in equipment or investing in CapEx, you're going to invest in facility, you're going to invest in people. Put the budget there.
Don't make this a year by year budget because there is no question that I think there is going to be a period in time where it gets a little discouraging, like, why isn't more progress being made? Why haven't we been able to figure some of these things out? Once you get over that, once you get through that period, whatever, whenever that begins and ends, I have a pretty good level of confidence that if you have a group and a team in place for five years and you're funding it appropriately, the end of that five year period of that value proposition of why you went down that path in the first place is probably going to be pretty easy to point to and say, Yeah, that was a great decision. I've seen too many that two years, three years, and they throw the talent because it does get expensive. Maybe the budgets weren't there and then other areas, other portions of the company need the budget. And then when you starve something like additive, which is a still relatively new technology and certainly new for the company putting it in, then you got a problem because because people get discouraged at that point. So I heard you say for success culture.
Yup. Team. The proper horizon, proper time, expectation and funding. And then good value proposition which may arise from all of that information you glean with good team, good culture, and the right time.
But you may also want to start with that. Is that a good thing? Yeah, I think it is. Yep. Yeah, I do. And I and my other thing, I would just you know, it's not a plug necessarily for anything other than I would say that it's really important if someone is thinking about going down this path. Like the example I gave you about the large multinational OEM that's talking about putting in additive and really jumping in additive is going to be here and the technologies are going to continue to mature. There's no urgency to just run out and start doing things. I would get people involved
that are familiar, very familiar with additive consultancies, and then I would have your team identified who those people internal to the organization are, and I would get them to trade shows, you know, start to walk, then start to run, and then you can start the sprint after you've done all those basic things. There's there's no urgency to jump in and start sprinting. I think that potentially is setting up for problems as well. Well, I want to you know, my eyes rolled inside of my head a little bit when you said no urgency or smoke came out of my ears on that. So I hear what you're saying, but I want to further clarify. So, yeah,
no urgency. You're saying don't start trying to sprint right out of the gate, out of a sense of we need to or our business is done because everyone's going to outcompete us, but it is the way you expand on it. But the real question I have is, is there an urgency to do anything in additive to start this walk before you run process? Yeah. So so let me let me clarify. Indeed, that's probably important. So when I say no urgency,
I do think there is always urgency for any company that's making products or making things to keep their eyes wide open and feel the footsteps behind it. I just I just fundamentally believe that. So you could be in the most conservative type of industry producing the most mundane product, but there is always somebody out there thinking of the better mousetrap. And you see that on a regular basis where something you thought was pretty mundane. All of a sudden people make entire companies and businesses around new and improved. So and that takes market share away from those that we're not keeping up. So additive is a means
to help change that dynamic and change that paradigm. When I say there's no rush, there's no rush in my in my thinking of that, what I was trying to express is I don't think there is a rush to start making decisions without being fully informed about what might be best for the organization. And sometimes that means and oftentimes it means work with other people that are already doing this stuff, whether it be, again, people who have been in the industries and are deeply knowledgeable on our consultants and come in and and look and say, hey, I see what you're doing as a product and where your business is or what technologies you employ here or here's a recommended path, whether it be using people who have equipment we call service providers or contract manufacturers, get a variety of people on board that become your partners. You learn about what the pros and cons of the technologies are before you might go out, spend a million, 5 million or whatever the number is to set up your own internal web. That's more what I'm trying to suggest. I do suggest companies, though, seriously take a look at additive and start to at least formulate a plan, whether it's through partnerships or setting up their own internal teams, whatever that might be.
If you're an OEM, especially producing parts that have the right mix of elements to make it a good additive part, what is that? That's complexity. It might be lead time issues. We have a lot of geopolitical things going on and companies are feeling pretty exposed right now. So, you know, maybe it's risk mitigation. So there are a number of little factors that could drive somebody to say, yeah, I think now's a good time for us to really explore how additive can be a risk mitigator that I'm encouraging you to do sooner than later.
Don't just be paralyzed with. I don't know which way to turn, therefore I'm just going to stay with what I'm doing. I think it is important that somebody is identified as the champion within an organization and however they go out to initiate those movements of getting additive, at least considered for what they're doing, that's very helpful.
There are a lot of takeaways there. The one takeaway I heard is, yeah, well, you said five year time horizon early on and then you talk about you got to get started. Now it's if anything, I think the audience should open their eyes to the fact that this is not plug and play. Right. It's not easy peasy. So you need to start preparing now because starting today, it might be five years from now before you're actually efficiently operating and making the components that you plan on.
My main point on that timeline is I don't think if you if one jumps into this and says we're going to put some budget, whether it's to go to an outside resource like a vertex or to buy equipment or whatever, I think it's important as they develop teams to have a longer horizon than just, geez, I need to see a internal rate of return of two years on this. Otherwise if I don't see that, then I'm not going to invest. I mean, that's the wrong mentality on these technologies. The return sometimes can be a medium, sometimes it can be short term, sometimes it can be medium and long term. It just depends on so many factors.
I often would probably recommend they at least start for the first six months just getting arms wrapped around things while they explore different CapEx options and invite people. Yeah, yeah. If somebody says, here's what I have, I was in a plant a couple of weeks ago is an example struggling to find where in their product additive can really play a role. And I frankly, I do struggle a little bit the geometries so I had a highly irregular. They did industry and most cases you know it's it's not not geometry that I would sit there and say it's gas turbine or medical or something that you could easily say this that's really well from the technology.
So the angle ultimately that I, I looked at is it's probably a few there are probably few parts we might be able to save them some benefit. They might get a design benefit, maybe a cost benefit to be determined. But the real benefit to them is that 90%, if not higher, of what they currently buy is castings. Guess what? Coming from overseas, we have just gone through all this supply chain disruption and continue to go through it. And the question is, if they could get their product, they would be probably out of business within a relatively short period of time if they don't have an alternative.
And here's the reality. They do source some castings here in the United States, but the reality is that the foundries here are probably pretty busy and the reaction times aren't going to be super fast. So, you know, additive could potentially play a very critical role, may not be more cost effective, but it sure may save their bacon. If things went south on getting their supply, 90% of their castings, that might get a hiccup. And the ships coming over, I don't know, maybe that will never happen. But if I'm the CEO of that company, I've got to start to consider and say, maybe I need a backup plan.
And in that particular case, there are a couple of technologies that could come in and play a role. Aluminum is one of the casting materials I use. Stainless steel is another one. I could see things like
aromatics. I could see things like binder jet being solutions to those problems because they can be competitive cost wise. But more importantly, in this instance, they could be competitive in meeting the volume of what some of their of their castings have. Some of them are millions of parts. They're they're hundreds or thousands of parts.
And those technologies would be really a very good fit in and mitigate much of the risk. And at the very least, if I'm the CEO, I'm thinking, hey, if I can at least have 10 to 20% back here in those technologies, I know I could scale those technologies. It's a it's a backstop in case something bad happens. And I think I think a lot of companies are starting to think about that these last few years. And I think that trend is going to continue. This is putting what you just said into my words is go through the process to get fully through an understanding of what you will achieve on a as output and then qualify that and then keep that as your backup generator, your safety net at a minimum.
So because if you lose your supplier in Asia, even if you lose a North American foundry as a supplier, it's not going to be a matter of days, weeks or months to to start production on a new technology platform. So make the investment now. As an insurance policy for catastrophic failures in your supply chain in the future. But you've got
to get through it. Definitely the qualification to whatever level. Well, you mentioned, you know, so that's not a highly regulated product or products that the example you just gave us.
Correct me if I'm wrong, even with them, you want to have an understanding in terms of your qualification of what's acceptable. Absolutely. So. Okay. All right. Yeah. You can't.
Yeah. Just to be very clear, I mean, I don't know. I mean, there are very few companies, I would say, unless it's a, you know, just a product site going into something critical. Most products that I'm talking about that are that would be this sort of situation at all. But many are falling under the. You've probably got to
qualify something about you have to qualify your vendor. You're probably going to want to have the material still to some degree qualified. Now, it may not be that I have to go run fatigue samples and run them at temperature and spend a million and a half, 2 hours coming up with my my material curves, because this industry I'm referring to is not in an aerospace or medical industry. Okay? It's in a different type of industry where they probably don't require that. But there is still some level of assurance that engineers and designers don't want this product out the door and have a bunch of recalls. So yeah, clearly that work has to be done in conjunction with trying to say, all right, how do I that's part of qualifying, that's part of the risk mitigation as part of finding the right partners.
And I think ultimately the goodness of that is not only do you sleep a little better if you've got that in your back pocket, probably over time. Innovation continues to happen in technology. As we all know, things get faster, things get cheaper. And I think that probably the future state is many products could be probably 3D printed. And some of these technologies that are that are truly getting much faster and less expensive. Now, that being said, you know, if somebody came to the table with a gargantuan casting gap, though, probably not.
So it's going to have to fit within a window of where the state of the technology is today and what materials are available today. But when you really get to it, most people have some flexibility of of maybe material choice, maybe they upgrade in an additive. We know, of course, that upgrading to another material that might be overkill for a particular application doesn't come along. Just have with it, I'm sorry,
a huge cost penalty. So, you know, might be a little bit more but it's not as if you're going out buying this big chunk of make is 718 you're using nickel 718 powder, which is more expensive than, say, a stainless material. But it's not going to be it's not going to be a gulf of difference between a chunk of stainless and a chunk of 718 and all of the post machining. That has to happen.
And I think there has to be a degree of flexibility in that. But any more there is a number there are a number of materials that are out there and available. So I it's very rare that I ever run against a circumstance where somebody says I have to have that alloy which doesn't exist, an additive, let's say, or else. And most people have already they're able to change their material if they need to.
Yeah, that's good news. It is based on the number of people you talk to. That's good news to hear that that's a truth out there. Because honestly, in my year, long past and recent past, I run into a lot of just stubbornness where a variety I understand everything about the material I'm currently using. So my path of least resistance is to demand that you use it in your additive process. Because I don't want to invest the time, the money, the energy, the manpower.
To understand that material. So I want x, y, z flavor to one three. Well, and that's why.
And then why maybe I'll tell you why they like that material. Just it works. Yeah. Parts have failed and we can just go with it. So you're saying that there's a little more openness to looking at other materials than I may know? Well, I think you're right that I got to go back to company culture again. So and sometimes it
is an absolute I'm not going to I'm not going to argue. Sometimes it is a legacy part. It has a legacy process and legacy material. So take the aerospace industry once again.
If you go back to the instrument engine that been produced for X number of years, decades, and you say, okay, I want to make this part now and additive, you have to have a pretty good cost justification to do that. Even changing the process of it was a casting and you want a good additive. That's a that's a big cost justification because you have to go back through a certification process with the FAA. So
so, you know, there is that real element for many products. It is painful and it would be costly and it probably should be that way for certain situations. But equally on the other side. The flip side of that is I do think you have people that the path of least resistance is, hey, I'm just going to stick with what I have until that option is no longer available, but then that might be too late. So that again circles back to company culture. If the culture is one of,
hey, try to find a way around, let's try to be creative, let's not box our selves in. And those are active conversations that happen all the time that I think an engineer, a designer is is rewarded maybe for trying to think outside the proverbial box and say, yeah, okay, let's, let's see what we can do in these technologies, even if today they don't fit, crosswise or whatever. I think the future state is something worth exploring today. Well, makes sense.
Makes sense. Greg, I'm going to open it up and ask you if there's anything we haven't touched on before closing out this episode. But first and again, this is a message for our audience, you know, words of wisdom to heed. At Vertex, you have three or four high level ASTM classification technology. So
powder bed fusion, specifically laser powder, bed fusion. Within that, I believe you also have IBM. You have some binder jet through another company. And those technologies come from roughly seven different vendors.
And the most recent, the seventh is Xerox. And you said elements. Our audience may not know that name. Ella Max is the name of their machine for liquid metal printing. So you just recently announced that Vertex is acquiring Allen X Machine.
So twofold question. One is why all those technologies? And then to what does Allah do for Vertex? Well, what motivated you to move that way? Sure. So staff is a high level question. Why so darn many technologies to get the job done? I mean, like to complicate our life, right? So, look, there's there's a couple of reasons.
Number one is that just fundamentally as a company, our leadership is does not want to just single source with any one particular individual and any product or anything. So having that having that as a baseline would dictate that we have at least a few different manufacturers of equipment. The second thing I would say is that all equipment is not equal. Of course, there are pros and cons to every every manufacturers piece of equipment.
Some are great at some tasks, some are better at others. And so we have a broad range of customers we deal with. Yes, the medical industry in the aerospace and space, but a whole variety of industries.
And certain machines just either for whatever the reason, productivity, quality, configuration of the machine size wise or what have you fit for different applications that we happen to see. So it's not as if we have one widget we produce and we just have a bunch of different equipment so that we we don't have that single source issue. We have literally thousands of different parts that we evaluate. Some of those parts are better on certain people's equipment. Sometimes it's close, and that doesn't matter if you have brand or brand. B, But often we have
certain pieces that clearly are a better, fit and related very closely to that. We have OEMs which are our customer base, so we have OEMs that have already gone down the path back to this qualification portion of things and they may many have qualified off a particular brand of machine asking them in a highly regulated industry to all of a sudden qualify. A different brand of equipment is exceedingly costly and it takes a lot of time and they probably don't want to pay for that themselves. They're going to put the onus of that back on to people like me.
So the path of least resistance, of course, in that case is just to say, great, we'll go buy the equipment if to supplement what you might be doing or what you've already qualified off of. We'll buy that same piece of equipment and we eliminate that as an issue. Well, back to the original question I asked the second part of it. So in all these tools that you have available now, what does the elements brand bring to Vertex that's unique, differentiated? So something that you needed or suspect you needed to get the job done. What makes it different? Sure.
So, look, the we we're about to hopefully in the next six months, move into a much larger facility where we'll actually be place in the Olympics machine. So in all fairness, we don't have it on the floor yet just because of that situation. What I look at with the Amex technology is it's a very different methodology of producing parts now. Right now the technology
is working with aluminum wire. And anybody who understands how the technology work works, it basically takes that aluminum wire off of school and also liquefies, if you will, droplets that get placed in the X and Y and then layer by layer you build up. It's a very efficient way of making parts. You stay very true to the
chemistry of what you're starting with, a.k.a. the say a 356 aluminum wire. And it's fast. So there are a number of applications and people that say, Hey, I've got this part that's aluminum. And instead of buying a bar of aluminum and whittling it away, you know, maybe I can make this very fast on a machine like the AMAX and that's it's another market, another natural.
We're excited to explore that. We're excited to see are there a bunch of people out there that can benefit from literally same day and maybe within hours printing an aluminum part? And again, we're not talking the size of a room or anything. We're talking something that's, let's call it ten inch Cuban down or something smaller than that, and more than likely so. But that's what we're trying to find out, is can this technology today serve a need that is currently not being served because it's too costly or time consuming or other factors to go other additive metal routes? And then the other element of this is, I would say, the future of materials. So the future possibilities of working in materials that are more difficult to work with and other additive type metal technologies is presumably pretty promising.
So there could be some real interesting applications that we would see down the road working with other materials beyond just say a 356 So yeah, we're excited about should be a should be a nice suite of capability for us. Thank you. I wish you all the luck with that and hopefully a on time set up your new facility and get in the machine and get everything up and running. So with that, Greg, let me just close out. Is there anything else top of mind hot button topics that you want to get across to the audience that we haven't touched on? And it's fair to say no, Todd, I think we've got it all.
That's fair. But just open it up to you and any comments. Yeah, no. Look, I really like closing comments. I would say, first
off, really appreciate the opportunity to have the conversation with you, as always. It's it's a phenomenal industry. I still remain extremely bullish. As much as I throw some cautionary things out there, it's because I ultimately want to see it successful. And I think people need to enter into the technologies in the industry if they're not already playing in it with eyes wide open and understand that it's not just pushbutton and that you do need partners. And there are many,
many people in this industry. I have seen it day in, day out and over years who are exceptionally generous with their time and trying to help people and pull them in to the family. They're just passionate about the technology. I encourage companies that make any kind of product if they aren't seriously exploring how the technology can benefit them, even if they have their toe dipped in the water, try to embrace it more fully and explore what's out there. Technology has changed. A lot has come a long way when in the last five years and last ten years it's come a huge way and it will only get better, faster, less expensive to produce parts. And really, you know, it's going to be an exciting time coming up in the next, I think, 5 to 10 years.
And I think partly driven by all the events that we see transpiring around us. You know, these are interesting times and I think the industry has a place and a role to play. So I've always adhered to the logic that humans are more motivated by avoiding pain, therefore fear, than by receiving a reward or having a gain. So that's why I just heard you say as motivating factor with geopolitical situations and a fear of loss will drive you to take action possibly faster than a fear of invading your business.
Greg Wise words and you, you thank me for being a part of this, but no thank you. I really appreciate you carving out the time and offering your insights and your experience to our audience so much. Appreciate it and I hope the audience got something out of it. If they didn't, they weren't listening carefully.
So with that, Greg, I'll close things out. Thank you once again and look forward to seeing you again. Thank you to.