Mark Bonner: 00:10

Okay. Welcome to First Draft Live. It's Friday, August 8. I'm Mark Bonner, Biznail's editor in chief coming to you live from New York. Thank you to so many of you from for tuning in across the country and around the world.

Mark Bonner: 00:22

We really appreciate it. Today, opportunity zones are back and the game has changed. Launched in 2018, as we all know, OZ's pulled in over $100,000,000,000 of investment from coast to coast, and it also lit up debates about gentrification, political favoritism, and whether the money ever reached the places it was supposed to go. But it also sparked thousands of new projects coast to coast from apartment towers in Downtown Los Angeles to manufacturing hubs all across the Midwest. And it also became one of the largest housing incentives in the country, funding roughly half of all new housing starts in these designated zones over the last five years.

Mark Bonner: 01:04

Now, under the one big beautiful bill, OZs are permanent. The map will get drawn every ten years. The rules are tighter. Rural America will get juicier incentives. But before it all kicks in, CRE will face an eighteen month dead zone where deals are feared to stall out.

Mark Bonner: 01:25

A brand new set of US governors will decide the next map in 2026. And with politics in play, the stakes couldn't be higher. Our guest, Steve Glickman, CEO of STAT and one of the original architects of the OZ program, call him the wizard of OZ. He's here to break down what's really changing, who's poised to win and how investors should be rethinking OZs especially as they get into two point zero. We'll also be hitting some hard questions.

Mark Bonner: 01:54

Will rural America finally see the capital was promised? Do the new guardrails actually bite? And how does this reshape the CRE playbook? Send your questions in the chat now. We're gonna go AMA style a little bit later in the program.

Mark Bonner: 02:08

But, Steve, welcome to the show. Thanks for being here.

Steve Glickman: 02:11

Thanks, Mark. Great to be here. And I think it was I had mentioned previously, I'm a huge fan of BizNow and grateful for how consistently you guys have covered this program over the over the many years. So excited to talk with you today.

Mark Bonner: 02:26

It's our honor. Thank you, Steve. We appreciate it. So look, let's just jump right on in. Steve, intro had a lot of information.

Mark Bonner: 02:33

There's a lot of things that are changing. In your opinion, especially as the person who helped to draft this original Opportunity Zone program all those years ago, what do you think is the most the single most important change that investors need to understand right now?

Steve Glickman: 02:46

Well, I think you highlighted one of the most important things just in your intro, which is when the program was started in 2017, 2018, it was really an experiment in this new form of economic development, in private investment and low income places. And at the time, we had no idea whether the program would be successful in generating the amount of capital we hoped it would generate, and we didn't know whether it would be, reauthorized or, you know, if ever made permanent. So, the permanence of it is critically important because it creates a certain reliability for both investors and funds and developers and communities that this is something they can channel capital into, build infrastructure and funds around, build strategies around. So, I think that's definitely number one. I think it's worth noting not much has changed about the program in terms of the way it functions day to day for either investors, or developers, But there are a couple other things that are, I think, worth knowing.

Steve Glickman: 03:48

The first is that there's going be a whole new set of zones. I know we'll talk about that. So, that will change the sort of communities that can benefit from the program and also where investors can invest. Two, the initial benefits that were tied to this program, the ability to defer your capital gains that you reinvest in opportunity zone funds and to get a 10% step up or discount on that tax bill, that's going to be now a five year cycle. No matter when you invest, five years later, you'll get the benefit.

Steve Glickman: 04:15

That's a big change, because I know we'll talk about this perceived dead zone of investment that should prevent that from moving forward. And, you know, and we'll talk about this as well, there's also some new benefits for rural investing that may change where the types of communities in which people invest.

Mark Bonner: 04:32

Yeah. The first time around, there was great interest in where all this was gonna go. And then as it unfurled, you know, we got 8,700 tracks across The United States. This new set, we don't know, and we're not gonna know until next year. That's because that ten year OZ map will be drawn by a different set of governors after the twenty twenty six elections.

Mark Bonner: 04:52

And one point o, as as you discussed, many leaders underestimated the program's reach. They didn't know what it was. It took a little bit while for the the train to get on the rails here and then it turbocharged an investment. This time, no one can claim ignorance. Right?

Mark Bonner: 05:07

Local coalitions around The US are already mobilizing to lobby for inclusion. Steve, how do you see this playing out?

Steve Glickman: 05:15

Well, I mean, from the substantive perspective in terms of the types of communities that will be selected, there are going be some big changes there. I mean, you're going to see a different map for a few different reasons. And, you know, parenthetically, I think that's a good thing. That was the design of the program, because the economy has changed over the last several years, so there are going to be lots of zones that just simply don't qualify. And the new version of the program, the criteria for being in a low income community that can be an opportunity zone designation has strengthened or shrunk, so that you have to have 70% of the median income to qualify.

Steve Glickman: 05:53

So, you're just going to have a smaller map overall. You know, two, there's going to be politics this go around much more so than the first go around. The governors, you know, back in 2018 had to pick zones really quickly in order to avoid the sort of lobbying we expected might play out. No way you're going to avoid it this year, and it's going to happen in an election year for many governors, where I expect opportunity zones to be a part of that political discussion. But functionally, or sort of the process of how it will be selected, I'm not sure it's going work that much differently.

Steve Glickman: 06:26

And there's a couple reasons for that. In most states, you saw governors appeal to communities and cities to nominate zones, both because they're closer to where there's, you know, investable activity, but also because it diffused some of that political accountability for investment in communities. So, the more you're sharing in it, the better information you have between governors and mayors and county leaders and community developers better information you're getting the more you're diffusing that kind of political challenge. So, I think the process may look very similar, but the types of zones selected may be quite different moving forward.

Mark Bonner: 07:05

Look, as you know, the political turmoil in the country has probably never been stronger, at least in a generation. I mean, do you think that these decisions will be factored in by red state versus blue state, red district by blue district? Like, does this favor either of the political parties at this moment? Do you think that's going to make a difference here?

Steve Glickman: 07:24

No. I mean, don't think so. There's obviously some more incentives for rural communities. Rural communities have tended to correspond with more Republican leaning states, and you're certainly going to see a difference in makeup. I would expect to see more rural communities in places like, you know, the Southeast as opposed to places in Northeast or the West.

Steve Glickman: 07:46

But every state's got a mixture of constituencies and communities that are urban and rural, and I think you're going to see a pretty healthy mix of zones. And there's going to be tons of different communities watching this and using it to evaluate their own voting decisions going into eight. 20 So I don't see this favoring one party over another. I just think in different regions of the country, you might see a different makeup or focus on where those zones are.

Mark Bonner: 08:16

You know, population migration has been a huge story the last half decade since the pandemic, right? We're aware of the Sun Belt, the Deep South, how much that's grown. We're aware that the Northeast and some of the major urban cores have lost population. Is this OZ program and this new map going to follow that? Or is it going to go to places that are the next new thing?

Mark Bonner: 08:35

And if so, where do you think on the map you that we're going to see the most movement in terms of how these new tracks are formed?

Steve Glickman: 08:44

Well, I can tell you what I think is the smartest way to think about zone selection. And it's not to pick the zones that are necessarily the most needy for investment or could benefit the most from it, because as a program that's driven through private sector capital channels, you need to make sure there's both a strategy and assets that are investable for outside private investors to make that worthwhile. You could pick a zone, and they may get no capital. That didn't happen in too many zones. This last go around almost all of the zones selected got some form of capital.

Steve Glickman: 09:20

But certainly, saw less capital in places that weren't as investable. And so, there's this nexus between economic need and investability, I think, is a really important matrix to get right. And the places that did it the best last go around, I think, did two or three things. One, they really did get that bottoms up view on what projects and communities and plans were the most interesting and for this program. Two, they had a real strategy for it.

Steve Glickman: 09:51

And three, they did it in a way that was pretty public and transparent, so you had buy in from the get go from both those community leaders and the investors. That should be easy for every state to accomplish, and if they can do that, I think you'll get the right mix of zones. But that's the right way to think about zone selection is that nexus in where the private sector is willing to invest and where the state has certain economic or community development priorities.

Mark Bonner: 10:15

Okay, before we move off the map, I just want go to a question from the audience. What year of AMI data will be used for the twenty twenty six zones? Do you know, Steve?

Steve Glickman: 10:24

MR. It's a good question. Yeah, I don't think we know yet, and one of the although it will be different data than obviously last go around, the next American Community Survey is finalized at the end of this year, and that was the most important data source last go around. So, I expect Treasury to use that as the data source, but keep in mind, and you know, we may talk about this a bit, in the first go around after OZs were created in law in 2017, there was a two year period of writing regulations that really became the guidelines for how to organize and invest in and form funds and build assets in this program. You're not going to see nearly as much work this go around because, again, the rules haven't changed significantly.

Steve Glickman: 11:08

But some of those details around economic data, around how zones ought to be selected by governors, around what will happen with the transition between the old zones and the new zones. Some of those details are just not in the legislation, and I think you can have a pretty informed view of what that might look like. But at the end of the day, we need to hear from Treasury and the IRS in their rulemaking, which is going to happen over the rest of this year and probably early next.

Mark Bonner: 11:33

Let's talk about the much ballyhoo dead zone. The current OZ map expires at the 2026, but the new one doesn't take effect until January 2027. That's an eighteen month window where investors can't be sure if their sites will still qualify. Some OZ funds, as you might know, Steve, are already delaying commitments until the redraw is settled. What's your view here?

Steve Glickman: 11:55

So, think that premise is a slight misnomer, so let me take issue with it respectfully, So, of course, what has really happened in the program is something that was anticipated when the program started, which is that you would have some period of overlap between the selection of new zones and the qualification of old zones. In this program, it was always anticipated you would select new zones roughly every ten years or so to match up with the new economic data. What's happened with the legislation is that the existing zones have a few different dates tied to them that are worth disaggregating. Investors have until the 2026 to invest in Qualified Opportunity Zone Fund under version one point zero, let's call it, of the program. The zones themselves stay in force until 2020, the 2028 still.

Steve Glickman: 12:45

So that means the funds, once they get that capital, will still have a few years to deploy it into those one point zero zones. And then, they can hold those investments for up to thirty years. So, those funds don't, you know, go away once those zones go away. They're just responsible for managing and navigating those investments, and they can, you know, hold it up to that thirty year period of time. And then in 2027, that's when you can deploy new capital gains into the two point zero version of the program.

Steve Glickman: 13:15

What that functionally means for investors, if you have capital gains you realize in 2025 or 2026, you're not going to have the option to hold on to them until 2027. You're going to have to invest them in one point zero of the program. Now, may not want to because some of the incentives are weaker now. You don't get a deferral. You don't get that 10% step up in basis.

Steve Glickman: 13:34

You would get those in 2027. But the reality is because it's tied to realized capital gains, most investors don't have a choice on the timing when they realize it. A lot of the capital in this program comes from exits from companies or other projects or stock market investments where they want to take some of the gains off the table. And so, if you want to use the program now, you have to invest now. And, you know, there are plenty of funds around the country that are continuing to solicit cash continuing to raise capital.

Steve Glickman: 14:04

There's been billions invested in the first quarter of this year. Slower than the first few years of the program, but this idea of a dead zone, I don't think is particularly true. Just I think you're just facing the reality of a program where the initial incentive has gotten a little bit less attractive and thus less investors are looking at it as strongly.

Mark Bonner: 14:22

Well, this dead zone name, okay, it sounds scary. It's made for headlines, right? But let's just call it a gap, right? I mean, so you don't think this gap could trigger an early wave of exits or repositioning in current OZ portfolios?

Steve Glickman: 14:35

I mean, it should. Remember, the biggest incentive of this program, if you're a rational investor or a fund, is that you're going to hold on to your OZ investment in this fund for at least ten years. The only way you get forgiveness is if you hit that ten year mark. If you've invested in the program at all, you know, starting in 2018, although most investment came later in 2019, 2020, 'twenty one, 'twenty two, you've to hold it to 2029, 02/2031. If you exit now, you don't get that back incentive.

Steve Glickman: 15:03

The earlier you invested, the less likely you are to sell in this program, or it'd be silly to sell unless there was a real market reason to do so. So nothing has fundamentally changed for investors or funds in that way. I think it's great that you have a more valuable incentive going forward and the deferral and 10% step up is tied to when you invest, and you don't have this arbitrary deadline anymore. I think that's a great thing for investors starting in 2027. But it should change the dynamics of investing now.

Steve Glickman: 15:33

Most of the value of this incentive is tied for holding ten years, and then so there's still plenty of reasons for investors to invest. And if you're looking at doing a real estate project, investing in manufacturing or infrastructure or business that would qualify as an OZ investment, there's no reason not to do it now and wait until later because for the most part, probably can't. You probably either need to invest now because of the deal or because of the capital that has to go into that investment. So, I think it's almost a silly view to have, although I understand why people have it because I think there's a fair amount of headline conversation around, you know, no investments coming to the program next year. I just don't think that's what we're going to see.

Mark Bonner: 16:11

Dave, you're just tuning in. We're with Steve Glipman, one of the original architects of the Opportunity Zone program. We're talking about OZs two point o. So send in your questions, and we can get to them in the second half of the program. So, Steve, one of the original promises of Opportunity Zones was that it was going to revive rural and distressed communities coast to coast.

Mark Bonner: 16:31

But as we all know, most of the capital one point zero flowed into urban core markets. Politicians doubled down on this promise to do better this time around, right, that revive rural America with rural incentives. Is there any reason to believe that the balance of investment will actually change this time around?

Steve Glickman: 16:53

So the short answer is yes, but let me unpack the question a little bit. The original vision of the program was to create a large and sustainable asset class that would tie place based investing in low income places, which we're ordinary investors, private equity funds, developers, and others were looking to make their next investment. I think undoubtedly the program has achieved that. You know, it's become one of the biggest, if not the biggest, community and economic development program on its books. You mentioned $100,000,000,000 of equity that's gone in, in just the first few years of the program.

Steve Glickman: 17:31

Really, number should be much larger so much of this investment went into things like real estate and infrastructure. You have a lot of debt married up to that equity, so you're probably talking about more like $200,000,000,000 of investment. And all of that money has been put into low income distressed communities. So, by definition, you need to be a distressed community to get investment in this program. There's another question around rural communities, and, you know, rural communities in The U.

Steve Glickman: 17:57

S. Make up about 20% of where people live. The best data I've seen show that about 10% of the program capital went into rural communities. So, you're talking about ten billion to twenty billion dollars in rural communities. That's not as good as I'd hoped the program would do, because it's under representative of our rural population in The U.

Steve Glickman: 18:17

S, but it's still 10,000,000,000 to $20,000,000,000 that arguably wouldn't have gone to those communities otherwise. In the new version of the program, there are new reasons to invest in rural zones by design. And let me talk about those incentives real quickly. If you're an investor going into an investment in a rural opportunity zone community, instead of that 10% step up in basis you would get normally, you now get a 30% step up in basis. So that means you get a 30% discount on that tax bill, on that capital gains rollover.

Steve Glickman: 18:48

That's not insignificant. That's a 3X driver of urban markets. And the second is for funding themselves, instead of having to improve the assets you're investing in by 100% doubling of the basis of existing assets, which is it's called the substantial improvement test and a core feature of the program, you only have to improve them by 50%. So, the burden for funds is lower. I think that will mean more investment, and I think success would be, you know, doubling proportionately what you'll see in the program going forward from OZ two point zero to one point zero.

Steve Glickman: 19:22

Hopefully, instead of 10% of markets, you're going to see 20% of markets, you know, be rural communities, and that would be success. That would be proportionate to what we're seeing in the country. You're still going to see the vast majority of these investments go into urban areas because that's just where investors invest and people live, and I don't think anyone should have a different expectation. You know, this is a program that tracks the way investors are structuring their own investment decisions.

Mark Bonner: 19:49

Yeah. Mean, look, as we know, I mean, upwards of 80% of all of OZ capital continues to flow into those urban cores, concentrating, multiplying logistics and data centers. I think that would surprise most people though, who are not hardcore inside baseball, commercial real estate people. The rhetoric from politicians has made it seem like it would be stronger than that. Right?

Mark Bonner: 20:11

Is this just simply people not understanding what the rhetoric means and how dollars are spent. Like, why is there this disconnect here, Steve? Because I I think this is where the headlines come in when they start to dunk on the OZ program.

Steve Glickman: 20:26

Well, it listen. In some ways it's for good reason, right? Rural communities in The US are some of the most economically disadvantaged, impoverished communities in the country. They lack a lot of the strengths that other that urban communities have in having a concentration of people and being homes to, you know, robust systems of, you know, post secondary education you know, and having the same type of, you know, economic vitality that urban communities have. So, I do think we should be doing more across this country to invest in rural communities, which are the home of a lot of important parts of the economy, oftentimes manufacturing, infrastructure, and energy production, farming, and agriculture.

Steve Glickman: 21:14

I mean, the, you know, pieces of the economy that oftentimes the rest of the country takes for granted. With that all being said, governors are going play a big role in putting their thumb on the scale of where they want to see investors go. It's not just where they pick the zones, it's also what other incentives and you know, zoning and permitting and economic development dollars that they can put towards effectuating easier investment in rural communities. And it's going to take kind of an all hands on deck, I think, effort here to push that forward. I think that'd be a great thing.

Steve Glickman: 21:53

But again, the data is what the data is. Most investment in this country goes to urban communities. Most investment in OZs go to urban communities. And that's not a bad thing. There are lots of worthy distressed and low income communities in urban areas that we should also want to see more capital going into.

Mark Bonner: 22:09

OZ one point zero had rules but minimal reporting. OZ two point zero mandates annual U. S. Treasury disclosures disclosures on investment dollars, jobs, and housing, allowing the public to actually track and trace where capital lands, right? Will that transparency strengthen OZ's politically or do you think it it could potentially expose it to an uncomfortable truth about where the money goes, to your point earlier about most money flows to these urban cores upwards to 80110%

Steve Glickman: 22:39

helpful. It's one of the biggest frustrations in this program to first go around for procedural reasons based on how the Senate passed its bills around reconciliation. The original reporting provisions were stripped out. It's critically important not just for Treasury to give us information, but also for states so that they know where those investment dollars are going, and so communities are aware of where communities where funds are organizing and aggregating capital and the sort of investments they're putting in. Think more data is better, and it's also a, you know, sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Steve Glickman: 23:15

It's a great way to ward off some of the investments that we saw in the first, you know, round of the program, which weren't, you know, arguing the spirit of where this program was going and made people think twice before they invest in something that, you know, doesn't meet where the program is trying to deliver. I think that's less likely to happen anyhow this go around because of the new criteria in the program strengthening the zones that can be selected to begin with and raising the bar for economic need and reducing the ability to put dollars in those, you know, border communities that might have been economically a little stronger to begin with. So, you know, a lot of those criteria had been removed between the first and the second But part of the more data, from my standpoint, you know, you'd probably guess from our conversation, is better, and should want to have that data and have it be more transparent.

Mark Bonner: 24:09

OZs now fund half of all new housing starts in these designated communities and represent 20% of new market rate apartments nationwide. From 2019 to 2024, OZs areas produced eight. 9% of all new residential addresses, which is almost double their projected share without the program. Look, we're in a housing crisis in this country, right? Is more supply the best tool for easing rents?

Mark Bonner: 24:35

And is OZ Capital doing enough and in the right places? Because the other criticism here, Steve, is that this is fuel gentrification.

Steve Glickman: 24:45

So thanks for asking that question. It's a really important one, and I think oftentimes a misunderstood one in connection with not just this program, but real estate development overall, at least from my perspective. So your numbers are right on. About half of that new housing starts in OZ communities came from OZ funds. It represented over 300,000 new housing units across The U.

Steve Glickman: 25:08

S. Importantly, those units cost the taxpayer about $20,000 a unit on average. So if you compare that to other types of low income housing programs, you know, where it might be more typical for a unit to cost $500,000 or $1,000,000 per unit, you're talking about a bank that the buck that I would argue is unparalleled. And the question of, you know, gentrification and displacement, I think every major study from the Federal Reserve to the Urban Institute to everywhere in between has shown really clearly that the more you build, the less pressure you put on pricing, and the less displacement will occur in communities. And you can only do it in two ways.

Steve Glickman: 25:48

One, we should not want, which is that you weaken demand. That'd be terrible. That means that less people want to live in these communities. That's the opposite of what we should want for low income places. And the only other thing you can do is increase supply.

Steve Glickman: 26:00

It's simple economic supply and demand. There's a great, I think, recent example of it, you know, that I just read about, know, in New Rochelle in New York. They've been building thousands and thousands of new units over the last few years. You know, price growth in New Rochelle is about 1.5% on rent. You compare that to New York City, where over the last few years, rents have grown 25%.

Steve Glickman: 26:23

So, building more, and we should be building more all over the country and unlocking new building through a number of things, not just OZs, but the amount of regulatory red tape we often put on building new housing should be our number one public policy goal as a country. And I think OZs obviously have shown they can contribute heavily to that in these communities.

Mark Bonner: 26:43

Let's go to a question from the audience. So for people in OZ one point o who are picking up their originally deferred gains on 12/31/2026, can they roll those gains back into another OZ fund starting in 2027?

Steve Glickman: 26:58

No. So in order to invest in the two point o version of the program, it's got to come from games that have realized been realized after 01/01/2027. And that's the key, I think, argument that there's not going be the dead zone people expect. Or if to the extent there is, it's because people weren't aware that that was the case. If you want to invest capital gains that have been realized in 2025 or 2026, you have to invest it in version one point zero in the program.

Steve Glickman: 27:26

If you want to invest in the two point zero version of the program, it's going come from gains that have been realized in 2027. That's just the way the law's written.

Mark Bonner: 27:35

Steve, if you're a developer or fund manager right now, what's the boldest OZ move you can make today that might not hold up over a ten year MAP cycle?

Steve Glickman: 27:46

Well, I think it I think the boldest thing you could do and and the most interesting thing you can do is one that will hold up over over the next ten year cycle, and that's to think obviously, how you know, I'm a big proponent of multifamily housing and OZs, but there were other interesting things that happened in the tax bill that should enable a bigger diversity of asset classes, in particular things like bonus depreciation, which as I'm sure your viewers know in the OZ program, there's no recapture on bonus depreciation that should make asset classes like infrastructure and renewable energy and broadband and manufacturing a lot more attractive to investors because they get a huge additional boost. There's other parts of the PACS code as well now around qualified production property and other things that make those investments more attractive. So, thinking outside the box, and, you know, we're going have a big need for data centers, we're going have a big need for new sources of energy are, I think, really helpful. I, for years, sat on the board of a fund called Arcterus, which has an all asset class investment strategy all around the country.

Steve Glickman: 28:51

And again, I think thinking geographically diverse and asset class diverse is going to be an important part. I think also thinking about this along the lens of investments that are going have a real impact on communities should be a part of everyone's capitalists because of the transparency in this program, and I think communities are going to be looking to hear that more from investors to align with incentives they're going be putting on the table as well.

Mark Bonner: 29:14

So look, you're the wizard, okay? Is there one market, one asset class? Is there one political lever that everyone should be watching out for between now and July 2026? Put me on your crystal ball, Steve.

Steve Glickman: 29:27

I mean, I think there's a couple of things people should be doing to organize. One, regulations still haven't been reading about this program. I think, you know, anyone who is going to be actively engaged in this should be engaged in that process actively. That means not just talking to members of Congress, but also talking to Treasury, talking to the IRS, and trying to being part of some of the important coalitions out there from the Economic Innovation Group and Novogradik and others that are trying to organize the smartest thinking around it. Two, talking with your governors and your mayors and your county execs to ensure that there's a map that makes sense, and engaging early and educating them on how this program works.

Steve Glickman: 30:05

I think we need to be doing that in every state so that we align these zones that are selected with where investors are going to want to put dollars, and that's going to lead to the biggest impact in this program overall. And then, third thing I do is I just talk to investors. I think both fund managers and developers are going to know far more about this program than investment advisors or retail investors. I still think there's a lot of misinformation out there, and I think that's how we build the biggest collective program. In terms of assets, I think you're going to see, you know, more of the same, a lot of multifamily, and to me, that's an exciting, important asset class, but I also think you'll see more infrastructure and asset heavy industries come out of this program when you combine the OZ benefits with some of the other new benefits in the tax

Mark Bonner: 30:51

code. Industrial data centers?

Steve Glickman: 30:54

For sure. And those are great investments in rural communities where you're going to have that extra boost to put in extra dollars. You you're going to want to go to places that have a lot of space to build and cheaper energy and, you know, being able to plug in both things like broadband infrastructure, but also manufacturing and data centers and industrial, I think will be huge. And it's been a really successful asset class overall the last few years. I would look at where overall trends are going.

Steve Glickman: 31:19

I don't think OZs will be any different. Think you're going see lots of multifamily and industrial in the years ahead.

Mark Bonner: 31:25

Okay. Well, that's all the time we have for today. Steve, thanks so much for being here.

Steve Glickman: 31:30

Yeah. Thanks for having me. This was great.

Mark Bonner: 31:33

Okay. We have some big news before we let you guys go. We're about to launch our brand new first draft insider access newsletter, bringing you exclusive intelligence, early research report access and market insights every weekday written by me and Katie Dixon and Kayla Carmichael and Jay Rickey. Check it out. You can sign up through the link in the chat or at bisnell.com under subscriptions or Email me directly.

Mark Bonner: 31:58

Mark.Bonner@Bisnell.com. I'd be happy to tell you all about it personally. Steve, Email me. I'll tell you all about it. I will.

Mark Bonner: 32:06

We'll be back. We'll be back with another episode of First Draft Live next week. So, don't miss out. You can sign up our on our event page now. You can also find today's episode and all of our past conversations in your favorite podcast app.

Mark Bonner: 32:18

This is First Draft Live. Have a great weekend y'all.