Latest / The Learning Corner by Precursor / Episode #48: VCs are Cockroaches, Engineers Fixing Vibe-Coded Projects, Serial Entrepreneurs Continue to be Favored

Transcript

Episode #48: VCs are Cockroaches, Engineers Fixing Vibe-Coded Projects, Serial Entrepreneurs Continue to be Favored · The Learning Corner by Precursor

• 0:00
  I also think there's this feedback loop in venture where a lot of people wanna get into
• 0:05
  hard to access deals.
• 0:06
  And I think some of it is this competitive dynamic in our business where winning and
• 0:10
  getting access to stuff that's hard to get into is different than getting access to stuff
• 0:14
  that's good.
• 0:15
  It's the week of September 15.
• 0:18
  Welcome to the Learning Corner, a Precursor Ventures podcast.
• 0:25
  Welcome to the Learning Corner by Precursor.
• 0:27
  I'm Mia Farnam, and I'm joined by our GP and managing partner, Charles Hudson, where we will
• 0:31
  be talking through the articles and Goodreads that caught our team's attention over the past
• 0:36
  week.
• 0:36
  Our first topic is a LinkedIn post from Micah Rosenblum at Founder Collective who stated that
• 0:41
  VCs are like cockroaches.
• 0:43
  He's addressing the murmurs about VC funds merging and disappearing with people asking,
• 0:48
  will the VC market finally shrink?
• 0:50
  His cockroach comparison centers on how VCs are hard to kill and rarely merge.
• 0:55
  Even funds that shrink over time continue to endure.
• 0:58
  Part of this resilience stems from venture capital being a people business, which makes
• 1:03
  combining firms nearly impossible.
• 1:05
  Additionally, LPs often invest in the individual running the fund as much as the
• 1:10
  brand itself, so they're essentially signing on to a series of fund investments from the start.
• 1:15
  He concludes by questioning whether this current cycle will be different given that
• 1:18
  multistage funds hold so much capital weight and could potentially tip the scales.
• 1:22
  However, the resilient cockroach nature of VCs might ensure the market remains unchanged.
• 1:29
  We've talked about the shifting nature of the fund manager market all the time.
• 1:34
  So wanted to pause and see if you had any new thoughts after reading this one.
• 1:38
  Yeah.
• 1:38
  It's funny.
• 1:39
  I've been a VC off and on since the early two thousands.
• 1:43
  And when the Internet bubble burst, everyone's like, oh, you know, the industry's gonna
• 1:47
  permanently contract.
• 1:48
  There's gonna be far fewer VCs.
• 1:50
  Firms are gonna go out of business.
• 1:52
  And to be clear, there were firms that disappeared and went out of business.
• 1:55
  That absolutely happened.
• 1:57
  But not to the degree that people thought.
• 2:00
  And the longer I am in this business, a couple things are true.
• 2:03
  One, once you raise a fund, you have a fee stream that lasts you essentially for the life
• 2:09
  of that fund.
• 2:10
  Could be ten years.
• 2:10
  Could be twelve years.
• 2:11
  Could be fifteen years.
• 2:12
  But you you have a fee stream that can keep you in business even if you're unable to raise your
• 2:17
  next fund for a really long time in a way that few other businesses allow you to do.
• 2:22
  Second, I think the egos involved in this business oftentimes make it difficult to merge
• 2:28
  firms.
• 2:29
  And also, I often question if you have one firm that couldn't raise money or was having
• 2:34
  challenges and another firm that was having challenges.
• 2:37
  Putting those two firms together is unlikely to produce a new winner.
• 2:41
  If you have a firm that's doing well and a firm that isn't doing well, the firm that's doing
• 2:46
  well is like, well, why would I wanna acquire the assets of a there's no real acqui hires in
• 2:50
  venture.
• 2:51
  Maybe occasionally, but like, not like there are in startups who are like, oh, this person
• 2:54
  has talent.
• 2:55
  Because in venture, the output of your talent is the decision making and the companies you
• 2:59
  get into.
• 2:59
  And if that's not good, I'm not sure what you're really acquiring.
• 3:02
  And I think the other thing that's worth remembering is you can have a three person
• 3:06
  venture fund that fails where each of those people independently goes off and starts his or
• 3:10
  her own venture firm.
• 3:11
  So one venture firm that fails can actually create three brand new venture firms.
• 3:16
  So it's not like failure always reduces the number of firms in the industry.
• 3:20
  Now look, we have seen some things that look a lot more like acquisitions and venture, which
• 3:25
  is a new thing, a newish thing.
• 3:27
  You know, back in the day, there was the rumor that Clanor Perkins was trying to acquire
• 3:30
  Social Capital, and in the end, they did get Moon to join them.
• 3:34
  But that was like a publicized thing.
• 3:36
  General Catalyst has bought two franchises and also brought on Yuri to lead early stage.
• 3:41
  So I just always ask myself, what are you really getting when you buy a venture firm?
• 3:45
  You're usually getting some combination of the management fee stream that that fund is
• 3:49
  entitled to in the future, which if you're a big multistage fund, that's a drop in the
• 3:53
  bucket.
• 3:53
  That doesn't really matter.
• 3:54
  And you're getting the portfolio.
• 3:56
  And so, Mia, you know, when things started getting hard for emerging managers in 2022, I
• 4:01
  had some LPs who came to me and said, hey.
• 4:03
  Do you think you're gonna acquire or pick up any of these venture firms that maybe you're
• 4:07
  gonna have a hard time raising?
• 4:08
  Like, so let me get this straight.
• 4:10
  The same firms that you could easily keep in business by giving them money, I'm supposed to
• 4:14
  Yeah.
• 4:14
  See fit to acquire them.
• 4:16
  Like, that doesn't make any sense to me.
• 4:18
  I don't know.
• 4:18
  It's very hard to end these things, and it's very hard to combine them.
• 4:22
  And I think the real funny thing to me is that one venture firm can produce n number of net
• 4:27
  new firms as people peel off and spin out.
• 4:29
  Well, that's something that I was gonna have you run back because I think if you're a
• 4:32
  founder listening to this podcast and you just heard that blurb of you can have a completely
• 4:36
  failed venture fund spin out and have three new people raise potentially, like, oversubscribed
• 4:41
  new funds.
• 4:42
  How does that even happen?
• 4:44
  You know, I think limited partners have a very difficult job in trying to decide who to fund.
• 4:48
  And sometimes, the real answer is you have a relationship with someone.
• 4:52
  And there are certainly circumstances where there are three two or three people who are
• 4:56
  like, in any relationship, they are good people, but they are not good together.
• 5:00
  And I have seen some venture breakups where the individual partners are good investors with
• 5:06
  their own strengths as investors.
• 5:08
  But in a partnership, maybe there was too much bad blood or too many things that happened or
• 5:13
  something had gone unsaid for too long.
• 5:14
  Where those two people can no longer work together, that doesn't mean they're not both
• 5:18
  good investors.
• 5:19
  And so I think that's the thing that's important.
• 5:22
  And a lot of, like, what makes a good investor, I think, is oftentimes LP perception.
• 5:26
  Sure.
• 5:26
  If you've returned a ton of money to LPs and DPI, that counts for something.
• 5:30
  But most venture capitalists haven't done that.
• 5:32
  They've got paper markups, and they've got the strength of relationships and the strength of
• 5:36
  the brand that they're leaving.
• 5:37
  So I've certainly seen cases where LPs have told me, yeah.
• 5:39
  Those two people are both great.
• 5:41
  They're just sort of no longer capable of working together, or those three people can no
• 5:45
  longer work together, whatever whatever the combination of individuals in question might
• 5:48
  be.
• 5:49
  One last question here.
• 5:50
  I guess, is a bit of consolidation or funds sunsetting when it happens a good thing in
• 5:54
  venture?
• 5:55
  I feel like we've been talking about managers deciding to not raise subsequent funds and
• 5:58
  actually finding that to be really more of a sound choice based on personal circumstance.
• 6:04
  I think it's necessary and healthy for the industry.
• 6:07
  Let me be clear.
• 6:08
  I don't feel good saying this.
• 6:09
  I don't want anybody who who dreamt of being a venture capitalist to have that dream taken
• 6:14
  away from him or her because the the truth is, like, it's an amazing job, and there really
• 6:19
  isn't, in my opinion, a really great next best job you could get once you've been a venture
• 6:24
  capitalist.
• 6:24
  It is kind of a peak job.
• 6:26
  But I think if you raise LP capital and, you know, you're not able to produce decent returns
• 6:32
  and you can't convince LPs through relationship, charm, insight, or intellect that
• 6:37
  they should give you another shot, going out of business is probably the right thing.
• 6:40
  And that capital should go to somebody else who either has an established track record or who
• 6:44
  deserves a shot at their first time.
• 6:46
  But I also think because these fun relationships are so long, I'm sympathetic to
• 6:50
  LPs for just, like, it's really hard to tell somebody no.
• 6:53
  Now maybe in a new relationship, it's not as hard.
• 6:55
  You've been an investor in the fund for one or two years.
• 6:57
  And the the most probably the the one piece of feedback I remember from when I first got
• 7:02
  started, I had a really good, really well placed adviser who'd been a GP for a long time.
• 7:08
  I said, what advice do you have for me?
• 7:10
  He said, just make sure your first fund is really great.
• 7:13
  He's like, if your first fund is really great, it will buy you a lot of grace.
• 7:15
  It will buy you a lot of time It'll open a lot of doors for you.
• 7:18
  If your first fund isn't great, it's actually very difficult to recover from that.
• 7:22
  And I didn't fully understand what he meant until till later.
• 7:27
  Because that, I assume, felt obvious in the moment.
• 7:30
  But then going through it ten years later, you're like, I can see how that would be a
• 7:34
  roadblock.
• 7:34
  Someone who I was in I was an intern for this guy in when I was in high school, this guy
• 7:39
  named Mark Willis.
• 7:40
  Like, shout out Mark Willis.
• 7:41
  And I worked in his Smith Barney brokerage office when I was in high school, when I was
• 7:45
  getting ready to go to college.
• 7:46
  I asked Mark for some advice, he said, get good grades, which sounded like the obvious advice.
• 7:53
  And I'm like, why is it?
• 7:54
  If you get good grades, all the doors you'll want after college will be open to you.
• 7:57
  And it seemed so obvious, and it was honestly super good advice.
• 8:02
  Our next piece is from Emmanuel Meiberg at four zero four Media titled The Software Engineers
• 8:08
  Paid to Fix Vibe Coded Messes.
• 8:11
  This focuses on the ironic phenomenon of engineers making money by collaborating with
• 8:16
  teams who essentially vibe coded their projects to life and now need assistance making them
• 8:20
  actually functional and polished.
• 8:22
  The projects range from fixing inconsistent UI, UX design, and poorly optimized code to
• 8:28
  restructuring color schemes and layouts.
• 8:30
  People across Fiverr are offering these services and making money by delivering this
• 8:35
  type of value for folks who wanna build something fast and be more cost efficient in
• 8:38
  that last mile delivery by bringing in a person rather than spending more money on token spend.
• 8:43
  One of Emmanuel's quotes was, if the resulting software is so poor, you need to hire a human
• 8:48
  specialist software engineer to come in and rewrite the vibe coded software.
• 8:53
  It defeats the entire purpose.
• 8:56
  Of course, engineers coming in to unwind and fix entirely botched nonfunctional projects
• 9:01
  feels really ironic, but some folks would argue that vibe coding allows more product minded
• 9:06
  individuals to get closer to an initial version of a project than ever before.
• 9:10
  Any thoughts on this and then the article itself?
• 9:13
  I was joking.
• 9:14
  I was like, well, there have been a bunch of people who said that the rise of AI would
• 9:17
  create a bunch of jobs and job types that we didn't know before, and here we go.
• 9:21
  It's very interesting to me to see, like, on balance, what does this mean?
• 9:25
  If you vibe code something and then you have to spend a bunch of time having professional
• 9:28
  developer clean it up, are you better off?
• 9:30
  Maybe.
• 9:31
  I mean, I've had the experience where I've built some things myself in Cursor or using
• 9:35
  Cloud Code where I'm like, this is kinda clunky.
• 9:37
  I'm sure that a professional software developer could write this more efficiently or make it
• 9:41
  run better.
• 9:41
  But I think this is sort of the natural, again, rubber meeting the road experience we're having
• 9:47
  right now with AI, which is people are like, oh, I could vibe code something in ten minutes.
• 9:51
  I'm like, you could, but it won't be perfect.
• 9:53
  And getting that fit and polish and usability right still, I think, requires professional
• 9:59
  help in some cases.
• 10:00
  I don't think this is like a knock on vibe coding.
• 10:02
  I think it just means that there are gonna be cases where people build things that are beyond
• 10:06
  their ability or the system's ability to naturally fix, and you're going to need
• 10:10
  professional talented people to come in.
• 10:12
  I'll be curious to see if at some point some of these vibe fixers come in and just say, you
• 10:16
  should just throw this thing away.
• 10:17
  Right.
• 10:18
  We build you build you somebody does the same thing for half the price it would take for me
• 10:22
  to fix your Frankenstein thing.
• 10:25
  Yeah.
• 10:25
  And you as the product minded person are probably none the wiser of kind of being like,
• 10:29
  okay, I guess you're right.
• 10:30
  It's like going to a car mechanic shop and them telling, like, this thing is broken.
• 10:34
  You're gonna
• 10:34
  have to just start
• 10:35
  a Yeah.
• 10:37
  When I think about Fiverr, I think a marketplace for commoditized talent.
• 10:40
  And so you can get quick projects done through specialist support at a fraction of the price.
• 10:46
  So it's interesting that with Fiverr, I assume that maybe that cost could be quite low to
• 10:52
  bring a project across the line.
• 10:53
  But if you're thinking about it from the standpoint that the article is describing it,
• 10:57
  that extra 25% that the project needs to be taken and and polished is probably the most
• 11:03
  important part of the entire build.
• 11:05
  There's an argument to be made that you should actually probably spend more on that than
• 11:11
  trying to cut costs there.
• 11:13
  Or maybe the answer is you vibe code the prototype and you get a professional person to
• 11:19
  build the production version.
• 11:20
  And I also just wonder, will there be specialists who are like, oh, I'm a replet vibe
• 11:24
  coder fixer specialist, which is different than a lovable vibe coder
• 11:28
  Oh, I bet.
• 11:28
  Fix it specialist.
• 11:29
  Because there'll be people who understand this is the nature of the mistakes that each of
• 11:33
  these platform tends to make, and here's how you undo them.
• 11:35
  You know, I I've thought a lot, like, what does AI mean for Fiverr?
• 11:38
  And Fiverr has felt like one of these Fiverr's such effort.
• 11:40
  It's felt like one of these platforms that was really susceptible to AI because a lot of the
• 11:44
  work that they were doing was labor arbitrage of people in other countries doing tasks for
• 11:49
  less money than they could be done onshore.
• 11:51
  I was just talking to a founder actually today who vibe coated a decent amount of the product
• 11:55
  and was curious if they should work with an engineer to build it out even more and get it
• 12:01
  closer to like a more polished v one or bring it to market just so that they could start
• 12:06
  reaching customers first?
• 12:08
  And I think the correct answer or the way to go about it, or the one that we just talked about
• 12:12
  was, okay, well, what do you want the first interaction to look like between your customers
• 12:15
  and their product?
• 12:16
  And that's kind of up to you.
• 12:17
  Do you want them to kind of know that it's a work in progress and be okay with the fact
• 12:21
  that, let's be honest, it kind of looks like a Chattypie T wrapper?
• 12:23
  Or do you want it to feel something a little bit different and more personalized?
• 12:26
  If you want that second one, you're gonna have to wait, and I think that's up to founders of
• 12:30
  deciding, are you gonna be patient enough to build something that's a little bit more in
• 12:34
  line with what you hope to ship out long term?
• 12:37
  And I think VC expectations now are that you should be able to vibe code something awesome
• 12:42
  already.
• 12:43
  And I think it's actually as someone who builds stuff, it's harder than one might think if you
• 12:47
  don't do it regularly once you add in any level of complexity.
• 12:50
  Our last topic is a recent piece by Jacob Robbins at PitchBook titled, why serial
• 12:55
  founders still have a fundraising edge over first timers.
• 12:59
  Part of this has to do with the current market where investors are looking for safer bets and
• 13:03
  larger outcomes, which right now come in the form of repeat founders.
• 13:07
  PitchBook shared data showing that median pre seed and seed deal sizes continue to be much
• 13:12
  higher for serial founders, more than double compared to novice founders, with this gap
• 13:17
  continuing to grow across all stages but being the most prevalent in the earliest.
• 13:21
  From a valuation standpoint, that difference is anywhere from two to three x between serial
• 13:26
  entrepreneurs and first time founders.
• 13:28
  Our friend, Rob Goh, raised the question in one of his pieces, quote, is the best talent
• 13:33
  irrespective of background actually getting a shot versus the same kind of person getting the
• 13:40
  shot no matter what?
• 13:42
  So obviously, in a market where investors are eager to return capital, I'm not very surprised
• 13:47
  this return to a safer founder profile is happening.
• 13:50
  The piece goes on to say that AI has magnified this trend, where the startup costs to bring an
• 13:56
  AI concept to life are much higher, and it becomes difficult to hand off a $20,000,000 or
• 14:02
  so capital lump to a first time founder.
• 14:05
  Wanted to pause for your thoughts here just Yeah.
• 14:07
  Knowing you've seen it in so many different cycles.
• 14:09
  I don't think anything else say will surprise you.
• 14:11
  When I read that subject line, I was like, well, second time founders continue to raise
• 14:15
  more capital because that's VC's preferences.
• 14:18
  Yeah.
• 14:18
  And it's so easy.
• 14:20
  And I almost shared this in the Discord.
• 14:22
  My friend Narayan from Franklin Park had this really interesting LinkedIn post about
• 14:27
  pedigree, and he's like, well, maybe once upon a time, like, pedigree meant something.
• 14:31
  But how many people have now started companies on the Internet in the last twenty years?
• 14:36
  And what does being a repeat founder how does it give you pedigree when the pool of people
• 14:40
  who have that pedigree has become quite so large?
• 14:43
  Yeah.
• 14:43
  Versus someone who's left OpenAI, that's a much smaller pedigree pool.
• 14:47
  And I think I've learned two things.
• 14:50
  You know, I've talked to a lot of founders who've been angry.
• 14:52
  They're like, well, VCs have this cynical preference for second time founders because,
• 14:56
  you know, the memo writes itself if the company doesn't work out or people from fancy schools
• 15:00
  or fancy companies.
• 15:02
  It's easy to justify why you made the investment if it doesn't work out.
• 15:06
  And I don't think it's just that.
• 15:07
  As you know me, like, working with first time founders is kind of like Groundhog Day.
• 15:12
  You have the same experiences with different characters and different circumstances, but the
• 15:16
  same experiences over and over.
• 15:17
  And a lot of my peers are like, I don't wanna do that anymore.
• 15:20
  I did that earlier in my career as a VC, and now I basically wanna work with people that are
• 15:24
  more mature and more experienced and who can handle more of the day to day zero to one with
• 15:31
  less input from me.
• 15:32
  And part of what they're paying for when they pay up for Pedigree is they're paying up to be
• 15:37
  able to say, I expect you to be able to handle more of this on your own without me.
• 15:40
  And for some people, I think that's just at this stage of their career, they would prefer
• 15:44
  to work with people like that.
• 15:45
  But, you know, where do people think second time founders come from?
• 15:49
  So I I really do worry that we have dramatically over rotated to second time
• 15:55
  founders or people who are who weren't even, like, the principal prime mover in a company,
• 16:00
  but were adjacent to the right company, the right space.
• 16:02
  And we're imbuing these people with darn near sainthood, and we're ignoring the possibility
• 16:08
  that people with less experience have more talent.
• 16:11
  I think we're doing a big disservice to the industry.
• 16:13
  And I always, I guess, wonder I think it's funny with second time founders having such a
• 16:18
  large halo effect.
• 16:18
  And, course, a large portion of that is deserved.
• 16:21
  It's so incredible when you're able to accomplish something successful in the startup
• 16:24
  world.
• 16:25
  But to be able to, I don't know, have, like, lightning strike twice is crazy.
• 16:29
  And typically, the founder goes off and starts sometimes something in a completely different
• 16:34
  industry, and that's their second act.
• 16:38
  And it's funny that they get the same halo effect as being a second time founder in a
• 16:41
  completely different area with a completely different team.
• 16:44
  And sometimes areas that they have no business entering into, I find that that happens a lot.
• 16:49
  And folks are more willing to bet on that than a person who maybe has, like, a little bit more
• 16:52
  expertise, maybe not as much pedigree, but folks are really desperate to hold on to the
• 16:56
  fact that they've done this before, driven the ship, albeit a completely different one in a
• 17:01
  completely different market.
• 17:02
  That's just interesting You to
• 17:04
  and I see that a lot in digital health.
• 17:05
  People who know nothing about health who are successful in some of their domain.
• 17:08
  I also think there's this feedback loop in Venture where a lot of people wanna get into
• 17:13
  hard to access deals.
• 17:15
  Many repeat founders have relationships with VCs, which allow them to create more favorable
• 17:20
  deal dynamics, which create more deal heat, which makes the deal feel more competitive,
• 17:24
  which makes people wanna get into it, which makes winning it and getting into it feel
• 17:27
  better whether the company is successful or not.
• 17:29
  And I think some of it is this competitive dynamic in our business, where winning and
• 17:34
  getting access to stuff that's hard to get into is different than getting access to stuff
• 17:38
  that's good.
• 17:39
  Yep.
• 17:40
  But in the moment, oftentimes, the focus is like, oh, that's competitive and hard to get
• 17:44
  into.
• 17:44
  I wanna win and get into it even if it's maybe not a great investment.
• 17:48
  Yeah.
• 17:48
  So much of it is just outward signaling of what looks good to other people.
• 17:52
  But I would say, I don't know, looking at our own portfolio, how many of our best bets from
• 17:57
  our earlier funds are from repeat versus first time founders?
• 18:02
  There are very few of our most successful companies in our portfolio that were started by
• 18:06
  repeat founders who had a big success first.
• 18:09
  We have some we have some who had other companies before, but in most cases, those
• 18:13
  companies were not of consequence.
• 18:15
  I guess that's actually a good question.
• 18:16
  How do you weigh a second time founder who maybe their first act wasn't successful at all?
• 18:20
  How do you approach that and stand them up next to a first time founder?
• 18:24
  I think the big thing I'm always trying to figure out is what did that now second time
• 18:28
  founder whose first company wasn't super successful, what did they learn or take away
• 18:32
  from that experience?
• 18:33
  And I tend to judge them by a higher standard.
• 18:35
  I expect them to know, assuming they raise venture for the last thing.
• 18:38
  I expect them to be more knowledgeable about fundraising.
• 18:41
  I expect them to be a better problem solver.
• 18:43
  I expect them to not get intimidated by how hard startups can be to build and scale.
• 18:47
  I I frankly expect them to just be better than I would for a first time founder.
• 18:51
  Last question.
• 18:52
  I mean, our fund is, I would say, two thirds first time founders, one third repeat.
• 18:56
  Would really love to hear how you've been able to see the strengths and weaknesses of
• 18:59
  different profiles, especially in, I feel like, today's VC market where it's definitely split
• 19:03
  out into two buckets of the haves and the have nots.
• 19:05
  I find that it's very rare we have these, like, middle middle road folks.
• 19:09
  I think the one thing I love about first time founders is oftentimes they they don't have,
• 19:14
  like, a playbook from their last company that they followed.
• 19:16
  And oftentimes, they don't have a playbook at all.
• 19:19
  They're like, oh, I'm just gonna reason from first principles.
• 19:22
  Now sometimes that leads to waste and efficiency.
• 19:24
  But other times that leads to truly interesting breakthrough ideas that are so different than
• 19:30
  what other people would think of.
• 19:32
  And those people are just following their instincts.
• 19:34
  They're not trying to pattern match a playbook.
• 19:36
  They're not trying to, like, follow something they write in a blog.
• 19:38
  They're just like, I don't know any better, so I'm just gonna follow my own instincts here.
• 19:41
  And I think it's kinda magical.
• 19:43
  We we have a handful of companies where I think it was the lack of playbooks and the lack of
• 19:47
  sort of knowledge of what to do.
• 19:48
  I I can honestly say the same thing is true of emerging managers starting their own funds.
• 19:52
  I've met some people who are really good investors precisely because they simply hadn't
• 19:56
  been indoctrinated into the things that other people have, and they have different beliefs
• 20:00
  about what good looks like and where to find companies and how to work with people.
• 20:03
  And so I think this is why, like, every industry needs newcomer outsiders because they
• 20:08
  just bring a different perspective.
• 20:10
  Well, we are all out of time today.
• 20:12
  Thank you, Charles, for stopping in.
• 20:13
  Thank you to our folks for stopping and listening.
• 20:15
  Please like and subscribe, and we will talk with you all next week.
• 20:18
  Thank you.
• 20:19
  Bye.
• 20:19
  See you.