Will the $4 Trillion AI IPO Wave Break the Market? SpaceX, OpenAI & Anthropic

Three mega IPOs are heading to market: SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic. Between them they could push the largest tech names to nearly half of the S&P 500, at valuations that have drawn obvious comparisons to the dotcom era. In this episode, Debs and Graham debate whether those comparisons hold, and where they break down.

They start with the triggers: extreme index concentration, the scale of the valuations being floated, and the structural role of index funds that are obliged to buy these companies once they join the benchmark. 

They then look back at the dotcom boom and bust, drawing lessons from failures like Web Van and Pets.com, businesses whose underlying ideas were sound but whose execution and unit economics were not, and the survivors like Amazon and eBay that collapsed before figuring out their models.

The core of the episode is a genuine bull versus bear debate. Debs makes the case that 2026 is not 1999: the S&P trades at around 23 times forward earnings against a long term average near 18, a world away from the Nasdaq's 60 times in 1999, and today's dominant AI names generate real profits and cash flow. 

Graham presses the bear case: the CapEx burn behind the AI build-out is enormous, run rate revenue is not a GAAP concept and is open to management, and the return on all that data centre spending remains unproven. They agree the sharpest risk is concentration. With AI-focused names potentially approaching 50% of the index, a miss on a few key data points could move the entire market.

They close by each picking the IPO they would back today. Both land on Anthropic, citing a more measured profile and the principle that being first is not the same as being best, while acknowledging that the real financial picture for OpenAI and Anthropic will only become clear once their S-1 filings arrive.

Key Discussion Points:

The three mega IPOs: SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic, and the valuations being floated. 

Concentration risk: the Magnificent Seven, index fund mechanics and the path toward 50% of the S&P 500. 

Lessons from the dotcom crash: why execution and unit economics mattered more than being first. Valuation reality check: forward earnings multiples today versus 1999. 

The bull case: real profits and cash flow among today's AI leaders. 

The bear case: CapEx intensity, run rate revenue scrutiny and unproven returns. 

The IPO process: where SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic each sit, and why the S-1 filings matter. 

The verdict: which IPO each host would back and why.

WTBD Newsletter:

https://webmail.wallstreetprep.com/whats-the-big-deal

Follow Us On Socials:

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/wall-street-prep/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/wallstreetprep/
Resources: https://linktr.ee/wallstreetprep

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Are we in this dot-com era bubble again? Is everything looking too crazy, too rich, or are things a bit more reasonable this time?

SPEAKER_00 0:08

Why are we worried about the mask? What are the triggers?

SPEAKER_01 0:11

We've got these mega ideas coming, each of which are just sort of eyewatering valuations.

SPEAKER_00 0:16

Concentration rates already have a few concentration.

SPEAKER_01 0:20

They didn't have a chance to figure out their business model.

SPEAKER_00 0:22

But what about the failures? I think we should think about it. We can learn the failures.

SPEAKER_01 0:27

Amazon, eBay, a real dot com, dot com theoretic stories, just eyewateringly high valuations, completely collapsed in the in the crash, and then figured out their business model, and then have have obviously grown to be just these incredibly transformational companies.

SPEAKER_00 0:45

Thank you for joining us for this week's episode of What's the Big Deal, where we take a look under the hood of major deals in the public and private markets, and we explore finance industry developments. My name is Deborah Taylor, and I'm going to use my career in investment banking to bring insights to our discussion from a public market perspective.

SPEAKER_01 1:05

And I'm Graham Smith. I'll use my career in investment banking and private credit to bring the private market perspective here.

SPEAKER_00 1:12

And Graham, my question for you, as always, is what's the big deal this week?

SPEAKER_01 1:17

Big deal is everyone's partying like it's 1999 again. We've got these three mega IPOs that we've been talking about coming to market. We've got Anthropic, we've got OpenAI, and we've got SpaceX. And we want to talk about are we are we in this dot com era's bubble again? Is everything looking too crazy, too rich, or are things a bit more reasonable this time?

SPEAKER_00 1:39

Absolutely. So is 1999 calling? We're going to talk about uh why we're worried about it now though. What are the triggers? Uh we're also going to talk about what actually happened in the dot-com era. We'll try and draw on our memories uh of what happened in the dot com boom and bust. And then the big question, the bull and bear case for whether we are in bubble territory at the moment. Um and I think, Graham, maybe we're going to disagree slightly on this, but we'll see. Um but we'll draw on the data points that we think are really important in answering that question. Fantastic. Well, let's start off with why we're discussing this now. What are the triggers? What's happening in the market that makes us worried that we might be back in 1999?

SPEAKER_01 2:22

I mean, well, what everyone, whatever, and I'm really actually keen to get your take on this as the as the kind of public, public market expert here, really. But what everyone is kind of talking about in the news, basically saying we've got so much concentration, not only in tech stocks, we've got these mega IPOs coming, each of which are just sort of eye-watering valuations, it's going to make the public markets even more concentrated. One thing, one theme we started talking about the other week, which again I want to dig into a little bit, is when you have, when you have these big companies lists, you've got public, public managers, you've got pension managers, you've got uh like mutual funds that effectively have to track the market. So if you're in an index fund, the index has to, it's gotta buy Anthropic, it's gotta buy OpenAI, gotta buy SpaceX. And what does that what does that mean from a, you know, from a regular Joe's perspective, even who's got who's got a bunch of holding, as I say, index funds, if one or more of these IPOs doesn't perform? That's the thing I'm interested in digging into a little bit here. Uh anything else on on your list from that perspective?

SPEAKER_00 3:31

Yeah, no, I think just to kind of expand on on some of your concerns. I mean, just to put it in context, the concentration risk, already we have a huge amount of concentration in the US market. The Magnificent Seven, they're the big seven tech stocks, which have huge AI focus. They're about 35% of the S P 500. And we're gonna add to that. Yeah, it seems insane, but we're gonna add to that with the big three IPOs this year: SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic, which expected later this year, that potentially takes the concentration of the US market, these big tech stocks, to nearly 50%. And that's unheard of, you know, even in the dot-com boom. As we said, the AI uh IPOs which are coming our way, they are sort of quite frothy valuations. Some of the numbers that we've heard are, you know, make them seem very expensive, particularly compared to the uh rest of the market. So that does call into question whether we're in the bubble territory where you hear these very high valuations. And then the third thing that you've mentioned is what is new this time is the fact that we have huge presence of index funds, funds which have to track the market, which potentially have to buy in when a large company IBOs and then joins the index. So there's lots that's new and lots that potentially triggers concerns around a bubble uh in the market around AI. And we've already talked in previous episodes around, you know, the the kit enthusiasm for the market to jump on the AI theme wherever it is in the value chain, you know, be it hyperscalers, um cloud service providers, chip companies, and you know, potentially now the AI companies as well. So so much stuff that we could talk about. We'll keep it con concise, I think, uh, in terms of uh sort of where this might go. But yeah, there's this is definitely one to keep watching.

SPEAKER_01 5:22

Agreed. And I mean, it feels like it feels like in some ways there are a lot of parallels between what happened in in the late 90s, just in terms of, you know, I was you know, I mean, we're we're both getting up there now. Like I I was I was in high school in the uh in the in the dot-com bubble, but I suspect a lot of people listening here just weren't even having been born yet. So little little like history lesson. But I I remember in in those days, just through, you know, talking to friends at school, like everyone, everyone's parent in the 1990s was like a day trader, right? Because it seemed impossible to lose money. It's like, oh, are you investing in this and this? My dad even had his whole little dashboard set up downstairs, and that was like his, it feels like he made it his job for for a good couple years. Because it felt like it was impossible to to lose money. There's just so much euphoria around anything technology. And if you had a tech platform, it was just destined to succeed. Uh and I feel like I feel like we're in a similar position with AI right now, just in terms of if you if you wanna if you want to invest and make money, it's just so easy to get excited about the hyperscalers, about the actual AI companies themselves, about anyone in this entire ecosystem. And it feels like those, those for me are are kind of the are kind of the investing parallels in terms of the themes that we're seeing right now. Um I mean, we'll talk we'll talk a bit about the the differences anyway, but that that feels similar.

SPEAKER_00 6:54

And Graham, so when we sort of look back to the dot com era, the boom and the bust, we know that there were survivors. So you've got Amazon, Google still thriving. Uh, but what about the failures? And I think what we should think about is what we can learn from those failures. So what do you know about the companies that didn't do well, the ones that did actually go bust or just struggled as a result of um the dot-com bust?

SPEAKER_01 7:17

Yeah, so let me see. I have a little I have a little list because some of these, some of these companies I I remember, and some of them, some of them I I don't know of or forgotten about because I was kind of a kid. Um let's see, a couple, a couple that that are kind of top of top of the list that I do I do remember. One was this company called Web Van. Webvan was just grocery delivery, and obviously we have we have those services now. Companies have figured out the model, figured out how to make it work. I think what we're finding just as a general theme with the dot-com bust, you have these companies just raise insane amounts of money, but with unproven business models. So pre-revenue, you know, really, really had no kind of proof that their economic model actually made sense. So you had this company called WebVan. They were doing, you know, in essence, what's uh God, the name is escaping me today. Uh Instacart does, right? Where you've got a uh, you know, that I guess a little bit different in the sense they actually owned a fleet of vehicles uh and were arranging grocery delivery. I'm pretty sure I don't know Instacart well. I think Instacart is a bit like the Uber model where you're using kind of the gig economy. That really wasn't a thing in the in the 90s. Uh and they just overexpanded in terms of capacity, uh spent all their money on infrastructure, and the economics just didn't make sense. Uh another big one was this company called pets.com. Uh same kind of same kind of thing, right? You're you raise a bunch of money because you've got all this excitement about an online presence for for pet food and pet products. And then it turns out actually you're going to buy like a 50-pound bag of dog food. I'm talking pounds weight, not pounds the currency here. And of course, that's going to cost a ton to ship. So all your margin gets eroded through shipping and logistics costs. Uh, and again, they never they never managed to make the model work. And of course, we have we have companies that are doing this now. We've got like Chewy, we've got uh Petco and all the other pet businesses that sell that sell stuff online. Uh so I think a lot of what happened in the 90s were yeah, companies were a little bit, a little bit too early, but they raised so much money based on expectations that just never materialized because they didn't have a chance to figure out their their business model. And even the ones that survive. So Amazon, eBay, you know, real dot com, dot com era stories, just eye-wateringly high valuations, completely collapsed in the in the crash, and then figured out their business model, and then have have obviously grown to be just these incredibly transformational companies. So, you know, we still had some real success stories. What you had in general was just companies raising tons of money off the back of just nothing real, right? Just expectations that there might be something just because you had an online presence. And I remember from high school people talking about companies being valued on a like a per click basis, like, oh, the homepage had like a million clicks, like each click is worth X. You know, there's like a multiple of clicks. So I think when we're when we're inventing like new multiples to to value stuff off of that aren't related to anything fundamental, that's also we can get into trouble.

SPEAKER_00 10:30

It's such a good point there. What you said before about the um the fact though that we have got some companies who are still around doing the same thing that these other companies that failed that they tried to do. So it wasn't that the actual underlying business idea was flawed, it was that the execution wasn't quite there, that they hadn't quite worked out how to generate the returns you need in that internet era. So I guess my very crude takeaway is that being first isn't necessarily gonna guarantee that you're best. And that maybe that is a useful takeaway in this AI era where we know that some are rushing to, you know, be the first, that doesn't guarantee success.

SPEAKER_01 11:14

Yeah, yeah, exactly. All right, so how do we feel about what's going on today? Because obviously, some some real parallels, I think, some major differences as well, which we can talk about. But if we roll forward to 2026 and we think about the the big IPOs coming down the pipe, what is how how do you feel about this, Debs?

SPEAKER_00 11:34

Yeah, so um I think I actually feel quite sanguine about this. Um, I think the IPOs themselves present challenges, particularly to fund managers, which maybe we can come on to. Um, but in terms of where the market is now, we are not in the same place that we were in 1999. And I think my go-to metric on this is um the valuations. The valuations of the market at the moment compared to where we were in 1999, as just as a useful reference point, P multiples are great for this. Now, P multiples, you know, the value of the you know, the shares relative to the forward earnings, that's usually the go-to number that we look at. They do wax and wane through the cycle. Um, but if we look at the market today, we're at the SP 500 has a P in multiple of about 23 times. The long-term average is about 18 times. So it is expensive, but not dramatically so. In 1999, the NASDAQ, the forward P multiple for that index, was 60 times. It was huge.

SPEAKER_02 12:37

That's crazy.

SPEAKER_00 12:39

Yeah, exactly. And we are so far from that in terms of valuations. We and also the big companies which are really focused on AI, they are generating a lot of profit and a lot of cash flow. So we're in a situation where the market is made up of these AI businesses, which a lot of them are actually generating profits. And that was not the case in the dot-com era. We had a lot of companies, you know, even you know, obviously a lot of them were IPOing at the time, but they, as you said, they were pre-revenue or you know, definitely pre-profit. So we're in a world where we have much more certainty about the businesses. They are more proven, at least in you know, some of the other activities, and the valuations of the incumbents aren't as crazy uh as we saw in 1999. Now, that doesn't mean that the IPO company valuations are sensible. We've heard some very sort of wacky numbers being bandied around. But, you know, in terms of the incumbents, I don't worry so much about the valuation side. So I'm not too worried about in general a repeat of 1999. I think we have other risks that need to be addressed. Um, but what about you? What do you see as being a concern around you know the market today versus 1999?

SPEAKER_01 13:51

Yeah, I mean, look, I I agree with you in terms of the fact the landscape is different. Because if we had 60 times forward earnings across the Nasdaq in 99, we're nowhere near that level today. So let's let's assume we're in a world for a second where AI is overblown and the hyperscalers and a lot of the people in the value chain that are supporting them are going to, you know, are going to have some kind of some kind of correction. At least we're not we're not valuing the entire market on the same kind of crazy level we were in in 1999, 2000. So that that does that does feel a little bit different. I guess where where I kind of where I look at this is if you take a step back and look at what's happening just generally in I mean, we're really talking about AI, right? I know, I know we keep talking about it, but it's but it's important, it's driving a huge amount of value. It's it's it's just consuming so many, so many resources right now. Um if you look at what's happening just in general, I mean, we talk about these companies are different. Yes, they have they have earnings, they have revenue. Say they have cash flow, but like do they really have cash flow? I mean, they're they're burning through cash like like there's no tomorrow, right? That the capex bill for these data centers is just insane. I don't I don't have a view yet on what the return on CapEx on this on this spend is yet. It's gonna be interesting, I think, when we get the real, when we actually get the real information through these IPO prospectuses to see some of maybe what that looks like. I think the other thing that gives me a little bit of concern is just the kind of insane pace of revenue growth. And we talked a little bit the other week on run rate revenue, the fact that there's not, it's not like run rate revenue is a gap accounting concept. Like there's so much scope for managing, managing that number. And we were talking even before we got on the call, I don't remember what the numbers were, but Anthropic's run rate revenue has gone from you know, some number that was like five times less than what it is now, just a couple weeks ago, a couple months ago. So you're seeing this crazy growth, and it makes it makes me wonder, you know, how much how much can we buy into these revenue numbers? Um, and when you when you look at the full, the full kind of picture here, and it really comes down to cash. Talking about discounted cash flow as last week. You can't really do a DCF on a company where cash flow is negative. Like at what point, at what point are we gonna start seeing a return on this capex spend and these companies actually generating some some real cash flow? Because you need to get there, you need to get there in the medium term in order to make all this work. Otherwise, we're just spending, spending, spending on this premise that AI is gonna change the world, it's gonna come, it's gonna be amazing. Right now, that still feels kind of unproven.

SPEAKER_00 16:44

Yes, although I guess part of me feels that there are different parts in the value chain that you can be exposed to. And if you are investing in the infrastructure or even in the cloud providers or the chip providers, as long as AI does sort of take have some benefits and you know it's not fully priced in, there is an o there is still opportunity there. I think my concern is the IPO businesses because for them, they are the kind of the new kids on the block. They're the ones that have to prove their business model, um, they are the ones that potentially someone else could come along and completely disrupt them by having you know an alternative large language model that uh completely displaces them. How do you feel about that, Graham?

SPEAKER_01 17:30

Um the only agree. I think the only the only other thing I'd think about in terms of this whole, this whole kind of capex and spend cycle is I mean, look at a company like NVIDIA, right? NVIDIA's been around a long, a long time. They historically were in like the PC gaming market making GPUs for people when to play computer games. And all of a sudden they're this transformational company and they think they're they're like running the world and they're just incredible in the forefront of AI. They're at the forefront of AI because everyone's spending a ton of money on it and they happen to have the best product that was the best positioned at that point in time. Right. So I guess my my thing is if this CapEx spend starts to get starts to get cut back because ultimately people come to the view that we're just not going to see the return on it like we expect to, then what happens to literally all these other companies in the value chain? Always we talked about the other week. We've got the Nvidia's, we've got the Broadcoms, we've got the Samsung's, we've got the Microns, like anyone who is participating in this crazy, crazy build out right now, benefiting from all this capex. If that capex tap gets turned off or at least turned down, then what does that look like? And I agree, I I don't think, I don't think this is like a 1990s everyone, everyone is gonna take this just insanely huge bath. But I think I feel like it's more it's more broad than just relating to, you know, say open AI anthropic.

SPEAKER_00 19:00

And I think that's where we do agree is actually the the concern is if you have a miss on key data points that affects AI focused companies because there are is so much concentration in the big indexes to this kind of business that that is something that we haven't seen before. That is completely new and a massive risk to the market. Um at the moment, we have the Magnificent 7, I said I think I said it at the beginning, at 35% of the SP 500. And once we add those IPO businesses to the mix, we're at 50%. I mean, that doesn't take much for the market to completely shift as a result of a small change in the information.

SPEAKER_01 19:44

Yeah. And you know, we talk about we talked about the market overall not being overvalued, at least compared to 1999. But look at the valuation metrics for these big three that are coming. I actually don't really have a read yet into either OpenA or Anthropic, because I don't know what their run rate revenue calculation is. So I think we need to park that for a little bit and kind of see, see what's gone into it. But SpaceX, we talked about, we talked about, I don't know, a couple, a couple of weeks, couple months ago. And I mean from memory, just the the valuation that's being talked about there, at least on a on a run rate, revenue, whatever, whatever kind of multiple basis you want to talk about is just nuts for lack of a better word. So that's that's for me where I'm like, I there does just seem like there's so much AI tech euphoria right now, everyone buying into buying into like Elon's BS, frankly, to some extent. I'm not saying, I'm not saying it's all BS, but like is is a big part of SpaceX just driven by Elon want to be a trillionaire? Like, like maybe, and like why are we supporting that? Like that, that's where when I put my like fundamentals investor hat on, I just say, okay, this just feels kind of nuts. Like I'll go back to my my mid-market private equity investing where buying businesses for like 15 times EBITDA. Like that, that feels better.

SPEAKER_00 21:04

Yeah, I think I I have actually tried to look up some of the IPO valuations of rumors. Um, and I think what I've heard is with on average across the three, we're talking about a 30 to 50% premium compared to what we see in the market uh for the valuation of these companies. So they are quite toppy valuations. Um and yeah, I mean, you're buying into you know, hope for growth with SpaceX, possibly Elon's vision uh and you know his track record. Um, but yeah, we at the moment we don't have the profits uh and definitely not the cash flows to back up those valuations. There's a lot of sort of future narrative there that's baked in.

SPEAKER_01 21:47

Okay, so the thing I'm wondering, Debs, is what's what's the next what's the next step in this whole IPO process for the three companies we've got? They're kind of different stages. We've got SpaceX that's actually filed in S1. We've got open anthropic, where we've got some private valuations and some reported run rate revenues. I mean, from my perspective, these all seem, these all seem kind of kind of silly. We've got SpaceX that's $2 trillion, sure, $1.82 trillion off of $18.7 billion revenue. So 100 times revenue. They've actually got EBITDA reported in their S1. They're at 303 times EBITDA, the purported IPO valuation. And then we've got OpenA and Anthropic, both in the kind of 20 to 35 times revenue valuation. Again, going back to my point, this is run rate revenue. We don't know how real it is yet. So when do we start to get some real clarity on what's going on here? Because I feel like right now we're still in, we're still in just everyone's excited, everyone's talking crazy numbers, but we don't have any real, still don't have any real data yet.

SPEAKER_00 22:54

Yeah, I mean, to be honest, uh for retail investors, we get information very late. It's not until the IPO book is being built that you really get a sense of what's, you know, the the pricing range for the IPO. Uh you start to you know have an allotment that you can, you know, try and bid for uh as a retail investor, likewise institutional investors. So at the moment we know what you know what's being discussed, uh, but we don't actually know what what it's going to price at until much later in the day. Um and that's for SpaceX, for Anthropic and OpenAI. The numbers that you've quoted, great, they are valid data points, but they reflect what's being raised in private fundraising. You know, once they are in the IPO process, they will think about an IPO valuation, and then they're going down the road that SpaceX SpaceX are currently going down in terms of sounding out investors to see what they can value their business at in the public markets. And that's always going to be at a premium to what you have in the private markets. Um, so yeah, it's still going to be a bit of time before we get uh sort of hard data on the valuations. And I think what we are all waiting to hear when it comes to OpenAI anthropic is getting our hands on their S1, which is when you first get a look at their financials. You know, when we were discussing just before we jumped online about some of the numbers, uh, you know, we get we get revenue run rate numbers from these companies in their press releases, but we don't know anything about their profitability really. So um, yeah, it'll be exciting times to get some more detail uh that we can scrutinize and hopefully we can cover that in a future episode as well.

SPEAKER_01 24:35

So if you had to if you had to pick right now dubs based on the information we've got right now, you're like, I I got some I got some spare cash, I gotta park it in one of three of these IPOs where you can go.

SPEAKER_00 24:46

Oh no, really. Oh okay. Which would it be? Um, okay, I'm gonna go with anthropic. Um, I think my view on SpaceX uh was quite clear in the episode that we did previously on that. I think Elon Musk has an amazing track record, but there is so much uh future growth that's needed to justify the $1.82 trillion valuation of that business.

SPEAKER_02 25:11

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 25:11

OpenAI, I think, is a great business, uh, but I think Anthropic is slightly stealing their thunder, and it kind of harks back to what we talked about earlier about being being first isn't necessarily best. And I think Anthropic have definitely learnt a little bit from OpenAI. How about you though, Graham?

SPEAKER_01 25:27

Uh, you know, I'm actually, and I'm trying to take opposing views, I'm actually gonna do the same. And the reason, the reason for that at this stage right now is actually they just seem like the least crazy and the least wild. I mean, just going back to it, Elon, Elon is this kind of crazy cowboy. I agree with you, he's delivered some amazing stuff. I don't think anyone in the IPO is getting particularly good value, uh, good value opportunity here. And then just look at what everything's going on between Elon and Sam Altman. Sam Altman is CFO, getting in a public debate or argument around what run rate earnings are, and that just doesn't feel like a place where you want to park a bunch of money. I could I could be wrong, but just on the basis of sanity, anthropic seems like the most interesting one right now. But yeah, obviously always open to revisit that as we get more info.

SPEAKER_00 26:17

Yeah, I have to say, I definitely don't envy the fund the fund managers at the moment. I think it's a really difficult thing for them because you know they have to be part of that decision making as to whether they want to put their clients' money on the table to invest in these IPOs. Some of them, you know, they're working for funds where the asset manager is, you know, selling at the same time. You might have one VC fund in the same firm that's exiting at the same time. They're thinking about whether to buy in. So maybe that influences their decision. Um, but yeah, I think it's going to be a really challenging uh decision as to you know whether you participate or how much you place on the table for these IGPOs.

SPEAKER_01 26:53

One dollar. I don't know.

SPEAKER_00 26:57

You're so brave, Graham. And this is this is capturing the credit analyst, the credit analyst in his in his elements, the risk-averse. I would put in ten dollars.

SPEAKER_01 27:11

Okay, fine, fine. I'll do I'll do ten each. How about that?

SPEAKER_00 27:14

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 27:15

I'll go crazy.

SPEAKER_02 27:16

Whoa.

SPEAKER_01 27:17

All right. Well, like still still more to come on this, no doubt. It's you know, we've we've talked about these themes, these things so far fairly quickly evolving. And I'm really interested to see. I'm actually really interested to see some of the financial metrics to get reported once we get some real detail on both OpenA and Anthropic. I think things will start to look hopefully a bit a bit clearer at that point, either, either to the positive or the negative. Like we shall see.

SPEAKER_00 27:42

So I think that's it from this week. Uh, thanks for listening, and I hope you've enjoyed a deep dive into uh whether or not we are gonna experiencing uh flashback to 1999 and the thrills and spills that you know we all enjoyed during that time. Um, so that's it from me. Thanks for listening. And over to Graham.

SPEAKER_01 28:03

Thanks, Debs. I'm gonna go listen to this episode on my Walkman and give it a give it a listen before it gets uploaded to to YouTube. But uh in the meantime, we'll see everyone next week.