Scotiabank 23rd Annual Financial Summit

Sep 7, 2022

Please join me in welcoming Darryl White, the CEO of BMO Financial Group. Hey, Meny. Good to see you. Good to see you. Thanks for doing this. Grab a seat. Here is some water. Victor, was this your water? No. You didn't poison it? That's a deal. We'll toast to that. We'll make a note of that. No, in our budget, we have individualized water bottles for everyone, so. But thanks for being. You guys are going big. I thought we'd start with margins, and it's definitely again the theme of the quarter, I would say. So far, no one's pushed back on that too much. I guess maybe the first place to start when we talk about margins, sitting in your seat, does the almost total focus on margins at this juncture make sense to you? Are investors looking at the right thing? Obviously, margins are important, but is this spotlight on margins the right thing right now? Yeah, look, I think the spotlight on margins is appropriate. I would say, Meny, I think you and others have encouraged investors to focus on margins, and you're doing a good job of it. I will say, though, that I think you have to remember when you look at it, that margins are an output, right? I'll talk a little bit about how we manage the business, but the reason I say that margins are an output is because when you go through the management of the business on a day-to-day basis and you have people in the relationships buying into the business, whether it's retail, whether it's commercial, whether it's whatever, it's not like folks are every day trying to maximize their own margin necessarily from a NIM perspective. They're trying to maximize their profitability. So what you should really look at, I think, what we look at first and foremost at least, is the NII production. Because effectively the margin and the volume, the growth of the business is measured there, and yeah, by the way, we happen to have the number one position in NII production in the quarter and the year to date. But that's important because of the way we think about managing the businesses with margins being an important component of that, and it's not the only component. So you asked me if it's effectively, I think you asked me if it's overbaked in terms of the focus. No, I think it's appropriate. It should have focus, but it has to be considered in the context of how the entire business is managed. Now, when we look at the margin component of that, when we look at how the business is managed, there are the activities that happen, I call it at the micro-business level, where you have people who are accountable for running businesses. I would say years ago, there wasn't necessarily enough margin management expertise in the management of businesses at the micro unit level. Now it's unbelievably crisp. The incentives are clear. That goes to the choices you make on client selection, how you manage risk, how you get paid for risk, how you get paid for service, and how you manage the relationship between your deposits and your loans. That's not as easy as it sounds. That we think is a differentiated skill for us. When people asked us why our margins performed better than average on the way down, we gave that answer. When people are now asking us why our margins are performing better than average on the way up, it's the same answer, and it's not some magic trick that happens because of the way you position yourself in treasury. Our 10 basis point increase in the quarter in our margins, very little of that was to do with our hedging performance. The vast majority of it was based on how we manage the business day to day. Is it important? For sure it's important, but pricing is important in any business. Volume is important in any business. You have to look at it in its entirety because you can be really good at one and be really crappy at the other. We like to think we're doing both pretty well. You touched on it. I think probably the number one question I get on BMO is, when rates were falling, they really held the line on margins and did an amazing job keeping margins relatively stable, and so it's hard for people to understand how you have this upside that we saw in Q3. Yeah. I talked about it a little bit just now. It's in the water. It's in the behavior of the relationship spine of the businesses. When you look at our total NIM ex trading, we think the performance has been about as good as we see in the industry on the way down and on the way up. It's actually performed, I might say, pretty much exactly as we said it would and we predicted it would in our models, right? If you look at our disclosure on our rate sensitivity, that's what's playing out. So it may be surprising to some, but it's actually not surprising to us, at least the way we looked at how we would perform and how we would disclose. I can't speak to how others model versus how they perform. You guys can peck away at that. This is working pretty much as we anticipate it to, and that is why we were confident in saying that when we look forward into the fourth quarter and into 2023, people ask us, "What do you see from here?" We say, "Look at our disclosure on our rate sensitivity and then look at the move in the curve, and that should be what will play out, which will mean there will be more margin expansion as we go forward." That has proven out pretty crisply over the last couple of years. When we talk about margins, there is a focus obviously on deposits, and I think it is an area where for a long time, I do not think investors spent too much time looking at deposits, and now it is definitely front and center. On the Q3 call, your CFO talked about, especially in the U.S., that deposit betas were currently lower than expected. I am just wondering from your perspective, what is driving that and where do you see that evolving, and how will that translate for you? Yeah. First of all, I would say, I do not think you can ever have enough focus on your deposit gathering capability because if you are caught short in an environment which turns quickly, and we are going to have one. We have not had it yet, but we are going to have one, whether it is next quarter or next year or the year after. We are going to have one where the environment is going to turn pretty quickly, and we are going to need to turn on deposit machines faster than we have had to over the last three years, which have been basically almost marginal in terms of the decision-making process. You have to have the system in place to be able to do that quickly. We have been pleasantly surprised, I would say, at the stickiness of the deposits through the U.S. system. We have seen the betas perform pretty well. At some point, that does not carry on forever. I think what you also might have heard Tayfun say on the quarter is, the assets that we have in place when we start to see the compounding and the compression of that margin on the betas on the deposits, we have a deposit gathering engine in the U.S., which is a digital bank, that we have not even had to turn on over the last couple of years. We built it a few years ago. We spent a fortune building it. We gathered deposits in all 50 states digitally, and we have that in our back pocket to turn it on as we go through an environment. Which I think we will, sometime in 2023, right? I think you and I can agree, sometime in 2023, we are going to have to figure out how to match faster. We're ready to do that. We're absolutely ready to do that. In fact, we could do it tomorrow morning if we had to. So far, it's been great. We haven't had to. We've benefited from it. When we have the challenge, we're going to react to it really quickly. Turning on that digital deposit machine, that's more a function of marketing or rates or a combination of the two? No, it's both. It's pick your rate, pick your market, go to market. We can do it in all 50 states, and we just push it out. One related subject that's a big-picture subject is just your business mix and the advantages of your business mix. Specifically, you're weighting towards commercial lending, both in Canada and the U.S., and I'm trying to understand how big an advantage it is. When we talk about margins, it seems like that's part of the story here. If I think about regulatory pressure, it seems like it's also an advantage. I'm wondering your perspective on that and if there are other areas you would highlight where you say, "Yeah, my business mix actually is providing me a lift," just on that alone. Yeah. First of all, I would say we really, really like our business mix, and we do think it's a big advantage. I wouldn't say, by the way, that it's a big advantage from a regulatory perspective. I think that's marginal, to be honest with you. The argument is more fundamental. I'm happy to talk about our commercial. We think our commercial franchise is a premium franchise. We think we've been successful at investing in it over decades. We didn't just turn it on yesterday. 90% of that franchise is based on lead or sole relationships. 90%. Canada, U.S., equally sized, 90% is lead or sole relationships. You think about the benefit of that, and you think about its implications, hard to quantify sometimes, but on margins, for example, on growth, on differentiated growth. Then you go to the way the business works in Canada, the way it works in the U.S., it's completely integrated from a management spine perspective, but the market positioning is totally different. Number 2 market positioning in Canada, smaller market share in U.S., but way bigger than most of the competitors that we have in the U.S. So you're getting 85% of the growth coming from the U.S. at accretive returns to the total bank. Remember, 5 years ago, we would have this conversation and say, "I'll give you more growth in the U.S., but it's going to come with a trade-off, which is going to be diluting the returns in Canada." Not anymore. We've got the same ROE in both countries. The commercial franchise and the capital markets franchise, by the way, have been key contributors to that outcome. Therefore, when we continue to dial the growth in the U.S., we will give outsized growth, probably relative to some of our peers, but not at a dilutive return, at an acceptable and higher than acceptable return, actually. We're producing above 15% ROEs in those businesses. Now, I want to say this, though. Lots of folks come to me and say, "You're an interesting conversation because we see the wholesale commercial overweight, and that's an advantage to your business mix." I do think it is. But I will also say we have a bit of a story that is, I would say, undersold, if I could put it that way, in terms of how that commercial franchise fits in terms of the performance of the retail bank. We haven't had a lot of conversations, have we, about the retail bank at BMO in terms of its performance. The reason I say I think it's a little bit of an untold story is because it fits into that commercial narrative perfectly. Dave and Ernie run those businesses, north, south. When you look at the retail bank performance in Canada, and you look at our overall company operating leverage outperformance, PPPT outperformance, the retail bank in Canada is a huge contributor to that. Sometimes it's an afterthought in many of the conversations I have with folks, and that's why I'm raising it here. Meny, 7 out of the last 9 quarters, we have had the number 1 revenue growth in retail banking in Canada. Where are we getting it? We're taking share. Where are we taking share? Cards, mutual funds, proprietary mortgages, amortizing HELOCs, demand deposits, across the board. That's happening while we're spending at a rate that's higher than our competitors and giving more operating leverage than our competitors, which is the formula you want, right? It's not about cost-cutting. We're actually outspending our competitors. We're taking share in retail. It allows us to fuel that flywheel of commercial banking success in the premium franchise that we have. This is really important. This is the story that I think BMO doesn't quite get enough credit for. We don't advertise it as well as perhaps we should, but it's really important to the story of the mix question that you're asking me in terms of how we run the whole bank. That's a very good point in terms of the place of the retail business. One area, if I think about business mix, so I'm thinking of positives, one area where it seems like, and I say potential negative, is credit. Obviously, you remember the days before your September 2020 investor day, where I think you allayed a lot of those fears, but there was a big focus from investors about the credit impact, the credit losses that would be driven from your commercial book, and that was under the microscope more than banks which had a different kind of business mix. I guess it seems like you addressed that very well at the investor day, but we're post-pandemic here, staring down a potential recession. Those fears are back and investors are consistently asking, will the credit picture here be an issue? I wanted to get your perspective on the credit side of that commercial business mix and how you see that evolving in this world of uncertainty right now. Yeah. No question, it's a world of uncertainty, and it's a fair question. I would point, for those of you who are newer to the banking sector, the little history lesson here is having built a premium franchise in commercial banking, which has overweight our bank relative to others. The narrative comes up from time to time that says, "Well, gee, when things get tough, doesn't that mean you're going to have more credit exposure and you're going to have higher risk of exposure than others?" I say to those people, that's an interesting narrative and it's completely unfounded in any fact or historical experience, full stop. So look at the data. We've got 30 years of data in our investor presentation. In 26 of the 30 years, we've outperformed the average of our peers on credit. Good markets, bad markets, that's what we do. And you took me back a minute ago, Meny, to the summer and the fall of 2020, which was the last time this little conversation spiked, and I said, "It's a myth. You guys can believe it if you want, but it's not going to happen." Now we've gone through two years, asked, answered. We've actually had lower impaired credit in our commercial business than any of our peers, and at the total bank than any of our peers. Full stop. That's the data, that's the history. Those who want to kind of take shots and say, "Well, why will this time be the same? Why won't it be different?" I say, "Well, why will it be different?" We manage the business the same way, same underwriting standards, same risk appetite. Client selection is huge when you have a business that's 90% sole lead. Client selection is huge. People miss this, and they should understand that better. We should do a better job of explaining it. When you put it all together, will there be impaired losses? Yeah, sure. At some point there will be. But I got to tell you, right now, we're sort of looking around trying to find them. They're not there. Will we have a PCL rate that will come up from where it is today? Well, for sure. When it's close to zero, everything comes up. But it is not going to be an outsized problem at the Bank of Montreal. Full stop. No question in my mind. I've said it before. There's nothing new in what I've just said. Right. Nothing new. But it's very clear. Sorry for bringing up bad memories, but I had to. On a related question, these are questions that come up very often from investors, and this is kind of a line of questioning where it's a good thing that could potentially turn into a bad thing. When we look at commercial loan growth across- Yeah the spectrum right now, both north-south, but particularly in Canada, we see fantastic numbers that we haven't historically seen before. BMO's enjoying that growth. The question becomes, how sustainable is that commercial loan growth that's in the mid-teens? For some banks, it's over 20% year-over-year. What's driving that? Some investors, I think, are these inventories being built that are never going to be sold? What's the story here, and where is it going? Yeah. We do see a bit of a different picture, Meny, in the U.S. versus Canada. While our business and commercial is equally sized, U.S. and Canada, we have different market positions, right? Our growth in the U.S. is in fact faster than it is in Canada. But there it's a story of taking share, mostly from competitors that we think we can give a differentiated offering, convince the customer that we're better for them. We've added 2,100 customers, by the way, over the last year. We're adding capacity to that commercial franchise, not just balance sheet. Relationships, real customers. In Canada, we're maintaining share. If you look at the data, we haven't been trying to dial up and crank it up and try and take share in Canada. We have a pretty important share already in Canada, and we're going to protect that. But we don't feel like we need to reach in places that are not safe to reach into. I think your meta question then was, can this growth carry on in a lasting way? I don't think it can. At some point, I don't know when that day is. I have to admit to you guys, I've been wrong about this so far. I keep thinking that there will be a day where the commercial borrower writ large will be saying, "I got to figure out how to pull back because the fancy talkers on stages like this talk about recessions and all the rest of it," but they haven't. They haven't. The reason they haven't is when you meet with them, and I meet with lots of them, they'll say to you, "Look, the demand for my product or service is still very high. I've been able to pass along most of the price increases, and as long as that's true, I want to keep producing and I want to keep growing my business." Now, one day, my prediction is that the CFO of that business owner is going to walk in the office and, "Here's the problem, boss. The input costs, your labor costs, your energy costs, your debt servicing costs are all increasing at the same time. While it's great that we've got revenues that are interesting, we've got no more margin. We're going to have to pull back." But that hasn't happened yet. It hasn't happened yet. It continues to be the case that they're happy to say we still have a reasonable margin left and we're going to produce for our customers. We don't apologize for the success of our commercial customers. They're doing a great job, and we're there. We go as they go, and we will continue to go as they go. If I'm a betting man, at some point as the environment softens into 2023, you've got to see a pullback in that. To where, I don't know. I'm not going to give you a projection on the number. But we're not there yet. It's still a pretty robust environment. The credit quality in the meantime of the new marginal credit that gets put on the books is very good. In fact, it's positive credit migration relative to the legacy book when you put it on. I want to switch gears and talk about Bank of the West. I think it's useful in this environment, maybe just briefly to refresh the audience on why you bought Bank of the West, what Bank of the West will give you, and what you give Bank of the West. That's a good way to. Nobody's asked me the question that way before. When we announced the acquisition, just to make it clear for people, we haven't bought it yet because it's not approved and closed. But we did make an announcement on the 20th of December last year that that was our intent, and we had secured an agreement to do that, and we're very excited about that today as we were then. What was the thesis? Just to remind people, we said when we look at our business composition writ large, and particularly our U.S. bank, and I had this point of view several years ago, that if somebody said to me, "You can find a way to get an acquisition done in the U.S. with a private seller to be negotiated on reasonable terms, where you're going to take your U.S. bank to over $400 billion in assets and be in that tier of super regional banks and have all the market power that comes with it." By the way, if you could arrange it such that the business mix was something like 60/40 commercial retail, which reflects a little bit our own, and if it were in some contiguous markets and then some markets where you don't have a huge presence in, like California, but you have some, and you were able to advertise 10% accretion with confidence levels that you'll beat that in time to your shareholders, would you do it? I'd say, "Do it all day long." You happen to be in an environment which I think will be unique in banking history, that we are at elevated capital levels because of the restrictions on COVID. All of those stars aligned. That was why we did it when we did it. It was at the top of our list of potential partners for a very long time. We talked to everybody, we talked to everything that moves, everything that hasn't, and this was at the top of our list, and we were able to get it done. That's why we were interested in them. What do we bring to them, I think, was the flip side of your question. That's right. I think this is actually quite interesting. When I look at that asset, now we've had the chance with the benefit of 8 months of getting to know all of their people. We're several levels deep. Amazing culture, very similar to our own, highly capable bankers, great customer set, high market positions in certain segments. Look at RV, marine, look at agriculture, look at some of the technology plays they've got in California. Such a synergistic cultural opportunity for us. I would say at the same time, they have managed their business very well given what they've got. If you imagine the difference between a very good owner who is sitting across the ocean without a commercial retail integrated play other than this, it's a bit of an island, right? It's a bit of an orphan. That's not to disparage how they've done it. They've done the best they can with what they've got. Our model's totally different. We step in day one, we integrate. What do we bring to them? Our people, our technology, our brand, our history, our data systems, our ability to go to market together, better together. We bring a half of an equation that they really haven't had because the other half of their equation was a half a world away. Whereas we're just on the other side of the Mason-Dixon line. We'll put that together and we'll drive, I think, a really premium franchise in North America. I've got to tell you, they're very excited about it. I'm meeting with some of them later today. They're really pumped about getting going on this. We just have to wait till the day we get our regulatory approvals and then we can. I want to talk about U.S. capital markets. I find it interesting, you announced a significant P&C acquisition in the U.S. around a similar timeframe as a peer. They just announced U.S. capital markets acquisition. I am wondering if, I am saying this tongue in cheek, but is there an M&A angle in your U.S. capital markets business, or are you adamant that this is an organic strategy? Well, first of all, we do not chase anybody. Second of all, if you look at our history in U.S. capital markets, it has actually been both. That has been the history of the growth of our U.S. businesses writ large. We have a page in one of our presentations, if you guys have not seen it, because we have got people asking me all the time, "Well, I guess you have just built your U.S. business by buying things and adding them up." That has been 40% of the growth. 60% of the growth has been organic. Probably similar if I boil it down to capital markets. We have had great organic growth. We have had teams that have been built over time. I would put some of our teams as the best in class in Wall Street, full stop. And we have been able to add acquisitions. An example would be several years ago when we bought the KGS-Alpha business. The folks who are running that KGS-Alpha business, by the way, have risen to run our global markets businesses. We have got great talent that we have brought along with some of these acquisitions. We bought Clearpool in the electronic trading space. We have then been able to help them, they have been able to help us broaden the offering through other asset classes. Now set them up in Europe. I think we have been able to find a healthy mix, Meny, between acquisition growth as well as growth by organic and team lifts and all the rest of it in the U.S. And I think the teams have done a fantastic job. What does the future portend? It is too early to tell. Right now we are pretty clearly in execution mode as we work through the various things that we are doing. I do not have anything imminent to talk about, but if you were to give me a 5- to 10-year horizon, I would say more of the same. Why? Because it is working. It is working really well. The story of our U.S. profitability measured by ROE, measured by efficiency ratio being the same as our Canadian is true in capital markets as it is in commercial. And 50% of our people are in the U.S. and capital markets. This is an important business for us. I am glad you asked the question, but it is not like we sit there and say, "Okay, is it either/or a growth by acquisition strategy or organic?" It is both, and it depends on circumstance at the time. I wanted to just give you a chance to talk a little bit about the leveraged finance business in the U.S. The underwriting books saw some markdowns. Addressed it on the call, but I thought it would be a good chance here to just approach it from the perspective of what gives you confidence that this was just more of a temporary dip in the road rather than something more systemic? I just wanted to check in to see if everything from your perspective worked as it should have. Is there any need to adjust the strategy when it comes to the leveraged finance business? Yeah. So look, I think that the record on this question was read out pretty well on the call a couple of weeks ago, so if people are really interested in it, I would refer you to that. I will say here that from my perch, I am very pleased with the performance of that business. I think if you look at how that business has performed over time, it has been a very important fee contributor. It works within risk appetite, delivers returns that are above the average return of the rest of the business. Yeah, it takes a little bit more risk, but it delivers more return. If you look in the, I think you referred to the particular quarter, we and just about all of Wall Street, who are active players in this business, took some marks. Gosh, are we ever comfortable with where we are, is what I would say. We took some marks. Our marks were narrowly defined in the sense that they were three transactions, and all three of those transactions were underwritten pre-Ukraine invasion. The terms and conditions and transactions that have been underwritten since reflect the market since. So there is no surprise to me. I think you said something like, "Are you surprised, Rud?" Absolutely no surprise. In fact, when you look at the distribution of probable outcomes, this is absolutely within a probable outcome, and we are already starting to see some recoveries in the position that we took. The last point I would make is an interesting thing to look at is the ratio of the fees you make in any business relative to the losses in stress environments. When I look at this particular business, and I look at the fees that we have made year to date relative to the marks that we have taken year to date, the ratio is tremendous. It is 2.5x. That is a question you might ask of others. Right who are in the business. I wanted to talk, you referenced sort of the unique structure of your P&C businesses, North, South, with Dave and Ernie running both Canada and the U.S. The question is: Is this structure just a label, or is it something more fundamental within the organization? I wanted to get your thoughts on that. It's a very unique structure. Yep. Just wondering what the benefits of that are as you see them. What are the benefits for the overall organization? Yeah. Okay, so good, so it's very much fundamental and not just a label. While Dave and Ernie have overall accountability for our P&C businesses, North and South, when you then look at how do you run a premium franchise commercial business and a really high-performing retail business, if you happen to have an asset base that is in the commercial business equally sized between U.S. and Canada, and in retail, now really growing in the U.S. with the Bank of the West addition, we'll have almost as many branches, in fact, as many branches in the U.S. as we have in Canada. To be able to say you're going to set up your leadership spine with a thin, not a thick border, is really, really smart from our perspective. What does that mean? If you look at sectors in commercial, you have people who are doing auto in the U.S., you have people doing auto in Canada. They are under a similar leadership spine. They share best practices. They share risk underwriting. They share client selection. Ditto on retail. You might have some things that are tailored differently regionally, for sure. You should. But where you can get synergies on the cross-border, look to brand, look to technology, look at some of the systems that we have built in the U.S. and brought to Canada, look at the business banking express that we built in Canada, we bring to the U.S. The fact that we run it on a North/South basis, I think is A, fundamental to the choice that we have made, is differentiated relative to our competition, and it delivers, at the end of the day, a better client experience. From your perspective, how would you grade that connectivity? I know it is kind of a work in progress, but are you at the point where it is almost as connected as it can be, or do you think that there is still areas where that North/South connectivity can get a lot better? Oh, no, we are not at end of job. I guess I would say we are always finding new opportunities. When we built the first, we think, the first among peers, seamless transaction payment systems that goes cross-border, that was an example of a place where we woke up a few years ago and said, "Why is not this this way? It will cost us some money. We have to do it together." We will get to some point more connectivity on technology. There is more opportunity there from a client experience point of view. No, we are not at end of game. I think we have got the rails set up, and we have got the chassis of the car exactly set up, but we have not put all the pieces together on it yet. I think there will be more to come. Maybe more fundamentally on the same subject, talk about being North America's eighth largest bank. What does that mean from a fundamental point of view? Do you really think about scale from a North American perspective? I think a lot of investors, you think about having scale in the U.S., having scale in Canada, and not really having those synergies in between. Yeah. Does it mean anything to be sort of that size across North America? I think what's more relevant than you picked up the label eighth largest North American bank, that's just a fact. I think that's just the assets. I think that's just a ranking by assets. I think what's more relevant is the North American part than the eighth, frankly. If you look at the composition of it, I just talked about how we run the business. We're not aware of anybody who runs the business that we do in every one of their business lines, North/South. We think that's an advantage. The scale point, I think all of your guests here have lots of scale in Canada. I think that's proven, and we all compete very well in Canada. Where the scale makes a difference, and I'd say a very important difference is in the U.S. When you've got 5,000 banks and you look at the tiering of the banks, you've got four that are very large G-SIBs, you've got three that are super regionals, and then you've basically got us, and then you've got everybody else. So thousands and thousands of banks who are kind of scrapping around and trying to get things done, and most of them do a pretty good job. But it's challenging when you're small. When you have a scale advantage in the U.S. relative to that industry structure, that's where opportunity presents. I would focus on scale advantage in the U.S. relative to those players. Yes, for sure. When you roll it all together and you have a North American play, that matters as well because of the way we run the business, not because we're seventh or eighth or ninth, but because of the way we run the business. I wanted to take the last few minutes to just talk about an important subject, we call it ESG, but really it is more just about the environmental transition that all developed economies are going through right now, Canada, U.S., and ask you what the business opportunity is for BMO, what the revenue opportunity in particular is from this energy transition, and how are you taking advantage of that? Yeah, it's a good question. It's so hard because it's one of these rare moments in the evolution of industries where you know it's big, but you're not sure how big and how fast. You sure know that you got to be there and you got to be there early and you got to be investing. So those don't happen very often. That's where we are right now. If you look at the road to 1.5 degrees, if you look at within a range, the transition economy probably requires somewhere in the neighborhood of CAD 1 trillion, maybe a little less annually in order to get there. Where is that going to come from? That's the big meta question, right? Where is that going to come from? What we know is that as a financial intermediary and an advisor, when we chose to say our net zero ambition was to be our clients' lead partner in their journey to net zero, that was a very important choice that mobilizes and catalyzes the organization around it. That's kind of my way of saying in the spine of the organization, we think the opportunity is real. Nobody is able to say yet how quickly it comes and how fast you go. We do think there's first-mover advantage. We underwrote the world's first nuclear bond. We underwrote the world's second nuclear bond. We got lots and lots of green firsts. We've set up a BMO Climate Institute a couple of years ago. We didn't just wake up to this yesterday. There we've got real-time research data analytics that are fueling all of the strategies that we put in place. We think we're thought leaders in the space. We really do. When we disclosed our Scope 3 ambitions, that's because we were ready to do that, and well-run companies, when you have the data, when you're ready, you disclose it. We think we've got a lot going for us, which is great, but I will also say the unanswered question is how big and how fast. I do believe ultimately this is maybe one of the single largest net new revenue streams to our industry that we'll talk about in yours and I career, Meny, and we intend to be leaders in it, and we're on our way. We think we're well-positioned. As we run out of time here, I'm just wondering if there's any key messages that you want to leave investors with as we wrap up. Anything in particular that you wanted to highlight? Yeah. Look, we've covered a lot of ground. I would just summarize by saying we're very proud of our team's operating performance over the last couple of years. We've shown that we can deliver peer-leading operating leverage and PPPT growth. We've demonstrated that our business model is functioning very well, and it's a high-performing model. It's not just a highly engaged model. That makes it very timely for us to be able to do something that I think is also differentiated in terms of the decision we have made on capital deployment and the acquisition that should come on board as we go through our 2023 fiscal, which adds to our earnings materially in 2024 and beyond. Underneath all that, the credit culture that I talked about earlier and the 30-year track record of delivering above peer average PCL results should continue. Even if the rates move upwards, we're going to continue to outperform there as well. When you model all that into a likely P&L outcome, I feel very good about the momentum that we have going into any environment. We've set up our model to operate and outperform in any environment, whether it's a boom or whether it's a softer one, we feel really confident in our prospects. With that, I want to really thank you so much. It's been a great discussion. Thanks for being here, Darryl. Thanks for hosting, Meny.