(GOOGL) Archives - Page 62 of 77 - Mad Hedge Fund Trader

The Cloud for Dummies

If you've been living under a rock the past few years, the cloud phenomenon hasn't passed you by and you still have time to cash in.

You want to hitch your wagon to cloud-based investments in any way, shape or form.

Microsoft's (MSFT) pivot to its Azure enterprise business has sent its stock skyward, and it is poised to rake in more than $100 billion in cloud revenue over the next 10 years.

Microsoft's share of the cloud market rose from 10% to 13% and is catching up to Amazon Web Services (AWS).

Amazon leads the cloud industry it created and the 49% growth in cloud sales from 42% in Q3 2017 is a welcome sign that Amazon is not tripping up.

It still maintains more than 30% of the cloud market. Microsoft would need to gain a lot of ground to even come close to this jewel of a business.

Amazon (AMZN) relies on AWS to underpin the rest of its businesses and that is why AWS contributes 73% to Amazon's total operating income.

Total revenue for just the AWS division is an annual $5.5 billion business and would operate as a healthy stand-alone tech company if need be.

Cloud revenue is even starting to account for a noticeable share of Apple's (AAPL) earnings, which has previously bet the ranch on hardware products.

The future is about the cloud.

These days, the average investor probably hears about the cloud a dozen times a day. If you work in Silicon Valley you can triple that figure.

So, before we get deep into the weeds with this letter on cloud services, cloud fundamentals, cloud plays, and cloud Trade Alerts, let's get into the basics of what the cloud actually is.

Think of this as a cloud primer.

It's important to understand the cloud, both its strengths and limitations. Giant companies that have it figured out, such as Salesforce (CRM) and Zscaler (ZS), are some of the fastest growing companies in the world.

Understand the cloud and you will readily identify its bottlenecks and bulges that can lead to extreme investment opportunities. And that's where I come in.

Cloud storage refers to the online space where you can store data. It resides across multiple remote servers housed inside massive data centers all over the country, some as large as football fields, often in rural areas where land, labor, and electricity are cheap.

They are built using virtualization technology, which means that storage space spans across many different servers and multiple locations. If this sounds crazy, remember that the original Department of Defense packet-switching design was intended to make the system atomic bomb proof.

As a user, you can access any single server at any one time anywhere in the world. These servers are owned, maintained and operated by giant third-party companies such as Amazon, Microsoft, and Alphabet (GOOGL), which may or may not charge a fee for using them.

The most important features of cloud storage are:

1) It is a service provided by an external provider.

2) All data is stored outside your computer residing inside an in-house network.

3) A simple Internet connection will allow you to access your data at any time from anywhere.

4) Because of all these features, sharing data with others is vastly easier, and you can even work with multiple people online at the same time, making it the perfect, collaborative vehicle for our globalized world.

Once you start using the cloud to store a company's data, the benefits are many.

No Maintenance

Many companies, regardless of their size, prefer to store data inside in-house servers and data centers.

However, these require constant 24-hour-a-day maintenance, so the company has to employ a large in-house IT staff to manage them - a costly proposition.

Thanks to cloud storage, businesses can save costs on maintenance since their servers are now the headache of third-party providers.

Instead, they can focus resources on the core aspects of their business where they can add the most value, without worrying about managing IT staff of prima donnas.

Greater Flexibility

Today's employees want to have a better work/life balance and this goal can be best achieved by letting them telecommute. Increasingly, workers are bending their jobs to fit their lifestyles, and that is certainly the case here at Mad Hedge Fund Trader.

How else can I send off a Trade Alert while hanging from the face of a Swiss Alp?

Cloud storage services, such as Google Drive, offer exactly this kind of flexibility for employees. According to a recent survey, 79% of respondents already work outside of their office some of the time, while another 60% would switch jobs if offered this flexibility.

With data stored online, it's easy for employees to log into a cloud portal, work on the data they need to, and then log off when they're done. This way a single project can be worked on by a global team, the work handed off from time zone to time zone until it's done.

It also makes them work more efficiently, saving money for penny-pinching entrepreneurs.

Better Collaboration and Communication

In today's business environment, it's common practice for employees to collaborate and communicate with co-workers located around the world.

For example, they may have to work on the same client proposal together or provide feedback on training documents. Cloud-based tools from DocuSign, Dropbox, and Google Drive make collaboration and document management a piece of cake.

These products, which all offer free entry-level versions, allow users to access the latest versions of any document so they can stay on top of real-time changes which can help businesses to better manage workflow, regardless of geographical location.

Data Protection

Another important reason to move to the cloud is for better protection of your data, especially in the event of a natural disaster. Hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc on local data centers in New York City, forcing many websites to shut down their operations for days.

The cloud simply routes traffic around problem areas as if, yes, they have just been destroyed by a nuclear attack.

It's best to move data to the cloud, to avoid such disruptions because there your data will be stored in multiple locations.

This redundancy makes it so that even if one area is affected, your operations don't have to capitulate, and data remains accessible no matter what happens. It's a system called deduplication.

Lower Overhead

The cloud can save businesses a lot of money.

By outsourcing data storage to cloud providers, businesses save on capital and maintenance costs, money that in turn can be used to expand the business. Setting up an in-house data center requires tens of thousands of dollars in investment, and that's not to mention the maintenance costs it carries.

Plus, considering the security, reduced lag, up-time and controlled environments that providers such as Amazon's AWS have, creating an in-house data center seems about as contemporary as a buggy whip, a corset, or a Model T.

December 17, 2018

Tech Letter

Mad Hedge Technology Letter
December 17, 2018
Fiat Lux

Featured Trade:

(WHY TENCENT WILL REMAIN TRAPPED IN CHINA)
(TME), (SPOT), (IQ), (GOOGL), (FB)

Why Tencent will Remain Trapped in China

Tech Letter

So you thought that Tencent Music Entertainment (TME), the Spotify (SPOT) of China, going public at $13 a share on the New York Stock exchange would mean the music streaming giant would potentially tyrannize the Western music streaming market.

Relax, it will never happen, China’s personal data laws are analogous to Facebook’s (FB) lax data guidelines multiplied by a factor of 10.

There is no possible scenario in which a Chinese content service constructed at the magnitude of Tencent Music Entertainment Group would ever get the thumbs up from American regulators.

The ongoing trade war has effectively barred any Chinese capital’s ability to snap up key American technological firms, as well as stymieing any Chinese tech unicorns dishing out streaming content in participating in a monetary relationship with the American consumer.

In August, the Department of the Treasury which chairs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) rolled out an expansionary pilot program widening CFIUS’ jurisdiction to review foreign non-controlling, non-passive investments in companies that produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop “critical technologies” within certain industries deemed paramount to national security.

Even though the amendment does not specify China, it means China.

If you had a hunch that Tencent would take over the music streaming world, then the better question is to ask yourself if Tencent Entertainment is equipped to take over the Chinese streaming world and monetize the product efficiently.

What really is (TME)?

(TME) is the Tsar of Chinese music streaming with apps that allow users to stream music, sing karaoke, and watch musicians perform live. (TME) dominates this sphere of Chinese tech with a combined 800 million monthly active users.

(TME) is a concoction of services including QQ Music, Kugou, Kuwo, and karaoke app WeSing making up over 70% of the music streaming industry in China.

Its daily active users (DAUs) spend over 70 minutes per day on the platform and have inked exclusive deals with elite Western artists.

Tencent Music's revenue nearly doubled YOY to $2 billion during the first nine months of 2018, and its net income more than tripled to $394 million.

The social entertainment services aspect has been a massive revenue driver for them including income from virtual gifts on WeSing, a platform where fans gift virtual items to favorite singers, and sign up for premium memberships giving users access to exclusive concerts.

This collection of clever services mixed with social media has been successful, and the reason why it comprises 70% of total revenue.

Paid membership has grown 24% YOY to 9.9 million while paid users only make up 4.4% in China. This is a huge change in the tech climate from the past when Chinese netizens would never pay for internet content. This has allowed the average revenue per user (ARPU) to creep up to $17.22 per paid user.

The other 30% of revenue can be attributed to its ad-less music service which is not ad-less for free users.

So, in fact, the 30% of the business that mirrors Spotify is its Achilles heels echoing the painstaking task of monetizing pure music content.

No company has ever shown that a pure music streaming internet model can be profitable, the music streaming graveyard is littered with the failed attempts of companies from the past.

The unit registered a mere $1.24 in average revenue per paid user during the third quarter, paltry compared to (TME)’s social media products.

(TME)’s combination of social media and music entertainment weighted towards virtual gifts’ income is a weak business model in the west and would not extrapolate in the western world.

It is a supremely China model only unique to China and other Asian countries.

Therefore, I would point out that even if this arm of Tencent could migrate to America, management knows better than to put square pegs in round holes.

That being said, its potential in China is its long runway and most Chinese content companies haven’t been able to crack the western market.

The only types of Chinese companies that have had any remnant of success in the west are hardware companies and look what happened to telecommunication equipment companies Huawei and ZTE recently – taken out by the western regulatory sledgehammer.

It’s crystal clear that the Chinese understanding of personal data and IP regulation simply don’t marry up with western standards, and that is why I suggested that these two massive tech worlds are in for a hard splintering dividing these two competing models.

There has been some intense jawboning going on behind the scenes as Huawei, who is in the lead to develop 5G technology, still needs Qualcomm’s radio access technology to make 5G a reality.

The scenario of a hard fork between western and Chinese 5G becomes more real each passing day.

Part of Tencent Music’s ability to perform revolves around its swanky position installed in the center of the most popular chat app in China called WeChat.

Using this position as a fulcrum, Tencent Music plans to invest 40% of the capital raised from its IPO on expanding its music library, 30% on product development, 15% on marketing, and the last 15% on M&A.

For right now, there is an elevated emphasis on growing the number of paid users and converting its free users to premium subscriptions.

Ironically enough, Spotify has a 9% stake in Tencent Music and Tencent has a 7.5% holding in Spotify. Just by having stakes in each other is enough reason to avoid migrating into the same competitive markets with each other.

If you read between the lines, the stakes seem more a pledge of trading expertise in developing each other’s business as you see traces of each other in both unicorns.

Would I invest in Tencent Music?

One word – No.

There are almost 1,000 pending lawsuits alleging copyright infringement, not a huge surprise here.

Tencent concedes around 20% of the music content is not licensed.

Pouring fuel on the fire, a Tencent Music executive is also being sued by a seed investor claiming he was bullied into selling his stake ahead of its IPO.

There are question marks surrounding this company and that might have been part of the justification of tapping up the American public markets to prepare for this next stage of uncertainty.

As it is, Spotify cannot make money because of the elevated royalty costs eroding its business model, (TME) probably can if it steals most of its music, but that is a suicide mission waiting to happen.

Fortunately, Tencent is a hybrid mix of not only pure music streaming but of social media fused with music apps through gift giving gimmicks and karaoke-themed services.

These higher margin drivers are the reason why Tencent is profitable and Spotify is not, plus the giant scale of servicing 800 million Chinese users that give credence to the freemium model.

However, it’s entirely feasible that Tencent Music could use a good portion of the $1.1 billion from the IPO to battle the slew of pending lawsuits waiting around the corner.

Would you want to invest in a company that went public just to fund their legal defense?

Definitely not.

Look at its streaming cousin iQIYI (IQ), shares peaked over $40 in June after its IPO and have swan-dived ever since going down in a straight line and is trading around $17 today.

In general, most Chinese tech stocks have been collateral damage of a wider trade war pitting the maestros of crude geopolitical strategies against each other.

This year has not been kind to Chinese tech shares, and considering most of Tencent’s music library has been stolen, investors would be crazy to invest in this company.

I am surprised this company held up as well as it did on IPO day because the timing of the IPO couldn’t have been worse in a segment of tech that is awfully difficult to become profitable in a country whose economy is softening by the day in an insanely volatile stock market.

And to be honest, I would have stopped listening about this company after knowing they face pending lawsuits of up to 1000.

As for Spotify, yes, they are the industry leader in music streaming but investors need concrete proof they can become profitable. I like the direction of increasing operating margins, but that all goes to naught if it’s in a perpetual loss-making enterprise. I would sit out on both these stocks with a much negative bias towards its ticking time bomb Chinese music version.

Regulation and the trade war have taken a huge swath of tech off the gravy trade such as semiconductors, Google, social media, hardware, American tech who possess supply chains in China and I would smush in Chinese tech ADR’s on that list too.

Stay away like the plague.

November 26, 2018

Tech Letter

Mad Hedge Technology Letter
November 26, 2018
Fiat Lux

Featured Trade:

(WILL THE FAANGS FINALLY KILL OFF TELEVISION?)
(AMZN), (DIS), (FOX), (ROKU), (FB), (AAPL), (GOOGL)

November 19, 2018

Tech Letter

Mad Hedge Technology Letter
November 19, 2018
Fiat Lux

Featured Trade:

(ROKU’S UNASSAILABLE LEAD)
(TIVO), (ROKU), (NFLX), (AMZN), (CHTR), (DISH), (FB), (AAPL), (GOOGL)

Roku’s Unassailable Lead

Tech Letter

Shake off the rust.

That is exactly what management of a fast-growing tech company doesn’t want to hear.

Losing money isn’t fun. And investors only put up with it because of the juicy growth trajectories management promises.

Without the expectations of hard-charging growth, there is no attractive story in a world where investors need stories to rally behind.

Setting the bar astronomically high in the approach to management’s execution and product development will always be, the single most important element in a tech company.

This is the secret recipe for thwarting entropy and rising above the rest.

You might be shocked to find out that most tech firms die a harrowing death, the average Joe wouldn’t know that, with constant headlines glorifying our tech dignitaries.

Just look at the pageantry on display that was Amazon’s (AMZN) quest to find a second headquarter.

According to Apex Marketing, the hoopla that coalesced around Amazon’s year-long search netted Amazon $42 million in free advertising by tracking the absorbed inventory of exposure from print, TV, and online.

Social media traffic by itself rung up $8.6 million of freebies.

These days, tech really does sell itself, and I didn’t even mention the billions in tax breaks Amazon will harvest from their Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory style headquarter search.

The only thing I would have changed would have been extending the contest into the second year.

Amazon’s brand is probably the most powerful in the world, and that is not because they are in the business of only selling chocolate bars.

One company that might as well sell chocolate bars and has been stymied by the throes of entropy is TiVo (TIVO).

TiVo was once the darling of the technology world.

It was way back in 1999 when TiVo premiered the digital video recorder (DVR).

It modernized how television was consumed in a blink of an eye.

Broad-based adoption and outstanding product feedback were the beginning of a long love affair with diehard users wooed by the superior functionality of TiVo that allowed customers to record full seasons of television shows, and, the cherry on top, fast-forward briskly through annoying commercials.

The technology was certainly ahead of its time and TiVo had its cake and ate it for years.

The stock price, in turn, responded kindly and TiVo was trading at over $106 in August of 2000 before the dot com crash.

That was the high-water mark and the stock has never performed the same after that.

TiVo’s cataclysmic decline can be traced back to the roots of the late 90’s when a small up and coming tech company called Netflix (NFLX) quickly pivoted from mailing DVD’s to producing proprietary online streaming content.

Arrogant and set in their old ways, TiVo failed to capture the tectonic shift from analog television viewers cutting the cord and migrating towards online streaming services.

Consumer’s viewing habits modernized, and TiVo never developed another game-changing product to counteract the death of a thousand cuts to traditional television and its TiVo box that is still ongoing as I write this.

Like a sitting duck, Charter Communications (CHTR) and Dish Network (DISH) devoured TiVo’s market share in the traditional television segment constructing DVR’s for their own cable service.

And instead of licensing their technology before their enemies could build an in-house substitute, TiVo chose to sue them after the fact, resulting in a one-time payment, but still meant that TiVo was bleeding to death.

Enter Project Griffin.

Netflix (NFLX) spent years developing Project Griffin, an over-the-top (OTT) TV box that would host its future entertainment content and poured a bucket full of capital into the software and hardware of this revolutionary product.

Making the leap of faith from the traditional DVD-by-mail distribution model that would soon be swept into the dustbin of history was an audacious bet that looks even better with each passing year.

This Netflix branded OTT box was specifically manufactured for Netflix’s Watch Instantly video service.

In 2007, Netflix was just week’s away from rolling out the hardware from Project Griffin when CEO of Netflix Reed Hastings decided to trash the project.

His reason was that a branded Netflix box would hinder the software streaming content confining their growth trajectory to only their stand-alone platform.

This would prevent their streaming service to populate on other networks.

To avoid discriminating against certain networks was a genius move allowing Netflix to license digital content to anyone with a broadband connection, and giving them chance to make deals with other companies who had their own box.

It was the defining moment of Netflix that nobody knows about.

Netflix became ubiquitous in many Millennial households and Roku (ROKU) was spun-out literally bestowing new CEO of Roku Anthony Woods with a de-facto company-in-a-box to build on thanks to old boss Reed Hastings.

Woods cut his teeth borrowing TiVo’s technology and developed the digital video recorder (DVR) as the founder of ReplayTV before he joined Netflix and was the team leader of Project Griffin.

Now, he had a golden opportunity dropped into his lap and Woods ran with it.

Woods quickly became aware that hardware wasn’t the future of technology and switched to a digital ad-based platform model allowing any and all streaming services to launch from the Roku box.

No doubt Woods understood the benefits of being an open platform and not playing favorites to certain networks in a landscape where Apple (AAPL), Google (GOOGL), Facebook (FB), and Amazon have made “walled gardens” an important part of their DNA.

Democratizing its platform was in effect what the internet and technology were supposed to be from the onset and Roku has excavated value from this premise by playing nice with everyone.

This also meant scooping up all the ad dollars from everyone too.

At the same time, Wood’s mentor Hastings has rewritten the rules of the media industry parting the sea for Roku to mop up and dominate the OTT box industry with Amazon and Apple trailing behind.

Roku was perfectly positioned with a superior finished product, but also took note of the future and zigged and zagged when they needed to which is why ad sales have surpassed their hardware sales.

By 2021, over 50 million Americans will say adios to cable and satellite TV.

The addressable digital ad market is a growing $80 billion per year market and Roku will have a more than fair shot to secure larger market share.

The rock-solid foundations and handsome growth story are why the Mad Hedge Technology Letter is resolutely bullish on Roku and Netflix.

Roku and Netflix have continued to evolve with the times and TiVo is now desperately attempting to sell the remains of itself before the vultures feast on their corpse.

What is left is a portfolio of IP assets that brought in $826 million in 2017, and they have exited the hardware business entirely halting production of the iconic TiVo box.

Digesting 100% parabolic moves up in the share price is a great problem to have for Roku and Netflix.

These two are set to lead the online streaming universe and stoked by robust momentum to go with it.

The Mad Hedge Technology Letter currently holds a Roku December 2018 $30-$35 in-the-money vertical bull call spread bought at $4.35, and it is just the first of many tech trade alerts that will be connected to the rapidly advancing online streaming industry.

THE FRUITS OF PROJECT GRIFFIN

November 14, 2018

Tech Letter

Mad Hedge Technology Letter
November 14, 2018
Fiat Lux

Featured Trade:

(I NAILED IT)
(AMZN), (GOOGL), (FDX), (UPS), (JCP)

November 12, 2018

Tech Letter

Mad Hedge Technology Letter
November 12, 2018
Fiat Lux

Featured Trade:

(THE NEXT OVERHYPED TECH PRODUCT TO BOMB)
(SSNGY), (AAPL), (GOOGL)

The Next Overhyped Tech Product to Bomb

Tech Letter

I’m unimpressed.

The Samsung (SSNGY) Galaxy F foldable smartphone will be a complete failure just like the Google Glass.

Heralding this product as the new disruptor ready to displace the Apple (AAPL) iPhone is a bunch of garbage.

Yes, Korean stalwart Samsung did achieve success with their flagship smartphone device the Samsung Galaxy which took 6 years to produce. But don’t expect anything similar in terms of sales and scale of adoption.

This will be a dud.

I will outline some of the problems creating a foldable smartphone for mass use.

In fact, why not call a laptop a “foldable smartphone”? I routinely wield my Google (GOOGL) Voice and Skype to call my Rolodex of phone numbers around the world from my computer and my laptop definitely folds!

This smells like desperation from Samsung who has grossly miscalculated gimmicky innovation coining it as a true gamechanger.

Illogically, the act of folding creates a second layer that will result in a bulky product. Logically, it makes sense to have one layer and one layer only.

The sleek smartphones of today are trending towards becoming A2 paper thin and lugging around a brick is not what contemporary-minded netizens had in mind.

Naturally, each future iteration will gradually solve this problem just like Moore’s law observes that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles about every two years, meaning you can pack more components into a product over time.

But will there be a second version of this foldable phone?

And then manufacturers must keep in mind which addressable market could this foldable device disrupt. Will it replace the smartphone or the tablet?

Smartphone screens have become bigger with each generation eroding the share and application of the tablet once the smartphone eclipsed the 6-inch screen size.

The tablet industry has suffered since with smartphone enhancements only adding to the misery. This is all evident in this year’s tablet sales down 5.4% YOY through September.

If this foldable phone is pigeonholed as a replaceable tablet product, then sales would address a niche market product at best and have a higher chance of being an outsized flop.

No matter how you cut it up, iPhone users won’t gravitate towards this gimmicky device and chuck their iPhones in the bin.

Cost is also a big factor in this type of product because of the capital thrown at it by Samsung.

They no doubt hope to recoup some of the exorbitant R&D that went into building a brand-new product from scratch.

Rumors floating around the Samsung developer conference pin this foldable phone at a retail price of around $2000.

With this high of price point, I would expect the phone to fly out of my pocket by itself and fold out without me physically doing anything or something similarly impressive.

I highly doubt that Samsung can pull off something that innovative.

The nature of Apple producing brilliant smartphones is that to topple the iPhone, something special is needed to clearly surpass the predecessor along with a must have “it” factor.

That is what you got with the hoards of customers camping overnight in a tent outside of Apple stores dotted around the world waiting to be the first to buy the next version of the iPhone.

That type of pandemonium and hoopla surrounding a consumer product hasn’t been replicated since the days of Steve Jobs.

In general, customers want convenience and the arduous nature of folding out a phone will become tedious in actual reality because most phone users have the propensity to check their phone 15 times per hour.

That also means folding out a phone 15 times per hour and that doesn’t dovetail well with most phone users who, as of now, just slip their phone in and out of a coat or trouser pocket ready in half a second to navigate the e-world.

In short, this device isn’t practical and the targeted market who has the cash to pay for this will dislike the inconvenience of the application.

The user experience is demonstrably inferior to the Apple iPhone.

On the surface, the Galaxy F phone looks innovative and the adaptable nature of the foldable screen is a novelty, but Samsung will have to go back to the drawing board on this one.

I incessantly drum up the issue of the lack of visionaries at the helm of tech companies. The number can be counted on one hand, maybe two.

The type of class where you find the Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk level of visionaries is not a dime a dozen.

When you have a lack of vision, consumers get foldable phones.

Forcibly wedging in hyper-charged display technology into a smartphone is a recipe for disaster.

Maybe someday this technology can be more relevantly applied to a consumer product, but this Frankenstein type product is a mix of two sets of technologies not meant to marry each other.

The act of intent is of equal importance.

The bigger takeaway from this fanciful experiment is that the next wave of innovation to replace the smartphone is in full swing and happening as we speak.

Even though Samsung’s Hail Mary pass looking for that elusive last-second touchdown on the last heave of the game will be a bust. It is only a matter of time before another Steve Job’s lookalike hits the jackpot with the perfect consumer device wooing the billions starting another cult-like phenomenon.

In the next 10 years, display technology will be completely revolutionized adorning our megacities and billboards in ways we never imagined.

This is all just the beginning and filtering out the right formula is what we see taking place from all these tech companies determined to become the king of the jungle.

All of this foldable display technology reverts back to one constant desire – the demand for larger screens.

The 6-inch smartphone was the first baby step to something brilliant.

But ultimately, producing a digital device that can easily fit into our pocket, instantaneously ready for action, possessing beautiful optics with the largest screen possible is the eventual chosen one who will win this sweepstake.

And the first company that can figure out how to get the phone out of our pockets, in front of our eyes without the need for human fingers will have the inside track to revolutionize the world.

We are not there yet, but we are inching closer every day because of the hyper-accelerating rate of technology.

Waiting in the queue are Samsung’s biggest rivals looking to enter the foldable phone market such as Huawei, LG, Lenovo, and many other Chinese Android manufacturers.

There have been whispers that Apple has had some patents filed for foldable technology. And with Sir Jonathan Paul Ive, the Chief Design Officer of Apple, a remarkably special talent designing Apple’s revolutionary products, he certainly has something special to offer hidden up his sleeves.

He always does.