The Illinois State Collegiate Compendium, Academic Lecture in Business and Economics.
This is Business Finance, FIL 240 for Autumn semester 2023.
Today, Project Cash Flows. This is, at least part of it, is an Excel exercise.
So you'll want to have your Excel spreadsheet open so you can follow along.
As I had said, these are sort of like, each one of them is its own kind of custom job.
So it's not really a template, it's just knowing how to set one of these up so that you can just cruise through it
once you have the numbers in place.
So that's what I'm trying to accomplish here, at least part of this lecture.
It's just going to be going through an example and showing you how the setup of an Excel sheet works for one of these problems.
And once you see it and you've got your own little sort of quasi template in your Excel,
anything that I would do on a final exam or a quiz would be pretty straightforward for you.
But before we do anything like that, a look at the rather uninspiring numbers for today.
You see that the Dow was up a little tiny bit, but the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ were down.
Well, there's still a little bit of time left in the day, but it's nothing spectacular at all.
You notice that actually, what happened was the day started off, the opening bell was grim.
And then from there, it just climbed as much as it could.
It didn't have a lot of energy, but it got back into positive territory,
and it sort of bounced around there, at least on the S&P 500 and the Dow.
The NASDAQ never really did finally make it to positive ground,
but it may make it up above where it started by the end of the day.
But crude was down, and then it started to rise.
It's certainly nowhere near $80 a barrel yet,
so it's still in that territory where we should see gasoline prices ease off.
Heaven knows they haven't done that yet,
but they should begin to back off because the price is staying down there in the 70s right now.
Gold had a little bit of a surge, as you can see, in the last hour and a half or so,
but it's not even near that $2,000 benchmark, so it's nothing really to worry too much about.
Now, the 10-year bond, the yield spiked this morning, as you can see, but then it just dropped back off.
In other words, investors bought into bond, rather, the investors got rid of bonds,
which caused the yields go up, and then just as quickly as they dove in,
they went back out and the yields began to fall.
So there you go.
The interest rates, as I said, the interest rate environment is easing off, backing down,
because the expected inflation is settling out of the economy,
and there's no expectation that the Fed is going to pop interest rates again.
It looks like there was a lot of thought that the Fed would do one last interest rate increase,
but there seems to be some sentiment that that's not going to happen.
And, of course, as such, since U.S. interest rates aren't going to be going up, they'll be going down.
That makes the dollar weaker against other currencies,
so that's why you see the euro and the pound sterling appreciating.
The yen, it's just kind of flopping around there, not really much of a direction.
But as you can see over on the other side of the world last night,
Tokyo started out in a pretty good mood, but it just tailed off and finally finished up pretty much where it started.
But London seemed to have a big surge there at the end, a lot of enthusiasm right there.
See that spike on the spark chart?
If you go over here, we didn't really replicate that spike.
We started out in the toilet and climbed back out,
so something happened between when the sun set over in London and when it rose on the East Coast of the United States.
Investors got really sour.
Just a quick look at the volume on the S&P 500 to see what's going on.
Oh, that's just miserable.
It's not going to make half of our normal days trading.
Investors just staying on the sidelines.
It's just no direction.
We're doing pretty good in the economy, nothing spectacular,
and there's definitely not any real signs of a bad, something bad happening on the horizon
as long as we stay out of the sort of billowing war in the Middle East.
So there's nothing really excellent and nothing really bad,
so the markets, the investors are just going to stay on the sidelines for the time being,
and that's why you didn't see a whole lot of activity in any of these markets today.
This is one of those days that you kind of, kind of hard to say anything about it, good or bad.
Just a look at a couple of retailers.
We have a, what was I thinking?
I saw something, there is some sentiment, oh, I know what I saw.
There was a survey of consumer households, how much they were expecting to spend this year on Christmas,
and that was actually encouraging.
The average household was saying about, it will spend about $1,600 on Christmas this year, up from last year.
Now, I'm not going to see that, and probably most of you won't see anyone buying you $1,600 worth of stuff this Christmas,
but I mean, if consumers do come through with what they're projecting,
that means it's going to be a good Christmas season that boosts the economy going into next year,
and that's what it's all about, is getting us through any last doubts that we're in a recovery and maybe starting an expansion,
and that means the good jobs will be out there for you to worry about.
Just a quick look around the markets, just to look at Walmart, just for the fun of it.
Walmart is, oh, look at that though.
Do any of you see what I'm seeing about Walmart?
Okay, nice low beta, very safe stock, it's valued about where it should be, profitable, of course.
Now, if you take the numbers here, the projection here is that in a year, Walmart will be, per share, $168.69,
from where it is now, divided by $167.46, minus one, times 100.
That's, wait, let's try that again.
Something I did was very wrong there, $168.89, divided by $167.45, minus one, times 100.
Good grief.
It won't even make a percent of capital gain, 0.86% of capital gain on the stock.
Well, you, of course, do have to add in the dividend, which is a lousy 1.37%.
So, a one year hold on Walmart would get you a total holding period return of a lousy 2.23%.
Now, that's a little surprising, but, I mean, Walmart is not going out of business,
but that's just like a dead stop in the growth of the revenues.
And I've already looked at some of the other major, I'm trying to think of another major retailer
that I haven't looked at, just to see what they're looking like.
I looked at Target, I looked at, what else is a large retailer, for heaven's sakes?
Broad-based big box retailer?
No, not Winn-Dixie, I can't think of one right now.
Let me look over here really quick.
I'm going to pull up another company here, and I've mentioned this one before.
I might have even looked at its stock before.
Yum, Yum Brands, large restaurant holding company.
Restaurants in general, especially chains, have been showing signs of weakness.
There was a big thing, Burger King, which uses the franchise model,
has just had three of its major franchisees go tap city, go into bankruptcy.
That's not good, as opposed to McDonald's, which is most not nearly as franchise dependent.
So Yum Brands is a holder of restaurants.
So we've got Yum, okay, Yum,
about a market beta, a little bit 1.04, a little above the market,
somewhat undervalued at P-E ratio of 23.86, profitable, $5.26 per share,
and it pays a little dividend.
So having a look at that one, just to keep you fresh on those, calculating that,
143.43, boy that's going to be wild on the podcast.
If you're going to grow a beard, don't let it grow too long, okay?
Otherwise you have your sneeze staying with you for a while.
Where the hell was I?
Oh, 143.43 divided by 125.51 minus one equals times 100.
Well that's not bad, the capital gain, oh wait, something's wrong there.
Let's try that again.
143.43 divided by, I can't do a calculator worth a darn today,
125.51 minus one equals times 100, okay.
There we go.
Oh, that's decent, 14.28% return,
and you add in the dividend, 1.92%.
That's about what you would expect of a market risk portfolio, about 16.20%.
Not bad, I mean, if you're into restaurants,
that would be something that you might consider putting into your portfolio.
That's the risk of the overall market, and a darn decent return of 16.20%.
So, if that's your thing, you could try that.
I did see something I would caution you,
in general I would caution you about the cryptocurrencies,
but now I'm seeing some brokers really pushing ETFs that are crypto-based.
And that's like, yeah, you're diversifying terrible risk with more terrible risk,
so that might not be the best place to start with your investments in assets,
even if you want to diversify through ETFs, but there you go.
Okay, taking all this off the board here.
Now I'm going to pull up a spreadsheet.
I won't use it right away, and I'll do some of this on Wednesday.
I'll make it a little more visually comfortable for me.
Okay, and speaking of risk, and some of this I've said before,
this is the consolidation.
When we talk about risk,
I'll find the marker that actually works here.
Okay, I can look at three different kinds of risks that should be considered
when you're looking at projects.
This is project analysis, a single project.
Now I've said these before, and I'm just going to repeat them.
There is the standalone risk.
That's a project's risk on its own,
as if this is a separate company, its own thing.
And the best way to measure this is with measure,
is the standard deviation.
Risk measure would be the standard deviation of the cash flows.
Or the coefficient of variation.
As you've seen me do that before, the CV is just, so in other words,
standard deviation is sigma,
and the coefficient of variation is nothing but the standard deviation
divided by the average of the free cash flows.
It's the easiest one to do, and it's also kind of unfortunately the only one
that many companies use for doing project analysis.
Looking at the risk of a project, they'll just use,
well we're going to project the free cash flows,
and we'll take the standard deviation.
And if we're really feeling frisky,
we'll take the standard deviation divided by the average of the free cash flows.
It's, again, it's rather popular to do it that way.
It's quick, it's easy, it's dirty, and Excel can do a standard deviation like a boss.
It is, however, it's got its problems.
And among other things, if you're projecting free cash flows in a real project,
they're going to have kind of like an odd pattern.
The same pattern I was showing you before, you remember from marketing,
we have the introductory period, then the growth period, then the maturity period,
and then the decline period.
The problem is the standard deviation is going to be distorted by that kind of odd pattern
that a lot of projects have, especially when they die off quickly.
Closed down is going to be a very quick thing,
and that's going to have a distortionary effect on standard deviation.
Well, where are they at?
Now there's a couple of other ones that you might want to consider.
I'm going to try to think if I can do those in Excel.
Another measure of the risk is corporate risk.
As I say, we do projects in a sandbox as if there isn't a corporation there.
But in fact, there really will be a corporation there.
Other projects, possibly many other projects.
So realistically, those projects, their risks are going to be impacting on the risk of this project.
So this one is the project risk in the context of all the other projects of the company.
Now what this means is that it's going to be like stocks.
If the correlation of this project's cash flows is high in comparison with the other projects,
then there's not going to be much gain from this.
But if the project correlation between this project and other projects of the company is low,
they're going to cancel out some of each other's risk.
So in other words, this depends on the correlation of this project, project's risk,
with the other company projects.
Practically speaking, companies tend to, and it's a good thing in a lot of ways,
it goes to this whole idea of the core competence of the company.
Companies generally are not really into, well, let's take on a project that really has nothing to do with what we do now.
Go in a new direction.
So obviously, in a case like that, you're probably going to have a low correlation of the cash flows of this project with the company's other projects.
But at the same time, a lot of companies are pretty conservative about this.
They don't like to go into other fields, something we've not done before,
because they're going to have to have expertise that they don't have and all this.
And there are many stories of companies that decide they're going to go into something they've never done before,
and the results were catastrophic.
I mean, I could pull, just off the top of my head, I could pull dozens.
I'll give you an example.
Many, many years ago, JCPenney was a successful retailer, you know, the nice JCPenney stores.
It was beginning to show some signs of old age, and it just wasn't renovating its stores to keep up with the times.
But that really hadn't hit in yet.
JCPenney was flush with cash.
They had, well, what are we going to do now?
Let's move forward into the future.
Well, what they should have done is move forward into the future by upgrading their stores,
renovating their sales model and all that good stuff.
But instead, they decided, hey, let's buy an insurance company.
So they bought a boutique insurance company called Educators and Executives.
It catered to educators and executives, low-risk clients, and it was a very profitable operation in its niche market.
Well, Penny stepped in there, we're going to do it, we're going to put our model into this.
And of course, being that they were a retailer and they were an aggressive retailer, expansion, expansion, more customers,
they took this new boutique insurance company and said, let's make more money.
So what did they do?
They said, well, we got customers who were educators and executives.
We got about every one of them we could get.
So let's start marketing it to other types of people.
Well, other types of people, insure them and you're going to have more claims and you're going to have more problems.
And so, oh, well, now our payouts are going up with all these new, less safe people.
So let's go out and raise more money by taking in even more risky people.
And of course, in the end, it just turned into a catastrophe.
And JCPenney came out of the experience after a number of years hurt,
because they had gone out of their core competency with the brainstorm that they could use the model of their core competency
in a project that was completely unrelated and for which that model did not apply.
And they were just kicked in the butt.
And this has happened to many companies over the years where they step out of their core competency.
Yes, project risk is diminished by considering it in a well-diversified portfolio of projects.
But if you don't know what you're doing, that's just a prescription for disaster.
Now, here's another one. Market risk.
This takes another approach entirely.
In this approach, you're not asking about really the company.
You're asking about the investors in the company, specifically the equity investors.
There's an argument that goes on off and on, but it goes something like this.
You, madam, are an investor. You are the one who should be assessing the risk of investments.
You will buy companies where you see a reward to risk as being high.
You will get rid of companies where the reward to risk is low.
But ultimately, you are the ones who should decide risk.
So why should the company be worried about the risks of projects?
We'll take it on, and it's your job to decide whether you buy or sell our stock based upon the projection of the future expected cash flows.
It's not the company's problem in a very broad sense.
And that argument comes around, usually it comes around when companies are about to take on a stupid project.
Yeah, this is risky, but we'll let Wall Street decide whether it's a good idea or not.
Well, Wall Street's going to say, well, no, it was your job to filter before you hand it to us.
I make you a sandwich.
It happens to be a turd sandwich, but it's not my problem.
It's your problem before you eat it to see if it's a turd sandwich.
You understand that?
So you are going to come to my restaurant, right?
Because, I mean, you're saying, oh, hell, no.
You see, that's kind of the theory of the market risk theory is that it's not the company's issue, really.
It's the investors.
They'll decide on their – they'll let us know after the fact, probably.
But that, interestingly enough, that haunts us in corporate because that's –
and that's why we will oftentimes give rumors that we're going to try a new project
and see what happens when Wall Street and all the other rich investors react to what we are saying that we might do or we're considering.
We'll leak information just to see if there is an unfavorable reaction.
Because, remember, the ultimate thing that happens, if it's the investors love it,
well, they're going to buy the stock, the stock price will go up, and our weighted average cost of capital will go down.
Remember how the price is in the denominator of the cost?
Well, that's what this is all about.
And if the investors say, oh, this sucks, we're getting out of here, they'll sell, drive the price down,
and as the price goes down, the cost of equity goes up, and so the weighted average cost of capital goes up.
So ultimately, this is a test to see what happens to our cost of capital
when we float trial balloons about new directions of the company and all of that.
A lot of companies are actually quite afraid of this in the sense that they don't go outside of their core business model.
They stay right in it, from retailers to defense industry companies to even companies that are involved in high technologies.
They let that kind of really wild action be done by startups and by companies,
and they'll wait to see what happens before they step into it,
and they'll wait to see how they can integrate it into their existing core business model.
This is the case with oil companies and these new green energies.
They are not stupid. They want to see how the market shakes out before they throw billions.
They could throw billions into any one of these projects, wind, solar, title, even fusion,
but they're stepping back and they're going to say, we'll let the market figure this out,
and then once we know how to make money off this energy source, well, that's what we do.
We make money off energy, but they'll wait for that to happen.
And so that, of course, slows development, in some cases, most unfortunately, but there you are.
Okay.
Well, let me...one thing that I do want to point out,
that market risk is actually, from what we do in research on what has actually happened in the real world,
we find that market risk and corporate risk are quite related.
That's what I was talking about before, is that these two tend to be very much similar to each other,
because the corporate is going to watch the market, the market is going to watch the corporate,
so they're going to sort of move in kind of tandem, in kind of a coordinated, elegant dance,
I should say, not so elegant dance.
Whither goes the market, the corporate will follow, whither goes the corporate, the market will react to it.
So those two tend to be somewhat, more than somewhat related.
But there you go.
One thing that we can do, once we have set up that model, the free cash flow for each year of the project and all that,
one thing that you will see pretty popular is the sensitivity analysis.
All you do is change...you take your model, you've got your free cash flow under base scenario,
and then what you do is you simply change one number, like the growth rate of sales.
While we are projecting that the growth rate of sales will be 10%, so what happens if it's only 5%, what happens if it's 15%.
How robust, and I'll explain that word again in a minute here, how robust is the NPV and IRR to that change?
When I say robust, robust means insensitive.
You sir are robust to the winter.
You walk off, wow, ha ha ha, you're insensitive to the summer, wow, ha ha ha.
Whereas maybe me, oh my god, it's 40 degrees, I'm freezing my ass off, or it's 100 degrees, someone put some barbecue sauce on me.
We want to know, okay, you changed the revenue from 10% to 5%, the net present value stays positive.
Oh, well that's interesting.
So in other words, we can be a little wrong and we're on our baseline projection and the project is still good.
How much does it take to drive it into negative NPV territory?
Or if you've got a project that is just barely above NPV zero in the base scenario, well what happens if we have a glitch?
Another one that you can change is cost of goods sold.
Usually we have that as a percent of your revenues.
Okay, our base scenario says cost of goods sold is 40% of revenues.
What happens when we get into this project if our wholesalers pop price on us?
What happens if it goes to 45%?
What happens if it goes to 50%?
Seeing how much leeway we have in something we can't control like our wholesale prices, the wholesale costs,
how far does it have to go before a good positive NPV project turns into a bad negative NPV project?
And again, how robust is the free cash flow to the assumption of changes in free cash flow?
Another one that is being played, how robust is it to the tax rate?
Sooner or later we're going to have the tax rate come back up a little bit, at least a little we hope, we think.
So we're at 21% right now. What happens if we go to 25%?
What happens if we go to a 30%?
How much of a change would it take to knock this project off its pedestal?
That kind of thing.
So that's sensitivity analysis.
There is a kind of a flaw.
There's a criticism of sensitivity analysis in the sense that the argument is you're going to change one thing
and see the cascade effect down at the free cash flow NPV line.
Well, sometimes what changes one thing could actually change something that's not directly dependent upon it.
Okay, wholesale prices have popped 10%.
Okay, well, that was just our wholesalers being greedy?
No, that might have been an expectation of increasing inflation,
which means that that's going to affect our sales, general and administrative expenses.
We're going to have to offer higher salaries because inflation is starting to go up.
So sometimes sensitivity analysis can lead you astray.
It's not one thing. It's actually multiple things that can change,
and you're just pretending it's one thing that is changing.
So that's sensitivity analysis.
Now, these kinds of things that I'm saying here,
they're obviously not so much for an exam or a quiz in terms of numbers,
but they can be something that you could talk about in terms of a multiple choice question or fill in the blank.
I could describe a type of risk, and you'd have to tell me,
is this a standalone risk, a corporate risk, or a market risk, those kinds of things.
So putting in practical terms for your survival in this class,
know it at that kind of a level, what I've just talked about here.
Now, I'll look at some numbers, put some numbers down for you to have some fun with,
and just to lay it out.
And what I'll do is today I will do the initial layout,
and then on Wednesday I will kill it off mercifully with how you get it all done.
But in any case, one thing that you do want to do, starting right off the bat,
is you have, when you open Excel, you have a sheet.
Sheet one, okay.
Always, if you're going to do this kind of thing,
okay, we've got a sheet.
Okay, we've got a sheet two.
Create a sheet two, which is where you put the inputs.
And that's why I call that sheet.
Sheet two is the inputs.
That way, for one thing, you've got the numbers in a place where they're not cluttered by,
well, I've got to do a formula here.
No, these are just the numbers themselves.
And then you can call those by reference into the calculation sheet.
Okay, and we'll call that one free cash flow, sheet one, free cash flow.
So to start off with though, we're going to take the numbers,
and we're just going to put them in one after the other.
Now, I'll probably be a little haphazard here with this,
but the basic scenario is obvious.
And also, this is good for sensitivity analysis as well,
because then you can tweak a number and, surprise, you've got it where you want it,
what you want to happen in the core sheet.
So just to do this, you're going to start out with your equipment costs.
Costs.
Now let's say that the, that is $200,000.
No, let me make it a little bit, 280,000.
Depreciation schedule, just to make this a little bit easier, is 100%.
In other words, it's what the book calls bonus depreciation.
You may hear me call it rule 179 depreciation.
In other words, you can expense the entire amount in the first year.
Matter of fact, let me do something here.
You code, you don't have to do this.
Cells.entire column.
Oh, I'm losing entire column cells.
I'm trying to remember.
Is it auto-fit?
Auto-fit.
I could not, I was blanking.
God, I did it last time, I think I showed you this.
Yeah, you did.
Okay, there.
Happy now?
Okay, auto-fit.
And then I can close that.
And all that does, it's just a stupid little pet trick so that the, all the columns will slice appropriately on their own.
Okay.
And I'm going to put here tax rate.
I should have probably put that as something else.
And just for, just to make the numbers pretty obvious, 25%.
And now we'll do changes in net working capital.
Didn't work, okay.
Changes in net working, operating working capital.
Inventories.
They will go up initially by $25,000.
Then you'll have accounts payable will rise by $5,000.
Net change will be equal to the increase in current assets minus the increase in current liabilities.
So on net we will suffer a cash outflow of $20,000.
We're spending $25,000 on extra inventories.
However, we are not going to pay $5,000 of those right away.
So the net cash bleed is only $20,000.
Okay.
Operations.
And in this one we'll have new sales are going to be 100,000 units.
I'll show you a trick for this if you want.
Units.
Price per unit.
$2.
Variable cost.
We'll take a variable cost of 60% to start with.
And then we can do scenario analysis or something like that.
Life of project.
Years.
Four.
Equipment eligible for 100% depreciation.
100% of the equipment. We'll just make it simple that way.
Salvage value.
After tax salvage value.
Salvage value minus book value.
Times 1 minus the tax rate would be equal to 25,000.
Minus 100% times 25,000.
Book value.
I'm thinking here. I really don't need to make it that complicated.
It's just the after tax salvage value is going to be salvage value equals $25,000
minus zero simply because you depreciated all the way times 1 minus the tax rate.
Where did I put the tax rate? Right there.
Don't boo me.
Yeah, because you basically depreciated all the way so if you sell for 25,000 you're exposed to $25,000 in taxes.
So $25,000 minus 25% of $25,000 means you're going to get to keep after you've paid the tax on what you sold at the end of the project $18,750.
And that looks like that's about, oh, after tax capital expenditure.
Well, you're going to get to get some tax relief from that so that's going to be equal to the capital expenditure times 1 minus the tax rate.
You're not booing me. Really? Oh, I see.
I didn't put it in parentheses.
So that's what you spent after taxes for the $280,000 worth of equipment.
Okay.
This is the setup and then we would go over here and we can do it either as a row or as a column, however you would wish to do it.
I'll put it like this, year free cash flow.
Oh, it's working now.
And just to make it pretty, I'll reverse the font to white and black and then we'll have year 0, 1, 2, 3, 4.
Life of project. Okay, free cash flow.
The capital expenditures at the beginning will first of all be equal to the after tax cost of the investment
plus the net change at the beginning in working capital, that amount.
And actually I should make that a negative to keep Excel from getting upset. Negative on that.
Quit bitching at me for heaven's sakes.
Always criticizing me.
Negative 1 times, yeah, there we go.
I'm putting a negative in there just because it's a negative, it's outflow of cash.
Yeah.
I sit here doing this.
Wait a minute, how are you...oh wait.
Yeah, I forget to do that and then I'm typing along.
I get a little fragile with this because I've got to make sure I wrote the formula right.
Okay, so there's the initial.
Now we cruise along here, we get the year to year on it.
Okay, for year one we'll get our equals our revenues,
which will be the 100,000 units times $2 per unit minus 100,000 times $2 per unit.
What the heck?
What happened there?
Let's try it again.
Equals 100,000 units times $2 per unit minus $100,000 per unit times $2 per unit times 60%.
I could have probably done that more elegantly.
What are you blooming about?
Equals formula text times, open parenthesis, that close the parenthesis.
Why did that...let me copy that formula.
There we go, it did that time.
And I'll upload this tonight.
And then for up to year three, wait, I forgot to absolute reference those.
Yeah, I forgot to do absolute references on those.
F4, B12, B11, B12, absolute references, I just hit F4 when I put it on there.
There you go.
And then that should fix that.
There we go.
And then year four.
We will have one last year of the...
Well, actually, I could do a nasty little trick here.
I could copy that formula down and then I can edit it to include the last things.
The first thing is that we're going to have to add back the inventory because we close the project out
minus we have to pay off the accounts payable.
And then we have to take into account the after-tax salvage value plus that.
Try that again.
Got it. Okay, we have to add back the inventory because we can get rid of it now.
We have to pay off the payables right there.
And then we get to add the after-tax salvage value.
There we go.
And now we can do one last thing.
Let's say on the input sheet we put the weighted average cost of capital as let's say 10.00%.
So now what we can do is we can find the net present value of the project.
NPV, it will be equal to the initial plus the net present value of those...
Whoops.
Wait, I don't want to do that.
Let's try that again.
The initial cash outflow plus the NPV, open the parenthesis, using our weighted average cost of capital, comma, these.
Okay, what's wrong here?
Does anyone see what...
Let's try it one more time.
We're going to have the initial cash outflow equals the initial cash outflow plus the NPV, open parenthesis, the rate, which is 10%, comma, the values.
And then we'll close the parenthesis.
There it is.
And the internal rate of return is going to be equals internal rate of return of the values.
There we go.
I can even make that a couple of decimal places.
Now, I think the book shows you an MIRR for this, for one like this.
There's really no need to.
The only reason you would use a modified internal rate of return is if there were more than one switch in the cash flows, but there's not here.
So that's that.
So that one I will upload, and then I will finish this on Wednesday with another example, just so that you've got it down and you're never going to have a problem with it again.
That's all I have for you today.
I thank you.