“If people just rely on pure private insurance and everyone keeps escalating costs, you end up in a situation like the US. People do deserve access to catastrophic health insurance coverage, and that's a social good, but when you add all these extra bells and whistles to the product, people start thinking they need all these things, and that drives the costs up.” - Shiyan Koh, Managing Partner of Hustle Fund
“Obamacare is basically like our public option, which is the base level, but NTUC Income is different. NTUC is a cooperative that offers insurance, unlike a private company, and it's for the benefit of its members. The benefit for its members is that they have affordable insurance—healthcare, car, and all the other types of insurance available. I think the existence of such a player balances the market. Public healthcare provides an option for those who don't want to go private, and private insurance offers an alternative for those dissatisfied with public options. You need both options. If it were purely private, that's not a good solution, and if it were purely public, like the NHS, that also wouldn't be ideal because it limits competition and choice. But by removing NTUC Income, the question becomes: how much would it cost? And would another cooperative insurance provider ever emerge again to offer that countervailing force and compete?” - Shiyan Koh, Managing Partner of Hustle Fund
“Insurance is a really interesting product because, if you think about its history, it goes back to ships sailing to the New World being insured against sinking pirates, and all that sort of stuff. The idea is to insure against a catastrophic event. For most Singaporeans and PRs, our national healthcare system covers that, but people also buy insurance as integrated shield plans on top of it. However, as we've seen in the US, if you create incentives for people to make more money, prices go up. When consumers don't necessarily feel the direct cost of their healthcare decisions and choices, it frees up doctors and medical providers to increase pricing, which can possibly lead to overconsumption and negatively impact everyone else in the system.” - Shiyan Koh, Managing Partner of Hustle Fund
Shiyan Koh, Managing Partner of Hustle Fund, and Jeremy Au talked about three main themes:
1. Kamala vs. Trump USA Election: Jeremy and Shiyan discussed Kamala Harris stepping into the presidential race, and speculated on her potential policy directions and how her leadership might influence relations with Asia. The excitement around her candidacy and the shift in political dynamics were key points, along with how both parties still view being tough on China as beneficial.
2. NTUC Income Insurance Privatization by Allianz: Jeremy and Shiyan explored the implications of selling a majority stake of NTUC Income, Singapore's insurance cooperative, to Allianz. Allianz CEO's “We're not in Asia to buy top line; we want to build a resoundingly profitable business” reflects how this acquisition will transfer wealth from policyholders towards current shareholders. They debated the public policy rationale behind the decision, in light of the complexities of balancing profitability with social benefits in the insurance sector.
3. Indonesia D2C & Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG): Jeremy and Shiyan talked about the income distribution and purchasing power disparities in Indonesia, and shared about a founder who pivoted from a B2B SaaS model to a direct-to-consumer retail business called Lucky Bundle, which focuses on serving the lower-income 80% of the population. They also discussed the productivity solutions grant (PSG) in Singapore, discussing how government subsidies can impact market competitiveness. The implementation approach of these subsidies may accidentally support sub-standard vendors, thus hindering the development of globally competitive businesses.
Jeremy and Shiyan also covered the challenges of building in different GDP per capita zones, differences between public and private healthcare costs, and the role of cooperatives in balancing market dynamics.
(01:28) Jeremy Au: Hey Shiyan, good morning.
(01:29) Shiyan Koh: Good morning, Jeremy. Hello from Jakarta.
(01:33) Jeremy Au: Wow, hello from Singapore with my bed hair right now.
(01:36) Shiyan Koh: I mean, looking sharp as always.
(01:38) Jeremy Au: So how's your Jakarta trip been going so far?
(01:40) Shiyan Koh: It's been a while since I've been here. And it's really nice to be back, to feel the energy. We hosted a Founder Friends event last night with AWS. And I think it was a little bit different in that we featured a founder who had started, we had funded him as a B2B SaaS business, but he has pivoted into offline direct-to-consumer retail, which is a pretty 180 degree pivot, so I thought that was an interesting story to share with this audience of a hundred founders who showed up last night and it was an interesting thing because he runs an extreme value discounter.
(02:13) Jeremy Au: Oh, Costco?
(02:14) Shiyan Koh: No, no extreme value. So, really cheap, right? Price is a big consideration, and it's called Lucky Bundle. And before the, before the event started, I asked him, how many people in this audience do you think have been to a Lucky Bundle? So they have eight stores in the Jakarta area. And he's like, I bet zero. And I'm like, really? And he's yeah. He's like, anybody who's in this room is in the top 20% of income in Indo and we serve the bottom 80%. And so I took a poll, right? We were talking and I was like, okay, raise your hand, has anybody here been to a Lucky Bundle? And one person raised their hand. And so it was just a really interesting thing to see because we talk a lot about Indonesia as, "Oh my God, it's 300 million people," You know, "Next great thing," but we don't really talk about the distribution of that income against that 300 million people. And so that was like a really, to me, like very stark illustration of that. And yeah, it was a really fun conversation and it was great to just catch up with folks and learn what people were building.
(03:07) Jeremy Au: Yeah, I think it's super fair. And, I think that in, whenever somebody starts with a market slicing Indonesia's 300 million people, I always watch for them to say the second thing, which is really important, which is that a GDP per capita is 10X lower than America. And that's a really key piece because a lot of people use it like market to market comparison to hit. It's like, okay, America is also 300 million people, it didn't age as children, but people, and I'm like, that's not apples to apples. there's an Indonesia growth story. It is an urbanization story, et cetera, but just having to realize that there is that income, difference is so key. Otherwise, you end up building the wrong business, right? So people end up building B2B SaaS in Indonesia and they're like, Wait a moment, the cost of labor is so much cheaper in Indonesia, it's hard to digitize when the alternative opportunity cost is so low, in terms of the slope so this is an interesting dynamic for folks.
(03:56) Shiyan Koh: Yeah. And it's not even just the per capita, right? Because per capita is still an average. I really do think the distribution, it's the, if we compared medians, the delta would be even starker. and yeah. So I thought that was like, it was interesting because, when talking to, you know, there's networking before and after standard type of events set up, right? Everyone is oh, Indonesia doesn't want to pay for anything. it's so hard to get them to pay. one guy is Oh yeah, I sold a company, but I'm starting my next company in the US, and I was like, why? And he was like, Oh, America's just have more money, like they have more willing to pay. He's like, I'm moving to America.
(04:25) Jeremy Au: Yeah.
(04:26) Shiyan Koh: it's, it's, yeah, so it was, it was an interesting thing, right? Which is sort of like, how do you build something that's right for the market that you're in? But I mean, I think there's a lot of interesting stuff that folks are working on. I met a guy building like marketing automation for WhatsApp and it's priced in a way that works for the market, right? You can't price it the way Clavio is priced for Shopify.
(04:45) Jeremy Au: Oh.
(04:45) Shiyan Koh: Anyway,
(04:46) Jeremy Au: I totally agree with you. And I think it's just been interesting because, I've been like, looking out for different like HR software, and doing a bake off speed run on SaaS. And it's interesting because Singapore has its own unique SaaS tools. I think if you're like, in the US, one of the defaults for startups now is like Rippling, that's a unicorn trying to be all in one HR, but also IET and now I'll say company management software.
And in Singapore, I'm just dealing for the staff and I'm just like, first of all, the vendors are much smaller. That's one. two is we, we have a very large productivity solutions grants, PSG grants, that is actually a big part of the criteria. So as a government subsidy for student approved vendors, which is interesting because, now you have two tiers, right? You have people who are government approved for subsidies, which a lot of them honestly are pretty substandard, and pretty disappointing.
(05:35) Shiyan Koh: Yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, I think the productivity solutions grant is a huge distortion and I don't actually think it's positive for the ecosystem.
(05:44) Jeremy Au: Yeah, I, I,
(05:45) Shiyan Koh: what happens is people raise their prices and then they're like, look, but you're going to get a subsidize. So the net to you is lower, but then, then you create companies that are dependent on these grants and that are not actually globally competitive.
(05:56) Jeremy Au: I don't have an issue with a grant, but I'm just saying, I think having pre-approved vendors and a lot of the vendors are, from my perspective, only around because they are on the grant,
(06:05) Shiyan Koh: Yeah, that's the issue with the grant.
(06:07) Jeremy Au: okay. Wait, wait, wait, wait. So let's, let's, let's split those two words. So I think I don't have an issue of subsidizing productivity software in general, but the approach of certain vendors and many vendors being not market standard, below market standard, from my perspective, it makes it pretty disappointing. And actually one of my, one of my ideas I had, and I told a friend, it was like, somebody should just do a roll up of all these like substandard PSG, SaaS software companies that are just not very good, but just bundle them all together, which is also not great in the world scheme, but I'm just saying there's a pickup opportunity from my perspective. So you heard it here first.
(06:41) Shiyan Koh: No, no. I'm telling you the the grant removes the incentive to be good. So therefore, it is distortive. And therefore, that's my issue with the grant. Like the benefit of a productivity solution should be productivity. Like you should see it in your business. Your people can do more. You don't have to hire as much labor. That is the benefit, right? It isn't because you've got a grant from a government.
(07:03) Jeremy Au: I think the grant would be better designed if it was geared at digitization, either you get better vendors, or you allow perfect competition for the vendors, right? but I think the way it's currently designed is, there's a lot of bad software there. But the good news is, there are a few good software in it. I feel like there are more approvals more recently. And I think that if they're able to lower the walk garden to better players, then I think it'd be less distortionary. So that's my hand on heart feeling is I agree with you when the vendors are bad in that walled garden, it's bad because it's disordinary, but, fingers crossed, we have some better solutions out there, but that list was like 80% trash.
(07:41) Shiyan Koh: But, but, But this is my point, right? Which is that either the software has a benefit or it doesn't. And it has the benefit you as a business should be willing to spend the money to get the benefit. And if you cannot see the benefit, either the company is not selling well, or the software is trash, right? Like those are the two, two possibilities. And if there is a great software that delivers benefits and you as a business owner still refuse to use it. Then you should go out of business. You should be beaten by the other people who use the software to be more efficient to beat you. That's what the market is. So I just don't understand the point of the grant.
(08:14) Jeremy Au: I mean, okay, like I said, there's a few good ones off the list. Let's say a list of 10. There's 2 or 3 that are doable. And so my assumption is that even companies that are doing that internal bake off will end up using a pretty good one. So I'm just saying that's one point of view. Two is And what's interesting is that I do feel that the SkillsFuture vendors are more perfectly competitive with each other. I really do, the SkillsFuture does feel more, I don't know what's the word, there's a lot more choice, but they also feel like there's a lot more differentiation as well. So anyway, I think it's a matter of how it's implemented.
(08:42) Shiyan Koh: As a taxpayer, are you happy that that trash 80% are receiving a subsidy? Let's just frame it a different way.
(08:48) Jeremy Au: My assumption right now is 80, 20. I'll say that my assumption is that only 20% companies are choosing those that trash 80%. And I'm
(08:55) Shiyan Koh: You hope hope, I have no data.
(08:56) Jeremy Au: I hope, I hope so. I have no data. I hope you didn't choose it by alphabetical order. I mean, it also is quite obvious, right? Because you click on all 10 websites and I'm not, I'm not asking you for the fanciest website, right? But you've got to look like you at least. design in the last 10 years, Anyway, but yeah, I mean, obviously my hope is a Pareto principle, 80-20. So it's interesting. I will definitely provide more learnings on this productivity solutions grant versus Skills Future dynamic as well.
(09:19) Jeremy Au: Speaking about government and all the various, dynamics, whether they're positive or against, we have the NTUC income. So it's a cooperative that historically has sold insurance to, I'll say millions of policies across Singapore. and here's a mandate of, providing low cost insurance that the market doesn't cover. And currently, I opened up The Straits Times yesterday, and that was like, I think they had bought out like maybe at least 8 to 10 pages of The Straits Times to release the minutes, notifying that they are trying to sell, to Allianz. and so I think they're trying to inform the whole Singapore, many of them who are policy members, and they're like, "Hey, we're going to sell this," which is a privatization of this cooperative.
(09:56) Shiyan Koh: Yeah. I mean, I think insurance is a really interesting product, which is that, if you think about the history of insurance, going back to the ships that were sailing to the new world and being insured against sinking pirates, all that sort of stuff, you know, the idea is to insure you against a catastrophic event. And I think for most Singaporeans in PRs, our national healthcare does that, but then people buy insurance as these integrated shield plans, on top of it, but as we've seen in the US, if you create incentives for people to make more money, then prices go up. So to the extent that consumers don't necessarily feel the direct cost of their healthcare decisions and choices, that frees up doctors and medical providers to increase pricing and can possibly lead to overconsumption, which then negatively impacts everyone else in the system.
I don't know, I'm sort of mixed on it, in that on the one hand, Allianz seems to be making a pretty good offer, but on the other hand, the existence of like a socially benefited oriented, insurer keeps price competitive in the market rather than everyone constantly trying to increase premiums and leading to more healthcare price increases. So , I'm an income policy holder. There's a reason I chose income, because I do feel they're more aligned with that, to keep prices in line. And so I don't know, I think the claim Allianz is making is that they're still going to maintain the social benefit mission but I just don't know how that jives with a private P&L imperative.
(11:19) Jeremy Au: Yeah, I mean, I thought the Allianz CEO comment was pretty interesting, because he was basically saying we're not here to buy top line. We're here to increase profitability. There's the summary of it. And, you know, it's kind of a, I laugh at that because it ties to the other part, which is offering a higher price than the current asset value of the cooperative. And I'm like, of course you can offer a better price because the current business is a cooperative where they're trying to make as little profit as possible, effectively a nonprofit, a social enterprise historically.
(11:46) Jeremy Au: So of course, it's quite easy to "increase profitability" because all you do is raise price and lower claim distribution. You've got a better asset, so of course, a privatized, a privatization of this state linked asset, is obviously going to raise price, right? and be more profitable. So I think the CEO makes total sense. I think from the Allianz perspective, it makes total sense to pick up this asset because you're getting policyholders, people are pretty sticky. People are not going to change the policy because of this transition. I think it's a great, and then obviously there's a lot of fixed costs for insurance as well, right? Distribution, IT systems, et cetera. So you can also share that cost, economies of scale. So lots of good things to talk about it, from a business transaction perspective. But I guess, I think where Reddit and the Singapore people kind of like, "Wait a moment. when they raise price, I didn't squeeze it from the health insurance system, I squeeze it from the policyholder, right?" And, policyholders are more fragmented then and have less power, bargaining power than healthcare system. When you talk about squeezing more gains from system, I don't think it's going to drive down cost per se. I just think that it's more likely, balance of it to come from new shareholders, I would say. I mean, is this thing to shareholders that policies would be respected? So I don't think it impacts them.
(12:52) Shiyan Koh: I mean, we'll see, right? We'll see what happens. but think it's just, I don't know. if you look at healthcare costs, it's crazy that in private, it can be like, 3x the cost of public.
(13:01) Jeremy Au: Yeah. But I don't think that's just because NTUC income exists.
(13:05) Shiyan Koh: No, it's not. But I think I'm making that point to say that if you have just, if people just rely on pure private insurance and everyone just escalates the cost, you end up in the situation of the US basically, which is that people do deserve access to, catastrophic health insurance coverage. That's a social good, okay? But you've munged this product to add all these other bells and whistles that then people think they need all these things. And then that leads to the increase. I mean, I'll tell you, I went to a private clinic once. My wife's company, when she worked for a different company, they covered the kids and everything. And we went to a private pediatrician, for the kids. And one visit came to $300. And I was like, what could possibly have cost $300? I was like, I want to see the itemized bill. And she was like, Shiyan, like, why do you care? Insurance is covering it. And I was like, no, that's not the right answer. I want to know what's in this thing. So I get the bill. Do you know that there was a line item where they charged us to weigh our son?
(13:54) Jeremy Au: Must be. That's very backbreaking work. Has to be paid?
(13:57) Shiyan Koh: And that's on top of the visit fee, there's a consultation fee. And then they like, no, no, this is a line item to weigh your kid. And I was like, this is not acceptable. just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. And it's I said, we should never come back because this person isn't an honest dealer, right? Which is that you're already making a lot of profit, but just because that the vast majority of your patients have health insurance and they don't care. And they don't care because they're not feeling it because they're going to go claim it. Then you add in all of these fees and you jack up your profit. So that's like my concern, I think.
(14:26) Jeremy Au: Yeah. Oh, there's two parts to it. One is we're talking about healthcare systems and cost control, right? I think that's one piece. And of course, the second piece that we're talking about is the NTUC income.
(14:34) Shiyan Koh: No, no, no. But it's, but it's related. It's related. Which is the healthcare system and cost controls. Like you're all part of this system, which is if you raise premiums, people expect more out of it. Then people over consume and then you raise prices and then premiums go up, so it's all interconnected, right? I'm not just some socialist, all network,
(14:50) Jeremy Au: So you arguing, are you arguing that NTUC income should stay independent.
(14:54) Shiyan Koh: Yes. Yes. I am.
(14:56) Jeremy Au: It feels like a done deal. That's the bad news. And I don't think I've really heard a very strong case about why it's happening other than the classic pieces, like they gave us a really good price, but the whole point of it is you get a really good price because you're no longer a cooperative, you're no longer serving that mandate. So you can raise prices. I mean, I'm just saying I just haven't really heard what is the public policy rationale for this, but I mean it unlocks s money now. I mean, you can spend it now if you get nice asset value. So that's one thing.
(15:21) Shiyan Koh: But then what are you going to do with it?
(15:22) Jeremy Au: Infrastructure, education. I'm just talking out loud, right? I'm just saying, I just haven't heard the
(15:27) Shiyan Koh: But is money our problem? I don't think money is our problem.
(15:30) Jeremy Au: Yeah, look, this is an interesting piece because you're actually making me in a position now where we're, like, defending Singapore style capitalism, where we have state linked insurance providers and key sectors. So it's interesting because, I just don't know what the answer is, but I'm just, again, I think the big one is there's no public policy argument for why this is happening.
(15:48) Shiyan Koh: Yeah. Yeah.
(15:49) Jeremy Au: I think there's a part that's really weird to be, I would say right now. I don't even know if anybody, I don't even know if people really understand this enough anyway, as well. I don't even know if people are going to complain. I know the previous NTUC income CEOs are against this, the predecessors, but they were still cooperative. But yeah, anyway, somebody's not exercising their veto and I don't know why. So there must be a reason and hopefully it's a good reason. I just haven't heard it yet.
(16:08) Shiyan Koh: Yeah. Above my pay grade.
(16:10) Jeremy Au: Above my pay grade. I mean, it's just like, it's like the opposite of Obamacare, right? Because Obamacare, everyone's fighting to have a public health benefits insurer. Basically a non profit. Basically an NTU. Do people argue for NTUC income to exist in America,
(16:21) Shiyan Koh: No, no, no, no. I think that's different. Obamacare is different, right? Obamacare is basically like our public option. Yeah. which is the base level. Okay, so that's what Obamacare is. But NTUC income is different. NTUC is like a cooperative that offers insurance that is not like a private company, right? And it's like for the benefit of its members. And The benefit of his members is that they have affordable insurance, healthcare, car, whatever, all the variants of insurance that exist, right? and I think the existence of such a player balances the market out, right? It's sort of like, the existence of public healthcare provides an option for people who don't want to go private. The existence of private provides an option for people who are dissatisfied with public, right? You need to have both options. Basically. I think it was purely private. That's not a good option And if it was purely public the NHS or whatever, I think that's also not a good option because you know that limits competition and choice, right? But I feel like by removing, I guess the exercise is like how much would it cost? Or would there ever be another cooperative insurance to emerge again to provide that countervailing force that could compete?
(17:22) Jeremy Au: No. I mean, I think it was a special moment to build cooperatives when most people were not, didn't have opportunity to buy insurance. There were not a lot of people that were serving the local Singapore market. And so you could rack up a large enough size of membership base to do the risk pooling to lower the cost of insurance for everybody. I think the part that this is interesting is a one way decision. There isn't a way to unscramble this egg once the move is done, right? Because I don't think you can pick up another public health insurer option to create a big enough risk pool to compete with every single private insurer. That is not doable. So this is a one way decision, I would say. Unless they create a public option, right? In that sense, right? So they create government.
(17:57) Shiyan Koh: No, but there is a public option, right? So like you have MetaShield, right? You can pay up for some of those things. But I think part of the Singapore model is that the government doesn't want to be in the business of providing everything. that's also not efficient or optimal. And so it's anyway, I don't know. We're all speculating.
(18:10) Jeremy Au: NTUC income. My speculation here is maybe NTUC income finds itself stuck between both, right? So you have government policies that are good enough for whatever set of reasons from your perspective. And then you have private insurers and maybe they feel like they're being squeezed in the middle. I'm not, I'm speculating, I have no idea. I'm just saying that would be the NTUC income case, I think, but again, I don't understand what the government case is from a societal basis, which is another thing altogether.
(18:31) Jeremy Au: But speaking about governments, one of the things that we also want to briefly talk about was like the new news. It was a crazy two weeks since we took the last recording. We had Trump survive an assassination attempt. We had a pressure campaign on Biden, Biden withdrew for the race. Kamala came in. I felt like, it was like a wrestling match, right? People tag in, tag out, lots of twists and turns.
(18:50) Shiyan Koh: I am frankly excited. I think Kamala is awesome. And, she was the attorney general in California when I lived there. San Francisco district attorney. She's smart. She's competent. She's not a million years old. I think it's so interesting because the Trump campaign made this whole argument about how feeble and old Biden is.
And now, they can't make that same argument against her, right? She can turn around and make that same argument about Trump, who would be the oldest president ever, if elected. I'm a little sad that this didn't happen earlier, right? There's not a lot of time until the first, the first states go to the polls. So I think it's basically an all out sprint to November. And I think it's pretty impressive that basically in the 48 hours after the decision was made, she's already raised over a hundred million dollars and sewn up enough delegates to get the nomination, right? Like that execution actually is pretty impressive. So, I don't know. I feel like there's a total vibe shift and the energy is really gone from, "Oh, we need to vote for Biden to prevent a Trump presidency." It's I don't love it, but we should do it to like, "Hey, we're actually excited about this candidate. Like this actually could be something good and different. so yeah, what do you think, Jeremy?
(19:56) Jeremy Au: I mean, it's definitely shaped up and changed the betting markets. The prediction and betting markets have definitely swung towards Kamala. Basically, I think after the debate, I think he got to like effectively Trump at 70 to 80 percent chance of winning and now Trump is back to about 55 to 60 percent as of today. I think definitely a momentum shift as the odds are, as the market tries to price in Kamala Harris as a president. I think definitely what's interesting as well is that a lot of people in Asia are starting to recalibrate very quickly and just be like, what does this mean for us? And it was this kind of debating you and I, right? About what a Kamala Harris presidency might look like. I think Trump is priced in, in the sense that people knew that, they want, he wanted a global 10% tariff. You want to slap in a 60% tariffs on China. He wanted to basically extend the tax cuts on the business, individual businesses, as well as the individual tax cuts, he will basically increase the deficit. So lots of things that people, Trump had priced in, I think the market actually rallied to some extent, based on that assumption as well, because a lot of these moves are pro business profit, right? But I think people are still processing what Kamala would do.
(20:58) Shiyan Koh: Yeah, I don't know if we have that much data on it, right? I mean, there's obviously to what extent will her policies reflect Joe Biden's or the Democratic Party's priorities more broadly? I mean, I think the one thing we can say is she's not random. She's not going to suddenly be like, Oh, like tariff here, tariff there.. I think all of the reports about her is that she's a really good listener. She actually considers many different points of view. So then the question is to what extent can she address democratic priorities, but also do things that make sense for the, for the country, right? So I think she's actually more moderate than joe Biden. I also think that maybe this is a bias. I feel like West Coast politicians actually are closer to Asia than East Coast politicians. Partially it's geography, partially it's exposure because that's where the most number of Asian Americans are is on the West Coast. I think Gavin Newsom is probably the only governor who went to China. So I don't know, right? I have no data on this really. I have a sense that maybe she's like slightly more moderate. I think the problem is basically that the one thing that unites both Republicans and Democrats is that they all think being tough on China is universally good for them, right? So then the question is, okay, tough on China in what way, and how does that actually translate into policy? and is it sort of communicated? Is it telegraphed? Or is it just one day you woke up and you're like, all right, we're doing this thing. And I think we're going to find out more.
I think one of the things is that she's spending a lot of time, talking to business leaders because a lot of them feel like they don't know her, right? They want to know what her economic policies are going to be and I think she's been spending time with folks on Wall Street and other types of folks in the investment community to better hammer out an economic agenda. So it's something to keep an eye on, but we don't know. I don't know. I mean, at least she has some connection, right? She has an Indian mom and we know that having an Asian mom is like 90% of the game to being Asian. So.
(22:37) Jeremy Au: Cause Asian dads are distant and have no impact on a kid. Great. Sorry. That's so funny. Anyway, I say this as the Asian dad. yeah, we'll see what happens. And, I think we'll just see what happens in the next few weeks. On that note, peace out and see you next time.
(22:50) Shiyan Koh: Thanks, Jeremy.
Thank you for listening to brave. If you enjoyed this episode, please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. We would also appreciate you leaving a rating or review head over to www. bravesea. com for member content, resources, and community stay well and stay brave.