Supply Chain Unlocked

Ep. 4 - Refund Rage: The Psychology Behind Return Policies

• Dr. Matthew Waller

Share episode

Ever wonder why a “standard” return policy can feel so unfair at the counter? We unpack the psychology and operations behind returns with Dr. Travis Tokar, Professor of Supply Chain Management at TCU, and explore how loss aversion, fairness, and frontline interactions shape customer reactions far more than a PDF policy ever will.

We walk through the five policy levers: money, exchange, time, scope, effort, and show which ones trigger loss perceptions that spark anger, and which ones customers accept when the rules are clearly justified. You’ll hear why framing a 15% fee as an “85% refund” doesn’t help, how justice theory explains real-world reactions, and why linking stricter terms to item-specific costs (like data wiping for electronics) earns legitimacy. We also compare mail-in versus store returns, highlighting where centralization saves money, when a fast shelf restock wins, and how to nudge shoppers to lower-cost channels with faster refunds, nearby drop-offs, or small incentives.

Beyond costs, we dig into what matters for loyalty: measuring more than return rates, using returnless returns strategically to boost goodwill, and training frontline teams to balance consistency with humane exceptions. Travis shares experiments, real policy patterns across retailers, and practical tests worth trying, like adaptive leniency for high-value customers and firm guardrails for serial returners. It’s a candid playbook for designing return policies that reduce friction, respect customers, and protect margins.

If this conversation gave you new ideas for your returns strategy, follow the show, share it with a teammate, and leave a quick review telling us which policy change you’ll test next.

SPEAKER_01:

I have with me today Dr. Travis Tokar, who is professor of supply chain management at Texas Christian University, also known as TCU. And also demand planning and other things. Thanks for joining me today, Travis. Absolutely. Glad to be here. So Travis, I know you've done a lot of work on returns. And I know you've returned a few things in your life, too. In simple terms, what makes a return policy feel harsh to a shopper, even when it looks like it's standard to a retailer?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, so there's a number of papers that have been uh published over the last several years that uh start to uh address this question. And uh while there's still, I think, a little bit to uh be uh uncovered, I I think what it's coming down to is uh a couple of key points. Uh first, uh does the policy or elements of the policy feel like a loss? Uh one of the things that uh we know from a lot of research in uh economics and psychology is that people hate losses. Uh financial gains. As opposed to gains, yes, relative to gains, uh losses.

SPEAKER_01:

It took research to figure that out. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00:

Believe it or not. Uh yeah. So actually, what's been interesting is uh the researchers have put some specifics on these, uh uh what we all know to be true. And so uh uh a loss has roughly double the impact of an equivalent gain. So, you know, if you found$20 in your pocket versus you got a$20 parking ticket, that$20 parking ticket makes you roughly twice as unhappy as that uh finding that$20 bill in your pocket made you happy. Uh so it's not uh uh perfectly double, but there's some uh uh ballpark uh figures that we can make some uh uh take some actionable insight from. But in terms of how this plays out in returns, uh a couple of uh researchers have been looking at different elements of policies um in isolation. Um in, well, I shouldn't say in isolation because they're always together in a policy document, but they've really focused on each different element uh by itself. And so there's the monetary element. You do you get a full refund, or is there a uh a fee taken out when you get your return? Um the exchange element, do you get cash back, or uh, you know, is it the same uh form of payments that you get uh you made, you get your return in, or uh is it a store credit return only? Uh there's time, you know, how much time do you have to make the return? Uh the scope. Uh are all products eligible for return, or do they limit it to full price purchases only, no sales, uh no clearance items? And then the final one is effort. Uh this is going to include things like uh a requirement that you have the original packaging, the original tags, the box being opened. Uh you can only make the return certain locations. Uh you have to have it pre-authorized, you have to have uh a driver's license to be scanned. There's a whole list of things that kind of fall under effort. Now I know that's kind of long-winded. So to get to your question, Matt, uh, one of the things that makes a policy feel harsh is when uh any of those elements are structured so that it's it's a direct loss to the consumer or perceived as a loss. So the monetary one for sure is huge, uh, at least in past research, showing that, yeah, if you take a fee out of someone's return, it's gonna have a major impact on how they feel about the situation. Exchange falls under that as well. If I give you store credit back instead of money, I'm giving you something that's generally less valuable. Uh and so it's seen as a loss, whereas the others aren't quite so much or are aren't at all viewed in that same kind of lens. So loss is one piece. Um, the other piece, uh Matt, in terms of what uh makes a policy feel harsh, is uh comes down to fairness perceptions. So if a policy feels like it's structured arbitrarily uh or is uh harsh towards the consumer with no real justification for it, uh that's not going to go over very well. But if the policy is structured so that consumers can see, oh, okay, I understand why maybe uh things are being restricted in this way or why this is being imposed upon me, uh as long as it's justified somehow, uh people tend to be a lot more accepting. So loss and fairness, at least in what we're seeing so far in the literature and uh my own research, uh that tends to uh account for why some policies are are are seen as harsh. I see.

SPEAKER_01:

Um and you know, if you're a shopper and you read about a returns policy, you may think, oh, this is fair or this is harsh, or I like it or I don't like it. But is it is it perceived differently when they're actually making the return versus reading about it?

SPEAKER_00:

That's what I'm very interested in right now. And uh so uh been looking at some scenarios exploring that very question because a lot of the research that's been done so far has people evaluating uh policy statements on paper. Uh not as many studies have actually uh put people in a return scenario and explored how the various elements impact their uh their their feelings and their behavior. And I think that's important because um it seems to me, uh just my own experience and also just looking at a lot of past research, uh, you're gonna find some major differences when people are evaluating things uh just on a piece of paper versus when they're applied to them. So um so yeah, I have a lot of interest in that question, actually.

SPEAKER_01:

Um and I know you've also looked at first person versus third person. Uh what changed when people pictured themselves in the denial moment? What what's the uh effect there?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, so the the studies that I've been doing on this so far uh are uh still preliminary. We've just got some uh pilot studies collected, excuse me, pilot studies collected, and uh so we don't have uh enough data to say uh anything with with uh certainty, but initial evidence is suggesting that, yeah, in many cases there are some pretty important differences. Uh that this this all kind of gets back to uh just the fact that when uh thangs are made personal uh versus abstract or versus applied to somebody else, uh it takes on a different life. And I don't I don't know if you want me to get into the weeds or or not with this map, but it comes down to justice theory and the fact that there's multiple ways in which people assess fairness. There's the outcome, you know, the distributive fairness of something, and there's the procedural justice as well, which is uh the process by which an outcome is reached. And then there's interactional justice, which is uh has a lot to do with uh does somebody feel uh treated fairly and respected and informed during uh a process? So when somebody's evaluating something on paper, uh you're you're you're doing so in a very uh clinical state. It's just you know, uh cut and dry, and it's really all about the procedural fairness. You look at this policy on paper, and uh, you know, okay, do the terms seem, generally speaking, fair? Uh, but when it's applied to uh somebody else, so it's making it a little more tangible, right? Someone uh is subject to this, or especially to you yourself, uh it moves from just a situation where you're evaluating the procedural fairness or the procedural justice of this policy and then looking also at the distribute, the distributive element. You know, what is the outcome? It now matters a lot more because it's me. And then also the interaction as well, where uh you're gonna be much more sensitive to uh were you treated fairly, uh, where you've given clear information uh about how all this was going to play out. And so there's a it's a much richer uh scenario uh when it's applied to individuals, and uh therefore there's a lot more opportunity for uh you know people to be uh hacked off for last lack of a better term, uh, when maybe yeah, the the outcome isn't uh exactly what they'd want, or they didn't feel they were treated uh you know with respect or dignity or uh weren't informed. So uh yeah, as soon as it moves from paper to uh personal, it it becomes a much more um challenging situation in a lot of ways. And I think that's important to study. Uh the papers is one thing, but you know, in practice, uh it's people talking to people in a in a at a return counter. This isn't just, you know, hey, read our policy on our website. It's uh it what matters, at least in my assessment, is how people respond in reality. And so I'm I'm really interested in digging into that question.

SPEAKER_01:

So a retailer can't just write a policy and then have people read it and evaluate it. Um because if they do that, they might think it's gonna be perceived more positively than it actually will when it's implemented.

SPEAKER_00:

Exactly right, Matt. What we are seeing so far is that uh people do tend to perceive just things on paper more positively than when they're uh uh put into practice. So it is a risk. If you're uh um looking for consumer feedback uh and you're just looking at a uh a sheet of paper with a policy on it, uh it's probably not going to uh get you the insight you're looking for.

SPEAKER_01:

So let's suppose let's talk about a return. Return's occurring. And let's say the return is denied. Like uh I know I've had this happen. I I bought um I bought an air compressor and I took too long to take it out of the box and you know implement it, put it put it together and uh but and and so I I took it out of the box and I'm thinking this isn't what I want. And so I tried to return it and I couldn't. I was denied. Now I went ahead and used it and it's in my garage. But are there any measures or signals that kind of predict whether a denial will damage loyalty or word of mouth?

SPEAKER_00:

Well, certainly um trying to assess the fairness, the the perceived fairness of policies uh in advance will help retailers understand uh or or um predict um how well these things will be received. Um but uh yeah, to some degree, um that that's uh part of what I'm hoping to get into is some future studies. Uh understanding uh when you write something on paper and people view it and say, okay, I know this seems fair, but then all of a sudden they come, you know, wanting to make a return and they're told, yeah, it's been too long and you don't have the packaging, uh, you know, whatever the reason, um okay, how what are the nuances of the uh the thinking and emotion and behavior that consumers are going to experience in that situation? And yeah, what can we do uh to provide some um understanding of how that's likely to play out?

SPEAKER_01:

Where does framing fail? And explain what framing is. Um and policy design needs to change instead about returns.

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah. So one approach to potentially um making policy stricter without uh angering customers that I was interested in exploring were framing effects. And framing effects refer to the fact that you can describe um a choice or a decision or a product in negative terms or positive terms, or as a gain or as a loss. It's the same thing, but it's just described slightly different. So one classic example is uh ground beef. We all know you go to the grocery store and it's the lean content that is expressed on the package. So 85%, 90%, 92%, it's describing the lean content of the ground beef. You could just as easily describe that in terms of the fat content, you know, 15%, 10%, 8%. Uh but what uh people have found is that when you describe something in terms of lean versus fat, or I should say the ground beef is described in terms of lean versus fat.

SPEAKER_01:

Uh some people describe me in terms of fat.

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, I need to get out and uh yeah, uh do a little more uh cardioactivity here. I'm gonna be described in the same way shortly, but uh but all to say you you can easily describe something uh in positive versus negative terms, and it's uh exactly the same thing. Uh maybe a more concrete example uh is uh medical procedures. You can describe uh, you know, the uh let's say a surgical intervention in terms of the probability of survival versus the mortality rate of the procedure. How you present that to a patient is going to likely have a very strong impact on whether they choose to go through with that or not. Typically, things described in positive terms are going to be more accepted than things uh that are described in negative terms. So, how does this apply to return policies? Well, uh this this was just an interesting uh little project that I threw together a while back, but I was curious because past research had shown that um the monetary element was by far the most impactful. If you charge somebody, for example, a 15% return fee, um they're gonna hate it. It it elicits uh a lot of negative emotion and behavior. Well, what if we described it as an 85% refund? Same thing, but it's just kind of spinning the terms a little bit. And uh this this has been shown to be uh very effective in a lot of other contexts. However, in returns, uh the results that we got showed uh, yeah, it does nothing. It really has no impact. And as I dug into the literature, it wasn't entirely shocking. Uh, there's some uh evidence that shows when something is just so impactful to a person, it really just has such a profound impact on your uh your emotions, um, framing is just not gonna help. And so it looks like um really this that doesn't have a lot of promise for helping in uh return policies. And um so that did point us toward uh considering policy design instead. Because uh one of the things that was interesting after we did that framing study is uh went back to the drawing board and started looking at okay, what what are retailers actually doing in practice today uh with their policies and how are they structuring or how are they uh presenting return fees? And lo and behold, what we discovered is contrary to a lot of past research studies, retailers really aren't just blanket-imposing return fees. Uh it's it's just uh unheard of to say basically, you know, hey, there's a 15% return fee for anything you bring back. It just doesn't work that way in practice. Um what we discovered was that return fees, if they exist, are limited to certain types of products or certain situations. And um, so for example, maybe um there's a 15% return fee for uh, let's say uh laptops or mobile phones, because these are going to have to be inspected and repackaged and wiped clean of any personal information that was put on there. And that takes time and energy. So when that's put into the return policy, you know, an explanation for these return fees, uh, we thought, hmm, well, this is interesting. I wonder if uh, you know, this is going to actually maybe make them more palatable. And it started looking across a lot of other things as well. Uh, that exchange element that has been shown to be so impactful as well, whether you get your cash back or store credit, um, there's not a single return policy that we could spot where retailers were simply saying you only get store credit for returns. That's what had been intested in some past research studies, but that's really not how things play out. Store credit returns are given when a shopper doesn't have their receipt and transaction record, can't be found in the store system, in which case the manager then can make a call. You know, hey, maybe we'll take it back, but you're you're gonna get store credit, not not cash back or anything. So um that kind of got us into uh the next leg of the study, which was to start looking at fairness and and justification, attribution as um uh as levers, or I guess I should say as tools that retailers could use to make some of those strict terms more acceptable. Um it's what a lot of them are already doing, but I think there's some other opportunity, and that's what we're exploring next.

SPEAKER_01:

So what do we know about the cost um structure difference for mail in versus store returns by product type?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, I I'm not an insider, of course, and so um uh I I'm just giving it my best guess, so to speak. But I've been reading a lot of articles on this and and uh um I actually had an opportunity to talk. To a former uh executive for uh a major retailer who was uh uh overseeing their reverse logistics uh just last week, actually, had a chance to uh hear some comments and get some feedback and some really great insight. Uh, my understanding is that um mail in is going to be uh obviously expensive in terms of the shipping, but that in some cases um it's good to have those returns centralized. It depends upon uh you know what's the salvage value, um what types of processing would have to be done in order to make this item resellable, um, if at all. Um is a perishable things like this. Uh these types of questions will help determine whether it's most efficient and effective to uh process this centrally somewhere, or if it should instead be managed at a store. So if you can quickly put this back on a shelf uh and sell it, there's no problems, or if it's perishable, uh there's a short time window in which you could resell, you probably want it going back to a store. Um store returns actually have a lot of other knock-on benefits as well. If you get somebody in the store to make a return, there's a chance, probably a pretty good one, they may buy something while they're there. Uh, or they may speak with a store associate who's gonna say, oh, hey, uh you're returning this for XYZ reason, but uh let me show you maybe that issue can be overcome and then the customer keeps the product after all. So a lot of benefits to uh sending stuff in stores, but stores all often aren't capable of repackaging something or don't have space to process all these returns. And so um it comes down to uh the individual stores and and or products even uh to really get a sense of which which channel is best for the return.

SPEAKER_01:

And let's suppose you know, suppose you're a retailer, and I imagine this varies a lot by retailer too. Um but suppose you are a retailer and you want to steer customers towards the lower cost path. What's a way to do that?

SPEAKER_00:

Well, you can um certainly try to steer them in that direction um by either um making that low-cost channel the one on which the refund is processed the quickest. Um, of course, you would have to make sure that that aligns with reality. Uh and so you couldn't just you know drag your feet on a refund uh on a non-preferred channel unless there was kind of some reason for it. But trying to incentivize people or nudge is kind of a term you hear often used. Um nudging people toward the more desirable things by yeah, making sure that uh they'll get their refund fastest through that channel. Or um you can present some information. So if you do want people, let's say, to come to the store or drop the product off physically somewhere, um, provide them some uh location information when you are processing that return. Like, hey, you know, there's a facility just five minutes away from you. Um you can offer discounts as well. Uh if you come in to make your return as opposed to mailing it in or you know, whatever the non-preferred channel is, uh you can offer uh a rebate of some kind or store credit or a gift card or something. I mean, all that costs money, but maybe it saves in the long run versus the non-preferred refund channel or return channel, excuse me.

SPEAKER_01:

Do you have any opinions about how companies should track margin impact of returns?

SPEAKER_00:

So this isn't going to be my specialty area. Um, but uh you know, I I I do have some opinions just broadly speaking on maybe some metrics. And um I think it's important for uh retailers to uh track more than just return rates or maybe even just the costs associated with the return. Certainly there's some salvage value that you can get out of that that should be subtracted from that picture. But um the impact on the consumer in terms of um brand perception, repurchase intention, loyalty, word of mouth, all these things tie to um their return experience. Or I should say that there's a lot of evidence that's showing the return experience can have a really strong impact on all of those things. In fact, there was an article that was published recently in a marketing journal, and I was actually got a Wall Street Journal write-up as well that was talking about the concept of returnless returns. So you may have experienced this, Matt, at some point already, but um, if you make a return on a product, there's re there's there's instances now where retailers are saying, you know what, just keep it. Yeah, I've had that happen. I'm sorry, what was that? I've had that happen, yes. Yeah, yeah. And so it's strange because you know they're giving you this product for free. They're they're losing the the value uh of that product, uh, plus the shipping uh that was paid to get it to you, assuming that uh the retailer covered that. Um so so why are they doing this? Well, the it could be that the cost is just so high to uh ship it back, process it, uh, you know, inspect it, repackage it, put it on a shelf somewhere, um that they lose more money by taking it back than they do letting you keep it. And that's probably one made motivator for it. Uh, but in doing that math, that that that calculation, you know, the cost versus um you know the um the lost margin there, um it's important to also think about the benefit that you get from doing that. The the paper I was referencing a second ago was showing that um letting people keep things makes them happy. There's no surprise there, but um they looked at some specifics in terms of uh you know the uh the impacts on loyalty, um, repurchase intention over time. It got into even some of the nuance in terms of when they tell you to keep it. Um sometimes companies say, um, feel free to donate it, right? And this um the this suggestion of something that's charitable um or has um you know social benefits, I guess uh is a way to phrase it, um, can enhance that effect even further. So um thinking of these uh scenarios as just a loss where you know you you you've been asked to uh you as a retailer, you've been asked to take back a product, you can't you you've really got to think about the bigger picture before you um just say, okay, that this is a total loss to us. You you may actually be getting some benefit from it that maybe could even exceed um the price of the product or the value of the product that you let the consumer keep. All right. If you make a lifetime customer out of somebody because you've just overwhelmed them with your good customer service, uh, you know, that that's uh that that's something that's uh uh worth considering.

SPEAKER_01:

You know, this is interesting too, um along those lines, it's a little different, but it is similar in some ways, and that is the air compressor I told you about that I couldn't return. I thought, well, I can't return it, I might as well use it, right? Now I'm glad I didn't return it. I think that what I thought was gonna be better probably wasn't. This works quite well for what I'm doing. So that's kind of unexpected too.

unknown:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01:

So the math on this is so complicated.

SPEAKER_00:

It really is. It comes down to uh individual products, individual shoppers. Um it's it's it reminds me a lot, Matt, of um the stock out research from the 90s and 2000s, where um researchers and retailers were trying to put a number on, you know, what does it cost to be out of stock of a given product? And the answer was uh basically, you know, the short answer anyway, who knows? Um it's because it's so highly variable what people do in response to a stockout. Uh you know, you may substitute, uh, if you're just, you know, there happens to be a good option available. Um, you may be in a bad mood that day. And so, you know, you leave your entire basket in the store and leave and storm out to go somewhere else. There's a thousand other things that somebody can do. And it just comes down to factors that are very difficult to uh predict or know on the front end. So I think a lot of those same challenges apply to return policy and return policy research. What is a good policy? What's what's the best way to structure something? How do we make policies so that people do the things we prefer them to do? I think there are some things that you can do to help with some of that, but a lot of it is just going to come down to the individual and how they're feeling that day, what the circumstances they're operating under. Um and that's very hard to to predict.

SPEAKER_01:

So, Travis, um what if a what if you're trying to return something and the policy says and you maybe as a a shopper I I'm returning something. I know the policy doesn't allow me to return this notes past the date or whatever the reason is. I can't do it. What if the employee makes an exception? Um and I know they're it doesn't fit their policy, but for me they're making the exception. How does that affect loyalty and um and is it very costly to do that?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah. So I some of the existing research shows that situations like that can have a real boost uh in terms of consumer perception of the store, brand loyalty, all those types of things, right? If if um they strictly speaking, are uh you know, according to a policy, you're supposed to be denied, but yet the person accepting the return makes an exception, uh, that that can actually have some tremendous benefit. Now, there's some real risk there and downside too, if these um, you know, this items being fraudulently returned or it's a serial returner and it's it becomes just uh you know um abusive to the system in a sense. Um obviously you don't want that. But um I am interested in the question of frontline employees and um yeah, how how their understanding or their perceptions of the store's return policy, the store they work for, the return policy, does that shift or shape the way that they behave and uh you know whether they kind of bend the rules for some people or um you know, or or maybe actually act excessively harsh? I know we're uh things are supposed to be done by the book, but uh I think we all know uh in practice that uh you know there's uh individuals uh will often do things outside the system or um kind of according to their own ways, if they don't necessarily think that the maybe the policy is fair or good or sensible. So uh I have a lot of interest in that question. Uh I haven't collected any data on this yet, but that is uh terms of uh uh direction I'd like to go um in this space. Uh that's on my radar.

SPEAKER_01:

Travis, uh, I'm gonna ask you some questions that are pretty relevant. It could be like a lightning round, if you will. Um but I know you've done a lot of research on returns and you've thought about it a lot. You've analyzed the policies of many publicly um available policies from retailers, um, and you've you've done research on this quite a bit too, and you still are. So I want to ask you a few questions. Um again, this is your opinion based on everything you know. Okay. The first one is what's one policy change most retailers or some retailers should test next.

SPEAKER_00:

I would be very interested in um assuming the retailer had the capability for uh keeping tabs on individual shoppers, um customizing return policies to shoppers to some degree. Um so for example, uh if you are um somebody that the retailer knows to be um a frequent shopper, spends a lot of money, or is is particularly purchasing highly profitable items, profitable for the retailer. Uh maybe there's one set of terms for people like this, and then for uh shoppers that uh uh are are kind of come and go, there's a different policy. Or even for shoppers that are serial returners, uh, meaning they're constantly bringing stuff back. Uh the retailer is uh you know not making money or maybe losing money on these shoppers, there's yet a different type of policy for those people. Uh maybe a policy that gets them to shop somewhere else without being angry, right? Nudge them off to your competitor instead of uh continuing to put up with them. Uh I'd be a little silly there, but uh I do think that the idea of using the uh information technologies that are available today, uh maybe there's a way to actually um structure some policy um that's unique to uh certain types of shoppers. It's risk there, of course, too, if people talk and you know, wait a minute, you you got to make a return, but I was told I can't, or these, you know, whatever. Uh that might not go over so well. So uh there's obviously risk and some things that have to be considered or worked around. But uh I just think that there's opportunity to um, you know, maybe, or maybe there's one policy for everybody, but the system allows uh the retailer to yeah, lighten it up on the spot for certain people and uh tighten it up for others. So um that'd be something I'd be interested in.

SPEAKER_01:

And what is um a metric that you think is overrated in the return?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, I'd say if if you're only looking at just return rate, and that's that's really it, just you know, how much stuff is coming back for you know however many units we sell, whatever. Um I I think uh a retailer in that situation would be missing uh the bigger picture. Um, it's important to think about um what we talked about a little bit ago, how your leniency in return situations can actually benefit you in terms of customer goodwill, word of mouth, loyalty, repurchase, all these types of things. Uh, you know, your your returns uh or your high return customers in some cases can can still be your best customers if they are buying um high profit margin items, they're shopping frequently, they're bringing people into your store or telling others how great it is to shop with you. So uh if you're only looking at the rate of return on a product or for a customer, uh you might be missing a bigger picture and making decisions that uh suboptimize. What's a common myth about returns that you wish we'd um well, maybe selfishly um as a shopper, um, you know, uh I'm thinking about uh this um the the push that I'm seeing to uh try to to make returns harder and harder. Uh you know, easy returns um aren't always necessarily a bad thing, as we were just kind of talking about. Um they have a lot of benefits uh as well. So as retailers clamp down on their policies, um they they they may be missing out on uh um some some other benefits. And so um, yeah, this notion that uh um easy returns, uh bad for profits, um it's a little more complex than that. Um so certainly there's risk with easy returns, not trying to deny that at all, but um there that's it's a deeper story that needs to be uh investigated.

SPEAKER_01:

Well, Travis, thank you so much for taking time to visit with us about returns. Umnichannel supply chain management and retailing have made returns a big issue and uh a complicated one at that. So thanks for sharing your expertise with us.

SPEAKER_00:

Absolutely, any time. All right.