FidelityConnects: Denise Chisholm: Sector watch – February 19, 2026

[00:03:25] Pamela Ritchie: Hello, and welcome to Fidelity Connects. I'm Pamela Ritchie. A slew of data has been released today and markets over the last several days have been shifting into what appears to be a new phase, one where leadership is broadening and long held assumptions are being reexamined. We are seeing tech valuations reset, industrials regain momentum and more segments of the market begin to pull their weight. At the same time disinflation is giving companies the confidence to plan, invest and expand beyond just a handful of mega-caps. Is this the foundation of a longer, more durable cycle? What might it all mean for investors navigating tech, the CapEx story and market breadth? Joining us here today for her weekly sector thesis is Fidelity Director of Quantitative Market Strategy, Denise Chisholm. A warm welcome to you, Denise. How are you today?

[00:04:20] Denise Chisholm: Thank you. I'm good. It is sunny in Boston so everybody's happy here.

[00:04:23] Pamela Ritchie: Lovely. It's so nice to have that mid-winter, for sure. I'll just remind everyone to send questions in over the next half hour or so for Denise. This broadcast also has live French audio interpretation so do join us in either official language. I'd like to begin, if you don't mind, we'll go through all the data that's come out over the last several hours but you've mentioned in a recent report that inflation is an intensely, or inherently I think you said, personal ,,, what is it? It's a data, a statistic that is personal. I guess that's right.

[00:04:58] Denise Chisholm: Experience. It is one of the most personal statistics that we have that the government releases. I's partly because inflation, much like tariffs that we've talked about, always and everywhere feels like a tax. If the prices that you are paying are going up then that means you have, as a consumer, less purchasing power. That's step one that makes it very personal. The other part is the measurement issues around it. What is in my basket in terms of what I purchase might be very different from what's in your basket. It never feels quite right when a national average statistics comes out as it reflects how you feel. Maybe some people pay more money in terms of commuting to work. Maybe some people pay more in terms of health care insurance. Maybe some people have kids and pay more in terms of educational expenses. So it never feels quite right.

[00:05:47] Then you have a layer of a third option which a lot of what the market focuses on is core inflation, meaning they strip out food and energy. Most of the questions that I get from clients are, well, wait a minute, I actually have to buy food and I drive to work so I have to buy gasoline, why would that not be included? I think that that's a complicated personal view as well. Really, the monetary policy impetus, why they look at inflation, is very different from how you and I think about the statistic overall because it's how the Fed can influence inflation. It can't really always influence food inflation, it can't really always influence energy inflation because of supply-driven dynamics, so it focuses on what it can include.

[00:06:31] At the end of the day from a statistical perspective the best you can hope for is never to fully reflect somebody's personal experience with what they interact the economy in terms of prices, but it is to say that the measurement is consistent over and over again so we can look at a trend. I think that gets back to a lot of the data being released over the last couple months which is to stay that despite the fact that many prices went up during tariffs  much of what we are seeing from a trend perspective is disinflation continuing.

[00:07:04] Pamela Ritchie: It's very interesting. We'll bring in the spending that's going on in the economy as well, the CapEx story as we mentioned and so on, but the disinflation that's going on is coming from very high heights. We know this story from post-pandemic to soak up a lot of the money that was pushed out there via governments and so on, we're sort of dropping from heights and that's the disinflation, but the growth story seems very much intact from a lot of the different areas that we're looking at this. I guess there's a little bit of cognitive dissonance there. I wonder if you can take us through that, the disinflation plus growth.

[00:07:43] Denise Chisholm: There's two things. One, I would say most growth statistically when you look back to 1962 is disinflationary, meaning if you had to bet on, let's just talk about industrial production or ISM recovering or even real consumption growth accelerating, and you said, well, what usually happens to inflation, what usually happens to inflation is that it continues to decelerate. I do think that there is still this knee-jerk reaction of any growth is inflationary that's statistically not viable, which highlights the issue we've been talking about for quite some time which is inflation is much harder to get than people think. You don't just get it from growth. You usually get it from specific fiscal stimulus, and not all fiscal stimulus, we didn't see any inflation in the financial crisis when they spent $787 billion in the stimulus package. Not all stimulus is equal.

[00:08:32] What we saw during Covid, 15% of stimulus on top of the economy, that was big enough. I think that there's still this fear that any kind of growth or stimulus or cheques written by the government or rebates is going to lead to the same conclusion and ex that period where it was very large relative to any other experience that's just usually not the case. In some ways, again, going back to your base case, I'm looking for patterns in history, what shouldn't you bet on in terms of if there is a reacceleration and growth, I'd say you should bet on the disinflationary trend that we're seeing continue.

[00:09:07] I think that there's a second part as well, which is to say the growth story is intact, sort of. The growth story has been bifurcated. This entire cycle has been off cycle and driven by not a whole lot of areas in the economy. There hasn't been a broadening in terms of economic growth. You've had pockets of strength like CapEx and some parts of manufacturing and then you've had deep pockets of weakness, the rest of manufacturing, small businesses, housing. You average the two together and you get average growth, 2% year-on-year in GDP growth, which is mediocre at best.

[00:09:41] We haven't really seen a substantial amount of growth. In fact, manufacturing, industrial production, all the numbers that just came out, are really emerging only now for the first time after a three year, I won't call it a recession anymore, but at least a malaise, which is you haven't seen growth for a sustained period of time. That is very, very atypical in US history. Usually you see big drawdowns and big ramps back up in terms of recovery and we've just sort of been in this no man's land. Now we are finally emerging from that. I think that that emergence is likely sticky when you look at it and it's usually coupled with continued disinflation.

[00:10:18] Pamela Ritchie: That's so, so fascinating. Some of the numbers are out, there's a jobless number which we'll get to, but the trade deficit, we saw that, this is from the US perspective. From the Canadian perspective there's another story there. Wholesale inventory numbers kind of flat, I mean, up a little bit, retail inventories flat. That's interesting because it takes us into the tariff discussion there, or at least those looking for a tariff story certainly would look to whether retailers are able to sell what they're trying to sell, if they're stuck with inventories. Take us in there from the numbers that we got today. What does that tell you thus far, probably along with the trade deficit.

[00:10:57] Denise Chisholm: Thus far what we are seeing is the angst or the pain from tariffs is much more, I'd say, diffuse and spread out then I think a lot of the research maybe implies. I think a lot of research that people have been looking at follows price and it is definitely true that every importer, or I would say exporter into the US, and then every US company wants to pass on price all the way down the line. That's going to be the first sort of knee-jerk reaction, okay, if my costs went up I'm just going to try and pass it through to everyone. It's up to the consumer to be like, no, you're not going to pass that through to me because I'm not going to buy the washing machine that's 15% more.

[00:11:34] Now, I'm worse off because I didn't get to buy the new washing machine, I have to fix my old washing machine, but the US producer, to your point retail, is also going to be worse off down the line because quantity demand went down. If quantity demand goes down enough and it doesn't offset sort of the price increases that they're getting from the people who do need to buy washing machines, then even margins go down. They bear some of the consequence and that goes all the way back.

[00:12:00] This is a very complicated math to say that we can argue for the next, literally, years over who bore the cost of tariffs is probably everyone. We can take some guesses, there are guesses that maybe it's 40 to 60% on the US consumer and then the rest spread out to the US producer and importers but it's definitely not all the US consumer because the US customer has basically said no to the price increases that had been attempted to pass through. You know this empirically  because inflation didn't spike. They are obviously not willing to put up with the pass through pricing. I think that gets back to the tariffs are a tax and ultimately will not lead to sustained inflation.

[00:12:45] Pamela Ritchie: There are still Supreme Court decisions to come out. We don't know when that's going to come out, might actually be today but we don't really know.

[00:12:52] Denise Chisholm: Maybe tomorrow.

[00:12:54] Pamela Ritchie: Maybe tomorrow. The discussion there is ... I guess I'll just ask you point blank, did the administration have to do this? There was a lot of money that was given out during the pandemic and every country around the world is dealing with some version of the debt issue out of that. There's no question. The administration of the US came in saying they were absolutely going to tackle it. This is how they chose to tackle it. It's just kind of interesting, does it need to go on or have they taken a big bite out of it from, essentially, a tax on consumers, on everyone.

[00:13:26] Denise Chisholm: It's essentially a consumption tax which economists will tell you is the most efficient tax in the sense that you get to choose whether or not you pay. It is deeply regressive, and I think that that's one of the problems with that, but it is the efficient tax in terms of you choosing whether or not you pay. That's how the US consumer can say, no, I'm not going to buy the washing machine so I'm not, quote, taxed, although I'm worse off. I think the interesting part about tariffs ... you asked did they have to do it? I will say from a US citizen perspective  you'd like to think that if you built up debt you have some plan to then roll down that debt. From an investment perspective I think that that's more interesting.

[00:14:05] If you told me, Denise, hey, tariffs were going to go away because the Supreme Court was going to say, okay, no, you can't do this anymore, and the administration said, well, affordability is an issue, maybe we'll roll back half or 75% of the tariffs and just let it go, did they have to do it for fiscal discipline? I'm not so sure. What I see in the data is that there's been no statistical relationship historically between the level of deficit and the level of interest rates, meaning if you are afraid as a US investor like, okay, if we can't repay this and we don't have any taxes coming in and the deficit is now even bigger shouldn't that mean that foreign investors are going to sell US Treasuries and that we are going to lead to a spike in yields after the bond vigilantes? You don't see any of it in the date historically in terms of it being a link.

[00:14:52] The other thing that I'll say is when you look at official selling of US  Treasuries, meaning other central banks, you see some selling but there's more net buying by other foreign investors that are actually individuals. If you look at the overall tick purchases of US Treasuries they're going up the entire time, not down, which shows you that nothing is right now different yet. That sort of leads to the same conclusion, which is wait a minute, everybody kind of did the same thing at the same time. If you are selling the US what else are you buying? We still might be the best house in a bad neighbourhood in terms of the growth that comes out of the debt ratio.

[00:15:32] Just to put a finer point on it, if you said that, okay, debt matters for your long term interest rates then why is it that Italy and Greece have lower interest rates than the US right now? There's more things going on to long term rates. Back to your question of did they have to do it, as an investor I'm not so sure.

[00:15:52] Pamela Ritchie: Let's go there and go to the discussion of what sort of comes out. The minutes came out and the headline is that more people than previously thought said that maybe there's a hike coming and therefore inflation. That was a little bit of a surprise to markets. Again, take us there. That's looking at dots, that's looking at minutes, that's looking at some surprising pieces to that. That's not really what Jay Powell said. He was quite careful not to say that even though he obviously knew what had gone on in the discussions. What do you think of the market reaction? Let's start there.

[00:16:31] Denise Chisholm: The data is always interesting because Fed speak is Fed speak, right? I don't want to say that they're guessing just as much as we're guessing because they're informed guesses, theoretically, but they are just guesses and they are just talking. You can say a lot of things but at the end of the day they voted to cut interest rates last year, and at the day they may again vote to cut interest rates this year. To me, in the data that looks likely. The concern that they had going into last year was that tariffs will lead to ... maybe they didn't say it exactly this way but tariffs might lead to sustained inflation. I'm sure that they didn't use those words but relative price increases might be the words that they use, but it didn't. You could see that, you see that in the historical data is that it usually doesn't because it's a tax. I think what we're hearing now is, well, growth seems like it's stabilizing, the labour market seems like it's stabilizing, manufacturing seems like it's recovering, so maybe growth will lead to more inflation so we should stay on hold.

[00:17:29] When I look at the data that's historically not been the case. It very well might be that, yes, we have these hawkish sentiments bubbling up but when the data comes to fruition, when we roll it forward eight months, are we sitting here looking in a situation where manufacturing recovered, the labour market recovered a little, and inflation continued to decelerate. I think that that's likely. If that is the case then the Fed will likely be able to cut because they can, regardless of what they say in minutes.

[00:17:57] Pamela Ritchie: Because they'll also be looking at the disinflation story, which you pointed out right at the beginning, and as well, let's go to the jobless number. This is initial jobless claims, it's a weekly report. I always think it's interesting. I think you've pointed out certain Fed chairs that said it was the most important one.

[00:18:13] Denise Chisholm: Yeah, Greenspan.

[00:18:14] Pamela Ritchie: Was that Greenspan? Okay. However, it moves a lot because it's a weekly report so you have to kind of look at it over a longer period of time. It kind of points to the story though that labour's good. They can leave that on the side, focus on inflation, is that fair?

[00:18:32] Denise Chisholm: It does seem like that in terms of you are seeing nascent signs of stabilization. I mean, initial initial employment claims have been low, especially when you rebase it for the population. There was a little back and forth because of the storm, storm sort of shifts it week to week, but when you look at initial jobless claims it's been low as a percentage of the population. There's not a lot of firing. When you look at continuing claims, those are people who stay unemployed, that's actually risen, not quite a bit but it's risen more than initial, which tells you that, look, there's not a lot of people being fired but it's hard to get rehired. That's what this job market has been. We are still seeing that there's not a whole lot of firing relative and now you are at least starting to see nascent signs of the non-farm payrolls pick up, and in the household report where there's some stabilization, where maybe there's not less hire, maybe there's just stable hiring. That's the first step in terms of the second derivative of stabilization.

[00:19:30] I don't know if they would leave it on the side but they're certainly saying, well, I'm less concerned about the labour market. The theory around that would be that I'm less concerned about the sustained impulse to a recession, which means that I need to be less concerned with having to lower interest rates because I have to. That have to discussion is definitely one part of the discussion of what they do but there is also the can part of discussion, which is the part that we're talking about. If we sit here looking back in four months and inflation continuing to decelerate then they're cutting because they can cut, not because they have to cut. That's the other part of the discussion that I think that they're likely to have over the next six months.

[00:20:12] Pamela Ritchie: That's what equity investors want, you want lower interest rates. That's sort of the bullish case, ultimately. Let's go to sectors which is what you do all the time, as well as all the other layers of incredible data that you provide for everyone joining you here today. We spoke to your colleague Bobby Barnes last week, taking us through the whole story for factors, which ones are pulling ahead, slightly interesting moment for momentum but also value and where that fits, he mentioned, and I thought I'd put this to you, that it's an interesting time to look, maybe, even more at sectors than factors. Obviously, he does both and so do you, but I just thought I'd put that to you. AI is the uber theme, it is the only thing that seems to matter if you ask certain people and everything else is secondary to that. In this moment, do you think sectors affected by AI are just a clearer place to look than maybe the factors within that kind of cut across sectors?

[00:21:12] Denise Chisholm: I think that makes a ton of sense. I will say that I have always found sectors to just be the most specific of exposures that you can get, much more than value or growth. A lot of times when people ask me value or growth, small-cap and large-cap, it sort of depends on the sector. There's not a clear trend, you're usually betting on something that's 200, 300 basis points over or under just because it's so big and diverse, where sectors are much more specific. You get much more spread, you can really sort of see your bet and you see the patterns in the data, meaning that there's not a lot of patterns around value or growth because it trends for such a long time. There's a lot of patterns around sectors. You can see when a sector hits its valuation threshold. We talked about financials, we can certainly talk about technology and the downdraft that we've seen in software. All of that is much more specific in the data.

[00:22:03] Yes, whenever you have ... it's not systemic, I would not call AI systemic, but it's definitely an idiosyncratic shock that is shocking some industries much more than others, and we'll see over time, that's actually where you can see it in the data, specifically on valuation, because the market does not wait. It's a discounting mechanism. If they think that there is going to be a disrupter they're going to price that in ahead of time. What history can help you understand is what are the odds that any EBIT margin deceleration, operating profit deceleration, increasing free cash flow, what are the odds that whatever it is that you're worried about is already priced in? That's how you can use valuation in sectors, which is a lot less complicated than using valuation in factors.

[00:22:52] Pamela Ritchie: That's fascinating. Let's go to tech, let's go to the sector that's been ... it's software within but there's also overlaying that, really, the CapEx story which is just all kinds of cash. We're talking about fiscal impulses, this is a CapEx impulse that's dumping an awful lot of money into other sectors, probably the energy sector as well, or at least that's the story of how do you build the data centres, but it's also the money is promised within the tech sector, basically. Take us there and how software sort of shifts within it but with this overlay of the CapEx being offered, promised. It's there.

[00:23:30] Denise Chisholm: It is sort of interesting. With the downdraft in software stocks down 25% in a month is fairly rare for a sub-sector in the S&P 500. What you've seen over that is a huge valuation reset. You would think that you would see this sort of ... you get back to that people asking about, well, is this a bubble, is this basically the popping of a bubble. To me, in the data this just looks completely different from what we saw in technology as a whole. This is not to say that there won't be winners and losers within the software space and the CapEx, the hyperscalers they call it, there will absolutely be winners and losers. When you look at the broader sector of technology which includes semiconductors, which includes hardware companies, which, obviously, includes software companies and business services companies, you are still seeing sustained high free cash flow trends, especially relative to their sales base. I still think when you look at the data, yes, everybody's focusing on six or seven companies, not Apple actually, Apple's not actually spending a lot in terms of CapEx, but six or seven companies [crosstalk]...

[00:24:31] Pamela Ritchie: It's a consumer company all of a sudden.

[00:24:33] Denise Chisholm: Well, that's true, but it's in the technology sector. The interesting part about this is when you start to narrowly focus on the trees instead of the forest I think you miss the big picture, where now what you're seeing is in the overall technology sector this is worse than the tariff tantrum in terms of the valuation support. We're back down to median levels. When you look at that through the aggregate sector historically I think we're below median levels. I just looked, it's the 38th percentile. When technology is in the 38 percentile of relative forward P/E when you go back to 1962 what are the odds that technology outperforms at 70%? 70% is not 100 so Denise can certainly be wrong. What are the odds if EBIT margins decline? What if the sector becomes less profitable? Right now they're not. Right now EBIT margins are still increasing for the entirety of the sector, partly to your point, it's a little bit circular. The CapEx hyperscalers are spending to the semiconductor companies so that's harnessed within the technology sector overall.

[00:25:33] We haven't seen it. What are the odds that the sector under performs if EBIT margins decline? It's actually only 30%, which is kind of a statistical way to say, at this point, after this sell-off, a whole lot is already baked in the cake. The risk-reward for technology to me looks pretty decent. Right now you can say, well, Denise does that mean that it has to outperform by a thousand basis points like it almost did last year? Well, no, there might be other better sectors to invest in, and we can talk about the manufacturing recovery that is now nascent. That is definitely a new data point, definitely more sustained. You can say, okay, maybe technology shifts from leadership to the muddy middle. Maybe at times it's outperforming by 400 or 600 basis points, maybe at times it's underperforming a little, but generally speaking, technology as a sector has a positive risk-reward because there will be all kinds of things coming down the line that will be concerned about tech stocks but a lot of it is already in there.

[00:26:30] Pamela Ritchie: You've been bringing incredible research to us over the course of many months. One of the things was taking a look at the unit labour cost, that's been going up. Very interesting points to point towards a durable recovery. We've got manufacturing out this morning as well. It's been up for January but it's been up for some time now after a pretty long below 50 mark. This is the ISM, taking a lot at that. That also seems to be part of the durable story for another area of the economy that you're looking at. The numbers out this morning, they just add to your thesis?

[00:27:06] Denise Chisholm: Absolutely. Industrial production, capital goods orders, all is sort of supporting the inflection that we just saw in ISM, which is a survey index. The interesting part about ISM is that we've had some false starts over the last three years of it being below 50. It popped above 50 but not by much. It's been, like I said, it's been a very different cycle. It never got to 30 which you'd go, buy all manufacturing stocks, that's sort of your signal, and it never recovered to anything meaningful either, anything over 52. We've just been languishing here. How do we know that this is another false start? You can see there's a couple of things that increase your odds that this is now durable.

[00:27:42] One is that new orders jumped 20% in a month. That's fairly rare. Historically it happens less than 5% of the time. The 5% of the time it happens it usually means the ISM recovery stays above 55 for the course of the year. The second part is what we started on, inflation continues to decelerate. That is the exact sweet spot for manufacturing to be able to be durable and stay above 50. If we highlight these two things that make this recovery durable this is a change. This is change from anything that we've seen over the last three years. What does it mean for sectors? It means industrials tend to be the best performing sector, 70 to 75% odds, again, not 100, but what you can see is if we are in the regime of ISM, that survey, above 50 and rising, this is the way I like to look at the survey, you can look at above 50 and rising, which is expansionary, below 50 and rising, contractionary but rising from that, or the other two verticals, you'll find that this is the sweet spot for industrial stocks to actually shine.

[00:28:47] There have been some laggard sectors. Defence and aerospace has been a sweet spot that has outperformed but transportation has not. Builders  is in construction discretionary but building and construction materials also have not. I think that there are some opportunities in the laggard sector that are more, and now I'll use the term that people usually want to use, the cyclical recovery. I usually say economically sensitive but this is more a true cyclical manufacturing recovery. I think that there are some options for investors that aren't technology that are levered to something else as both the economy broadens and as the earnings growth story broadens.

[00:29:27] Pamela Ritchie: The question is always, is this AI, what's underpinning this. You're talking about it being more economically, cyclically rooted. We've got the interest rate story there but it is the AI story, is it not?

[00:29:41] Denise Chisholm: So AI, when you add it up from a GDP perspective, I think is about 6% to 7% of GDP. Technology, I mean, there are a lot of people who add it  up a lot of different ways and they include power and then it's like 30%, but power was always kind of 20% so you've got to sort of think about the incremental. AI, not yet. I mean, right now in terms of boots on the ground where are you seeing the productivity increases and where are you seeing the creative destruction, you're seeing it in software. You're definitely seeing software engineers become increasingly productive at an increasing rate that is more exponential than anything that we've ever seen. I don't want to diminish people who are tech investors that focus on technology.

[00:30:21] There is some real change going on that is really rare. The question is, is that idiosyncratic within the technology sector right now or is it systemic to the entire economy? I would say it's not systemic yet. It might take much, much longer than you think to sort of have a nationwide effect. This will evolve. This is definitely a change. The market's a discounting mechanism so it's going to price it in ahead of time but I think in that pricing in ahead of time I think there's some fear around something that might just be a growth catalyst for a durable economic cycle.

[00:30:56] Pamela Ritchie: That is so much more appealing, you would imagine, for many investors to invest in with those parameters than it's the AI trade, we're not sure where it's going. We were at the beginning, it appears, of an industrial revolution, we don't know where it is going to land, obviously. Some of those numbers point to a place. Can you just list out the sectors as you have them in order, top and bottom three.

[00:31:22] Denise Chisholm: Top three, bottom three. Industrials now number one, so that's a big change. I would say followed up by financials which still looks like a positive risk-reward given valuation. I would say the call option on deregulation. Then consumer discretionary within specifically housing. Housing intrigues me more and more with the recovery in manufacturing. Industrial, financials and consumer discretionary on the top three. On the bottom three I would say, look, there's been a little bit of a defensive rotation so people getting concerned about AI, other things, other geopolitical events, and you've seen consumer staples pop, you've seen utilities pop, you've certainly seen energy pop, all three of those would be my underweights. It would be exceedingly rare for defence to be sustained in terms of outperformance, and by exceedingly rare I mean 20%, 20% is not zero but exceedingly rare to me is under 30, so exceedingly rare for defence to catch a sustained bid in a manufacturing recovery that is disinflationary.

[00:32:23] Consumer staples, utilities are two of the bottom three, and then energy. I still think that energy, the risk-reward is negative because they're still too profitable this cycle and still have more downside in terms of earnings. We'll see where the geopolitical events settle out but generally speaking, the more that you have with less sustained upside in  crude is usually the point to sell, not necessarily chase.

[00:32:50] Pamela Ritchie: That's not what some Canadian investors want to hear. We don't really have time for this but it's sort of a noteworthy question so I'm going to squeeze it in. Do you think the economy will react after a new Fed chair takes over later this year?

[00:33:05] Denise Chisholm: I don't think so, no.

[00:33:08] Pamela Ritchie: Okay, we'll just leave it at that. Denise Chisholm, we are so grateful for your time and incredible answers to all of our questions. Thank you for joining us. We'll see you soon.

[00:33:18] Denise Chisholm: Always great to be here.

[00:33:20] Pamela Ritchie: Denise Chisholm joining us from Boston today. Coming up tomorrow on the show, equity research analyst Andrew Hall takes a deep dive into the Canadian consumer story as we move through earnings season. Andrew's going to be taking a look at unpacking latest results, what they're revealing about consumer behaviour, the performance of the consumer staples sector, there's some big names that have reported. We'll see what sort of trends he's taking from those earnings calls and discussions and results.

[00:33:44] On Monday Fidelity Director of Global Macro, Jurrien Timmer, is back with the macro themes on his radar to set you up for the trading week ahead of you.

[00:33:53] Next Tuesday portfolio manager Reetu Kumra, she shares the alternative investing themes that she's tracking and what they could mean for diversified portfolios in the current environment, very focused on the Canadian economy because the fund that she manages, of course, is the Canadian story in an alternative form, long/short form. That webcast will be presented in English with live French audio interpretation. Thanks for joining us here today. We'll see you soon. I'm Pamela Ritchie.