Tariffs Never Die

Tariffs are back again, and the part that should grab your attention is not the headline rate. It’s the way the justification keeps changing. We walk through how the administration appears determined to land on a broad 10% tariff, then sends trade lawyers searching for whatever statute can support it, even if the fit feels awkward and short-lived.

We trace the sequence from emergency-style authority that courts rejected, to a balance of payments argument that only allowed a temporary window, to the newest pivot: a Section 301 approach tied to forced labor concerns rooted in the Trade Act of 1974. Along the way, we get specific about what “forced labor” can mean, why the current legal logic can be several steps removed from the goods actually entering the United States, and why that matters when the policy is applied to a huge share of global trade. If you care about markets, inflation, and planning, the big theme is policy durability. Tariffs that get implemented, challenged, and potentially refunded create uncertainty that businesses and investors can’t ignore.

We also zoom out to the politics. Are tariffs really delivering manufacturing jobs, or are they mostly a signal meant to play well with certain voters? And if the “messy middle” and median voters care most about affordability, how does a tariff strategy land when it raises costs in the short run? If you’re building or protecting a portfolio, this is a practical conversation about how trade policy feeds into prices, corporate decisions, and risk management.

If this helped you think more clearly about tariffs and investing, subscribe, share the show with a friend, and leave a review. What tariff claim do you want us to fact-check next?

Straight Talk for All - Nonsense for None

Please check out our other podcasts:

https://skepticsguidetoinvesting.buzzsprout.com

Disclaimer - These podcasts are not intended as investment advice. Individuals please consult your own investment, tax and legal advisors. They provide these insights for educational purposes only.

Transcript

Welcome And Why Tariffs Persist

Steve Davenport 0:26

Hello everyone and welcome to Skeptic's Guide to Investing. I'm Steve Davenport and I'm here with Clem Miller, and we've got this topic that just doesn't seem to die. The topic of tariffs. So the Trump administration has started a new method of assessing tariffs, which probably was the third method when you started this whole thing. So Clem, can you pick the third best method and effectively use tariffs? If it was a good method, why didn't they start with this one?

Clem Miller 1:05

So let me just lay out for you not sort of the very, very easy big picture, the best way to look at this whole thing, which is that the president has in mind that he should charge basically the whole world, or almost the entire world,

The Goal Of 10 Percent Tariffs

Clem Miller 1:29

with tariffs equal to 10% or more, , with sort of random increases above 10%, , depending on the day of the week. Uh and and that's what he wants to achieve. And so he sends his trade lawyers deep into the bowels of the trade law to try to find out how he can do that. The the mistake he made the first time was that he looked beyond trade law, thinking that there wasn't um you know enough in trade law to support what he was trying to do, and instead used emergency emergency provisions that are best used for economic sanctions. And then that was what was ruled out by the Supreme Court. Then he turned to a another trade law, he turned to a trade law provision, which basically said that if there were balance of payments problems in the economy, not trade deficits, but balance of payments problems that threaten the stability of the US dollar, that he would have the right to impose 10% or 15% even tariffs for, but only for a 150-day period. So he quickly imposed those after the Supreme Court ruled the emergency tariffs illegal. And there's this special trade court that actually struck those down, but then said, , if there's an appeal, we'll wait for the Supreme Court to to take that up. And so those things were kind of in limbo, and I think the higher courts basically said, well, we'll just you know let them expire at the 150 days. Um there's no point in having the court discussions if they're going to expire anyway in 150 days. So the 150 days expired last night, and of course, the the trade people in the administration were trying to rush around to see how else they can justify Trump's 10% plus tariffs. And so what they did is they found an old rule, 301, , where there's a provision that says that if a country ignores, basically ignores foreign labor in their own content, in their own forced foreign labor in their own imports, that we can apply tariffs against those against those countries on their exports that come to the United States. So you might think, hmm, that's kind of weird, right? We're not talking about forced labor and exports to the United States. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about countries, like let's say France imports goods from Burma or Myanmar, they call it now, , that have forced labor content. If France is importing that kind of stuff from Myanmar, then the US can impose tariffs on what France sends to us. Sounds kind of weird and and and several steps removed, but that's that's the way the law was written. And um and and so that's what they're hanging their their basis on. Now, I'm sure that whenever that law was written, um, and it was written a long time ago in order to punish countries that were, you know, that were actually importing stuff that was made with foreign labor, I'm sure when they did that, they were thinking, oh, well, this might apply to like a country, one country, two countries, three countries maybe. Uh I'm sure they didn't envision that this law would be manipulated in this way to apply to countries responsible for 99% of the trade with the US. So, you know, you really have to wonder, you know, is the whole world importing forced foreign labor content, um, you know, goods, or you know, what, you know, why why is this so widespread? It sounds like they're it sounds like if you dig into it more, and I'm sure people will dig into it, , people are gonna find that this is this is sort of a ludicrous basis for for applying tariffs.

Steve Davenport 5:58

Uh does it does it go back to slavery? Is that what they mean by forced labor? Slaves? Or is it just countries that have, you know, no minimum wage

Emergency Powers And The 150 Days

Steve Davenport 6:09

or no, you know, like I guess how far back are we talking? Does this bill or this capability?

Clem Miller 6:17

I don't know when it was implemented, but the key criterion here is that there's a degree of coercion on the labor. So it can be things like denying people their passports or you know, the old company town stuff where you need to, you know, you're basically stuck in a town working for the factory because you have to, there's only one place you can buy your goods in the town, you know, that kind of thing. So that anything that's sort of implied coercion or explicit coercion would be considered foreign labor. But again, the important thing to think to recognize here is that we're not talking about imports into the United States with foreign labor. That doesn't, that's not what this is about.

Steve Davenport 7:06

It's about No, I know, it's because they're implying that our labor is at an unfair advantage. Right. Because they've got these countries getting them products from through forced labor, and because we don't have forced labor in America, it says it came from the Trade Act of 74.

Clem Miller 7:26

Right.

Steve Davenport 7:26

So but you know that's pretty recent.

Clem Miller 7:30

Yeah. Uh but the thing is, is that is that I mean, in a way, why do we care? Why do we care if France I mean, yeah, I mean it puts us at an unfair advantage, doesn't it? Why? Why?

Steve Davenport 7:47

Because we don't use forced labor because we think it's inappropriate.

Clem Miller 7:52

It's it's a human rights issue. Yeah. But it's not it's not really a a competitiveness issue for us. Why do we care if France is importing foreign labor content stuff from from Burma? Why? Because they're not going to import that same stuff from us?

Steve Davenport 8:10

Yeah.

Clem Miller 8:11

That's ridiculous.

Steve Davenport 8:13

It's not ridiculous. I mean, I think when it was done in 74, there was probably some part of America that could have tried to compete, but they were, you know, if it's the same way about environmental issues, right? I mean, they could have, I think they could have gone that route and said anybody who's not using, you know, environmentally safe, you know, um manufacturing is going to be at an advantage to the United States. That's why we've argued about why we can't compete with all these countries because we have so many environmental and labor rules that make it more difficult than somebody in Burma or Indonesia or some of these countries with less rules.

Clem Miller 8:56

So if France is if if France is importing high climate content stuff from Burma, we should be we should be slapping imports on on stuff from France that doesn't have high climate content.

Steve Davenport 9:16

I think that first of all, you're assuming that I'm supporting what the tariffs are. That's not what I'm saying. I'm trying to explain how I think it could have been perceived in 74 that hey, these these countries have an unfair advantage because they have forced labor. If we punish the country who's taking from these, then all of a sudden everybody will. I mean, wouldn't it be nice if there was a global standard for what you know labor was? I mean, I would I would love to see a global it's like we don't we don't have a global accounting standard, Glenn, right? Not everybody's using it.

Clem Miller 9:56

Not everybody's well there is there is an international labor organization, and they you know they put out a whole bunch of of

Section 301 And Forced Labor Claims

Clem Miller 10:04

recommendations. You know, it's the UN, so they can't impose laws, right? But they put out a lot of recommendations and so on. And a lot of countries do have some criteria for controlling their their imports. But you know, the thing is you have to look at what if you look at what was done today with these tariffs, they imposed tariffs today of 10% for countries that do not have do not have such a problem, and they only imposed and they imposed 12.5% tariffs for countries that do have such a problem. So this is a it's just it's kind of like smoke and mirrors.

Steve Davenport 10:54

All they want is I agree, it doesn't sound like it like fundamentally I gotta think some of the labor people in the European Union are gonna have stronger controls over what they allow into the EU because they don't want to hurt other EU countries, right? I mean, if China produces a car and Germany's is Germany gonna import that car even though parts of the labor content were from you know um labor camps in China. I mean, I don't I think that we know that Germany would probably want to not beat their own auto industry by allowing a competitor to to have an advantage. So I look I guess I I just don't see how you can say it about 60 countries. I agree with you. Right. 60 countries is ridiculous.

Clem Miller 11:47

Right. And and and and the the point I was trying to make just now was that you know if you can be a country that completely bans imports of stuff made with foreign labor and still get hit with the 10% tariff. Correct.

Steve Davenport 12:04

That's not under I don't understand how they're gonna I mean it almost seems like the law is really meant for the 12 and a half, but not for the 10.

Clem Miller 12:14

Right. Well, the yes, that is right. The excuse, okay, of the foreign labor issue only applies to a handful of countries where the 12.5 percent applies. The 10% was just sort of snuck in here because Trump wants his 10% tariffs. And those 10% tariffs apply to everybody else who you know has basically signed on to labor protections.

Steve Davenport 12:39

Uh so I'm I'm sure it's not complete and thought out, Glenn. It's not it's not my you know, I I I agree that 60 countries is is just a global ban and it's not a specific ban related to the labor policies of the country. I'm just I'm just surprised, one, that this is a 1974 trade act item because it seems like it was, you know, from a much further like I can go go back to you know post-slavery in America and say, yeah, there were other countries where this still existed, right? I mean the that there's a lot of things we can go back in US history and improper behavior, but I'm not sure all these countries are still as improper as we're assuming in our you know accusations. But my question is, is who's who really manages this classification or of forced labor? Like, is there a is there a group that says, hey, we recognize these countries as doing things that are inappropriate for you know labor? And like, do they have much authority? I guess who who has the authority to classify people as using forced labor?

Clem Miller 14:02

Well, I don't know that there is a classification system per se, but in the international, there's a body of the United Nations called the International Labor Organization, and they set out standards regarding labor, including what's forced labor, what's acceptable in terms of foreign trade involving labor. They're the people who are in charge. And I don't know that they have a specific list of countries and you know recommendations not to trade with them. I I I certainly haven't seen that, but I'm sure that they've they have a lot of inputs out there that can be used to to make these kinds of justifications.

Steve Davenport 14:46

Yeah, I mean, I I think that like I said at the beginning of this podcast, I mean, it feels like we're we're reaching down to the third choice here, right? Right, yeah.

Clem Miller 14:58

If this was the best choice for implementing tariffs, then but but you know that like the the press is completely missing the point that only a handful of these countries that were named today are are actually a let are actually alleged to be importing foreign labor, foreign forced labor products. The vast majority of the country of the of the countries that are being subject to tariffs don't even have that problem. It's just they're being stuffed into the same into the same provision of the tr of you know they're being stuffed into the same executive order just because our president wants to be able to apply tariffs across the board.

Steve Davenport 15:58

Yeah, I mean, do you have an idea of how many really are doing this and how many aren't?

Clem Miller 16:04

Well, there's the the the vast majority of countries listed were 10% tariff countries, and there

Why The Numbers Feel Like Theater

Clem Miller 16:10

were a handful, like four or five, that were like 12.5 percent countries. So very, very, very few are subject to the 12.5 you probably looked at those relative to total imports small, tiny, tiny. Yeah. So this this it's kind of smoke and mirrors, it's kind of you know, yeah, it's kind of smoke and mirrors. Uh they're looking for you know what they really should be doing, and what they actually did, what they've actually done in the past, is they should be looking for actual direct trade violations, , where there's dumping by the foreign country into the United States of certain products, and then that we would fight them back. And but that stuff, here's the problem, that stuff involves a lot of research and it's very, you know, kind of product-by-product analysis. Although, you know, you can use unrelated products to fight back against products that are being dumped, but still it's you know, there's kind of a presumption of um you know that the impacts wouldn't be disproportionate to the injury, right? So if if if the injury is a billion dollars, the impact should be you know around a billion dollars. The impact of the of the punishment of the penalty should be around a billion. But here it's just you know, they're looking for excuses to apply penalties worldwide. And I just can't see this , you know, just like the first set and the second set, which was , you know, also turned also struck down by the International Trade Court, I think this this one will be too.

Steve Davenport 17:59

Okay. Do you have an idea of how quickly they can, you know, like does this court have a six-month wait, you know, backlog of things they haven't ruled on, or is it I don't know.

Clem Miller 18:10

I mean, when it came to the when it came to both the the initial emergency tariffs and the 15 um you know balance of payments tariffs, they ruled pretty quickly, like three, four months.

unknown 18:28

Okay.

Clem Miller 18:29

And so I would expect you know a similar thing to happen this time. I'm sure all the all the you remember our our guest Mike Machanish? Oh yeah, I'm sure he has something to say about this.

Steve Davenport 18:44

Maybe we gotta call Mike back and he'll give us the straight talk. I just don't want to hear about you guys going for an ice cream when you're little kids or something, you know. Uh but I guess we could talk about Detroit, you know. Um so I guess Clem, how do you how do we look at this in relation to everything that's happened so far? Are the original tariffs, have they all been returned?

Clem Miller 19:11

I don't think so. I think they're still in the process of refunding them, yeah. And and the second tariffs, are those going to be returned as well? Well, that's a good that's a good question because now that the first set of tariffs, it's sort of in a in a gray zone now because the first set of tariffs have now expired. Uh, but there's there have been tariffs paid. So maybe the court hearings will continue and force a refunding of that. Yeah, that's what I'm interested in. They will I think they will be refunded

Court Timelines And Possible Refunds

Clem Miller 19:45

because you're gonna have you're gonna have people who are going to who are going to sue to try to get those monies back.

Steve Davenport 19:54

Yeah. It feels to me like this is just gonna eventually get to a point where nobody knows who's coming and who's going, right? I think we're already there, actually. All right. Um and and I guess, I mean, is this an election item that is trying to show how tough he is on the foreign trade? And that's his that's what's gonna get him re-elected or get the Republicans elected in the midterms? This doesn't seem like an issue if I was gonna pick what what got my attention going into the midterms. Um doesn't it seem like most people are gonna go who who knows what is no this this this issue is so obscure and still hard to determine. I mean, do you call this a victory for US manufacturing?

Clem Miller 20:44

Of course not. No. Not not , you know, if this if this had been the 1960s or 1970s or 1980s, maybe this would be more of a victory for manufacturing, but today I don't think so.

Steve Davenport 21:06

I mean it's I guess it do you do you think that these things are being surveyed by the Republican administration and they're saying this item still shows up as people, you know, people react with a certain intensity, and that's why they like yeah, are they listening to a different America? Are they listening to a part of America that is being hurt by trade and it's still it still finds all these things to be a positive? And we're just you know sitting here in the non-manufacturing world and we don't see or feel um how much these tariffs really borrow bother people.

Clem Miller 21:45

So I, you know, I don't I don't live in the manufacturing world. I came from Detroit where I had some experience with the manufacturing world. Um and I I would have to say that the ultimate criterion people in manufacturing cities look at is what's happening with jobs. And if they don't see the jobs yet coming in, then you know they can't possibly feel good about things, right? Especially if they've been promised that jobs would come in, be you know, coming in. They've heard for years and years that bringing it back, yeah, that jobs are gonna be coming in and they're tired of hearing the promises. And so they're going to punish anybody who promises and doesn't deliver. And and so, you know, even if even if the individuals in these small towns

Manufacturing Jobs And Political Incentives

Clem Miller 22:40

and cities aren't themselves directly hit by tariffs. You know, they're they're not getting the jobs that were promised to them.

Steve Davenport 22:51

Right. But I guess I'm saying if I look at that as a guide, labor has actually been, you know, pretty good results, wouldn't you say? I mean, our our unemployment rate and some of the recent data doesn't look like, you know what I mean, the if it did, then then there would be a justification to to lower rates, right? So labor has been pretty strong in the last month, wouldn't you say?

Clem Miller 23:20

Well it also depends on what's going on with the labor participation rate too. Right. And I think that's been um I think that's you know been kind of weak over the last few years. But the thing is is that any argument about I think even even the Trump administration would say this any argument about tariffs and the impacts of tariffs have got to be looked at you know over the course of several years, not over the course of you know one year, right? You're not gonna have you know like even with the pharmaceutical statement they made a few days ago where they said there's gonna be zero on pharmaceutical imports for two years and then they're gonna soar up um you know basically they're giving the pharmaceutical industry two years to to move plants and and whatnot that's still way too fast. You can't move plants that fast.

Steve Davenport 24:23

Well yeah I I don't um I think I think that it's it's an illusion but um you can keep up illusions for three months right I mean that's what that's what you want when you say well they really they really just want to get through November with some of their core base who is manufacturing in America believing that the administration is fighting for them every day right but I don't know that they actually they actually believe that okay I know I'm just I'm just trying to maybe some do but I'm just trying to say with all the things he could do to improve Iran and the Ukraine to now go after more tariffs when it hasn't exactly been the you know calling up Putin and getting the Ukraine crisis over or um calling up Netanyahu and Iran and saying okay let's let's find a way to peace um you know it it's not like there aren't things on his plate that would have an immediate benefit to a lot of people in this country.

Clem Miller 25:35

Right. I very much doubt that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers are beating down his door for tariffs.

Steve Davenport 25:44

Right so so my my question is Clem, is this just another way to disguise and distract instead of a way to really effectively handle something that helps people I don't think that's it.

Clem Miller 25:58

I think I think what what's really it is that is that Trump grew up in a world a lot of Trump's views today are views that he's had for decades. He's consistent he's had consistent views on on things and he just hasn't shaken those views. He doesn't let new information affect his views on things and so he's he's got it in his head that that that tariffs are essential to quote making America great again unquote right and he he won't be shaken from those views these are views that I'm sure he he you know you know adopted in the in the 80s or the 70s or or or whatnot right when when there were um greater tariffs you know but I'm sure he's remembering some casino he built in New Jersey that the steel had a you know the steel was more expensive because of some tariff and he's you know he went bankrupt on that and he's like hey the reason I went bankrupt is I paid too much for my materials. It could be and that could definitely be and because steel was a big a big issue in involving has always been a big issue involving um tariffs issues that's still around um steel being and aluminum being so-called strategic metals yeah I think that you know we we all have battles we're fighting from our past instead of just moving on to the present.

Steve Davenport 27:39

Um so I'm sure he's he's got more than a few battles in his head that are going on um I need to be up there you know there must be must be some great self-talk going on.

Clem Miller 27:52

Okay I'll give you I'll give you an example of how he looks toward the past. Uh how he he he did a tweet or one of his truths or whatever the other night complaining about something Paul McCartney said and then saying that the Beatles were never a great group the great groups all came before the Beatles the great rock and roll groups all came before the Beatles that that's I don't know I think he's um yeah at 80 years old um I'm not sure what we can

Tariffs As A Fixed Worldview

Clem Miller 28:30

take from this except that I think we need to have leaders who have a little more current sense of what's going on in the world.

Steve Davenport 28:38

Yeah so I I think that this whole tariff thing and I think some of these other things are really an example of you know we've had two leaders in the recent you know 10 years of our government who really were not positioned to succeed based on their age. And I'm not somebody who speaks about ageism lightly um I think of it as um more of a you know let's try to maximize our country versus let's try to punish people because of their age. I mean I just believe that if we know that through medicine and and other things that our ability to handle situations and um our ability to think about and not be driven away by um what I'll call inconsistent thinking. And I'm not talking about dementia here, but I'm just talking about generally slowing down your ability to make decisions. It it seems to me that's where a lot of these problems emanate from they don't emanate from the world being too complicated they emanate from our our our leader being unable to assimilate and understand all of the implications of what he's doing. Is that fair I I totally agree and he and he hires people part of it is his hiring decisions too yeah I mean but that's what I'm saying is that his decision making ability is is compromised. Yeah therefore I mean I think we all want this um ideal world of of leaders who are thoughtful intelligent well read and all understand implications in why long-term relationships go up and down and in the end you you don't punish people every year based on a new idea because then you you lose the respect and you lose the ability to really negotiate. I mean Reagan may have been losing it but the point is is that he had an administration full of truly experienced people right and and so they they could have run that administration you know without him at all being around yeah I mean I think that that's the to me that's the difference of of how age affects a person is that if you truly are a good leader you're you're you put a team underneath you that is you know full of the ability so that you don't need to make a lot of the decisions day to day and you trust them and as having the same but don't you think that was a very different time that there was a very distinct kind of when I'm a Republican this is who I am and now I think that you know I I've I believed Clyman if you let me rant for a minute I I believe that what we're seeing is the breaking down of the two party system. The two-party system had had worked in America when you had people basically easily grouping into two areas one was labor and workers and the other was um aristocrats and conservatives and you you really had two different views of how the country was broken down. And then you look at the developed democracies social democrats in Europe and you realize that they've since broken down into four, five and six different parties and the U.S. has stayed with two and the religious right has broken away from what I'll call the conservative right and I'd say that the social um democrats or labor has broken away from what I'll call the middle um you know the moderate democrat and I think if we had four parties you literally would probably break the country down into almost 25% buckets and you'd have to work together with somebody else but it would be at least people voting for candidates who do the things they believe in. And I think what Trump believes

Median Voters, Affordability, And Closing

Steve Davenport 32:55

in um is a is a kind of break based on a a time long gone and it's it's really something that we need to move on from or figure out a better party system because I think there's a lot of Republicans who don't believe where Trump is is where they are. And I don't believe there's a lot of Democrats who believe everything that you know Kamala Harris or Biden believed. There's I think there's this messy middle climb that I keep talking about, which I think is very, very confused. And I think they're the people who ultimately when they lean one way or another push the parties to you know listen in that middle right now I'm just trying to consider what will the messy middle think of this tariff thing. And I think it's it's just too obscure and too remote. I mean I think they want a lower cost and I think that the higher energy costs are going to be a negative so I think they're gonna get punished on affordability and they're talking about tariffs and tariffs don't do anything for affordability short term, right?

Clem Miller 34:06

That's right. There's this political science going to your messy metal concept there's a there's a a term in political science called the median voter and the median voter if you line up on any particular issue you line up all the voters and you find the one exactly in the middle that median voter is going to be the one that determines the election yeah I I think it's sometimes it's a little it's a little different than that because the I mean if if it's if it's more than if if you're right if it's a 5149 decision um but I have a feeling that this there's going to be so many people in the you know um the immigrant community or in the community of um manufacturing and other things that are gonna normally vote um with conservatives and I think they're gonna turn around and say this government you know violated its rule which was don't spend money in foreign countries.

Steve Davenport 35:10

Yeah I think that the second group is going to be the the the groups of Republicans who say you know we we we've we're not doing what's best for America with these tariffs because I don't think they see them as helping you know the cost of living or affordability. No. So I think that war number one, affordability number two, and then I guess I would say number three is in general the the people that you've brought in you know with ice and everything else haven't done what they really wanted to do which you know I don't know what the numbers are currently of immigrants who have been sent back and how many were you know with arrest records and how many were with no arrest records. And I think the number is like 90-10 that only 10% of those immigrants that have been returned really have um got some kind of a record a criminal record that you know is what he's been railing against. So if if to me there are people who had family members either through ICE or other ways that hardship has been put upon them, I think that group of people might have voted I think the there's two or three different populations that are going to switch. And one of them is um the immigrants who feel like all of this response has been too much and not applied fairly or evenly and therefore you know I I understand the people who came here the right way and their anger at immigrants who come here the wrong way. I I get that but what I don't get is how we can even look at the way that ICE treats people you know I saw this picture of a of a nun walk into church and she got you know accosted by the ICE. I mean if you're attacking nuns who are going to church I think you might have overreached in your ability to you know control immigration do you agree oh I totally agree I think I think they're doing so many things to turn off um you know immigrants um the independents I mean they lost the Democrats a long time ago right and I think they lost large numbers of independents a long time ago um well that's that's what really matters don't you think the country is really I mean there's there's about 20% who are core Republican 25% who are core Democrats and then the rest are in that middle aren't they're force the middle determines who who wins elections. Right so I mean I just if if this were my administration and I was king for a day or I was president for a day whatever we want to call them the I think you would try to run this and try to figure out how to do things to please that middle not do things to antagonize it. And this just seems like more antagonism yeah I agree um okay is there anything else you think we need to cover on these tariffs um no I think that's about it I think we covered it well we'll we'll learn more about it in coming weeks I'm sure but I'm I feel pretty confident that they're going to get that they're gonna get struck in strick stricken down by the trade court okay and you think it's a three or four month thing before that happens yeah okay um well thanks for your insights I appreciate all your knowledge in this trade area because um it it all seems like just a collection of more numbers that I don't I don't always get how they come up with these different um codes but um live and learn so thanks everybody for listening and we appreciate your support and we hope that these are useful to you as you try to work with your portfolios and um we hope that you'll let us know what we should do and how we can improve this. So thanks everyone and have a great weekend.