I'm Jeremy Sheepard. >> And I'm Daniel. >> We use data to expose deceitful property experts and their marketing BS. >> This is the expert busting series. >> This is part one of our expert busting series and today we're going to be uncovering population growth. Jes.
>> Yeah. How many times have you heard some property investment expert try and tell you that you need to seek out those property markets that have high population growth? It's a no-brainer, right? Well, it's wrong. And we're going to explain why that's the case. In fact, most people have probably got this round the wrong way.
It makes perfect sense from a macro level, like all of Australia. The more people you have, limited houses, obviously demand exceeds supply. So, you'd expect to see prices of houses go up. But at the micro level, where most investors are operating, you know, at the suburb level, uh it's more than likely an indicator of supply, not demand. And you don't want to get those two things around the wrong way. So, let's just quickly review this fundamental law of supply and demand.
>> All right, let's jump into it. So, I guess before we do, so population growth is you'll hear it a lot in the in the industry. It's like, okay, well, you know, there's um a lot of immigrants coming maybe from overseas and you've just got this massive um influx of population, so prices should go up, shouldn't they? >> Yeah, that's what everyone believes, but >> they're in property reports, too. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah.
Everyone's >> population growth. Population growth. So okay. >> But where do you invest? You know, you've got to pick an actual suburb. So, let's just start with this uh supply and demand.
I've got an infographic here. If you're uh on audio, sorry, you won't be able to see this. to try and explain it. Uh but this this is probably best watched on uh YouTube. All right. So this infographic it shows supply and demand on the left and the response of prices.
Now the top row shows the case of supply matching or equaling demand. So we've got three houses that are supplied to three people. Now because there is a balance between supply and demand, prices don't go up or down. They go sideways. On the second row, supply exceeds demand. There are three houses but only two people.
So prices go down. And the bottom row shows that if supply is only two and demand is three, then prices go up because demand exceeds supply. So if we can measure population growth for a suburb, do we have an idea of demand? Well, the answer is not really. uh it's more likely to be a measure of over supply than of demand and you definitely don't want to get those two things uh round the wrong way. >> And another example would be if you look at maybe around co time with cars as an example there was um you know especially the used car market they skyrocketed because the limitation on supply keep it as simple >> as possible even the toilet paper.
Oh yeah, the toilet that got ridiculous. >> So it got ridiculous all over the news, but the demand was there and people I think were reselling it on eBay from memory. All right, but let's move on. So how population growth >> I guess will lead to over supply. So here's why it's more likely to be a measure of over supply. So imagine a 100 houses are built.
Now if 90 of those are occupied then that that means 10 are vacant so there's an overupp of 10 houses and supply is the enemy of of capital growth and if you go to uh the next slide. >> Yep. So just before we do so there's like the 90 properties are occupied but we've got 10 properties that are unavailable. So that means okay there's a bit of supply >> vacant. They are available. >> They are available.
Apologies. So they're available um which creates to that over supply and you don't see that increase in prices. But if we move to the next slide. So better than population growth. >> Yeah. So this is this is a case of something that's better than population growth.
So imagine if you had 100 houses that are built. >> Yeah. And all of them >> are occupied. >> What we really want to see because if you've built 100 and occupy 100, then that's supply matching demand. Mhm. >> What we really want to measure is how many people missed out.
And that's the little um square at the bottom. >> Just from I guess experience. Uh I think I've spoken to you about this in the past, but like let's say you've got these land release areas. Okay. And normally the council will slowly release these blocks. They won't just get, you know, you won't see like a th00and or 2,000 blocks come up right away or very rarely depending on that location.
But normally what will happen is you might have thousands of people registering but they're only going to release maybe 200 blocks at a time. So it sort of does in you know in certain areas can still lead to um capital growth due to the fact of the the under supply in those markets. >> Yeah. You you're talking about them controlling the rate of supply. But the thing is that just stretches out the period of time that supply is going to be thwarting capital growth. There's always that risk and you need to look around all those surrounding areas to make sure is there a lot more stock coming onto different specific suburbs.
So don't look at that suburb in isolation. But going a bit off topic, but I thought I just wanted to bring that up. >> Yeah. And the equation for capital growth is a two-sided coin. You've got supply and demand. So even though you've got a particular suburb where there could be an increase in supply, if the demand is even higher still, then you should see capital growth.
>> Correct. So, we're just trying to get everything together here. But what I'm trying to point out in this slide here is the population growth does not tell us what we want to know. We want to know how many people have missed out. >> But all it's going to tell us is how many people occupied the dwellings that were uh created. And it's it's quite possible that that nobody missed out.
And so it's not really a a measure of demand. Um so yeah if you move on to this slide uh to calculate population growth you need to measure the number of people that moved in. >> Mhm. >> How many moved out, how many died and how many were born. Uh but as we've just seen people moving in could simply measure the number of new houses which is supply. and babies well they're not in the habit of buying houses maybe in 30 40 years time but um they don't really influence uh the price of property because they don't they don't push demand.
So you need to uh exclude some of these sorts of things and most people when they're looking at population growth figures it's just it's just a number. It's just here's how much the population growth did increase by over a certain period of time >> and they'll look at forecasts and numbers too. So when you're getting these reports or provided these reports, a lot of it's just forecasted anyway. It doesn't mean it's actually going to happen. But as you said, all it's saying is there's more supply coming in to a specific market. And an example that I can think of now is like you look at Zean Green Square around Mascot in New South Wales.
You got these big highrises going up. Okay, population growth's increasing in those areas, but I wouldn't touch any of those dwellings from an investment point of view. It's just a lot more stock coming into these markets. So, um, all right. So, how a suburbs population grows. >> Yeah.
So, let's go through the only three ways in which a suburbs population can grow. um you've got bigger families, so you're squeezing more people into the same number of properties, or you've got less properties, which is number two, uh less less vacant properties, or you build more properties. So, if you go on to um the next slide, looking at bigger families. So, this is people per household and how it has changed uh over the years. So we're going back to these these are conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the census every 5 years. So you can see those are five years apart.
They date back uh quite a while back to 1991. And you can see that there's fair amount of consistency about the people per household. >> So let's paint the picture for I guess if you're not watching this via YouTube or Spotify or iTunes. 1991 there was close to what 2.75 people per household and in 2021 it's down to about maybe 2.5. So sort of slowly decreasing. So maybe um >> yeah it's I guess less people per household.
>> Yeah. But it's it's very consistent over a few decades there. You got three decades it's barely moved. Um so it's the point there is that it's fairly consistent. So if you've got a u a growing population that makes do with the same number of dwellings, if if they do all squeeze in, then there's no pressure on prices to rise. For prices to rise, we need more people wanting their own property.
And you can see a little bit of that in that the chart. So if population growth occurs via increased people per household, population growth will have no impact on >> demand for property. Uh you would need to factor in uh people per household when you are looking at population growth. You can't just look at population growth in isolation. >> And how's population growth calculated? As you mentioned, it was a census data that happens every 5 years.
Correct. >> Yeah, that's right. Uh so they send around the surveys, who responds, who's here, who's living there, >> and who forecasts the population growth. Is it normally the councils that >> It's interesting you bring that up because uh there is a mob that does uh very good population growth forecasts and I actually contacted them years ago and say how how do you go about uh coming up with these population forecasts? And uh I can't remember the lady that I was speaking to >> but she said it is more based on supply than on demand. We basically estimate how many new dwellings can be built in this area in the coming years and then we make an assumption about how many people will occupy those dwellings.
So it really is even the forecasts are an estimate of supply not of demand. Everyone's thinking there's a whole bunch of people queued up at a gate waiting for the gate to be opened and it represents demand. It's actually more likely uh an indicator of supply. >> I'm going off the top of my head here. I think is it forecast? It was a while ago like I remember yeah I used to look at it all the time but um they're very interesting but moving over.
So I guess properties, rentals and vacancies. So >> so this is the second way in which you can have population of a suburb increase. uh about 30% of the properties in a typical Australian suburb are rental properties. >> Now, if uh 3% of those rentals are currently vacant, then the population can grow by about 1% without any new dwellings being built. Now, remember that uh vacancy rate is a measure of how many rental properties are vacant, not how many properties in total are vacant. So you can see there that I've shaded uh these these properties.
These are all the properties in a suburb. Most of them are owner occupied. There's a portion that are landlordowned and then out of those some of them will be vacant. >> So what's that 1% that you mentioned? So you mentioned that 1% population >> if if 3% of the rentals >> Mhm. >> are vacant, >> correct?
and 30% of the properties are rentals, >> then occupy all the vacant rental properties. In other words, bring the vacancy rate down from 3% to 0% and you've only increased the population by 1%. >> Okay? >> So, my point here is that filling up all the empties is not going to uh give you a high population growth. It's not going to have a big impact. And that brings us to the third way in which population can grow and that's the the significant one.
It's if more properties are built. So if you find a suburb with high population growth, chances are it is due to supply. It's not because of terribly low vacancy rates or dropping vacancy rates. It's not because more people are squeezing in the same number of houses. High population growth comes from high supply. So yeah, population growth forecasts of an area are based almost entirely as we said um you know the guys at ID it's it's because of uh an estimate of what can be supplied uh to that market and there are developers that will talk about these um growth corridors they call growth corridors these greenfield estates they are not talking about capital growth corridors they are talking about supply corridor So, uh, yeah, watch out for that piece of marketing.
So, I would prefer to buy in a suburb where population growth is, uh, simply impossible. Uh, and that actually happens quite a lot. If you go to the next slide, um, so let's look at a case of zero population growth. Uh, let's assume you've got some company that's doing a bit of land banking. So, they bought a whole bunch of land. they're planning on developing in the future.
Uh there could be zero population there now and over let's say they hold that land for a very long period of time like 10 years. >> Uh there's no population growth in it. It's still just the same uh blocks of land. But has the price changed? The price could have doubled in that period of time even if there's zero uh population growth. And uh there's a second example.
Uh sorry, don't go to the next slide. Uh the second example is imagine there's a council and they've decided right for this area there's going to be no more densification. So you can't knock down a house and build uh a set of town houses. You can knock down a house and build another house. You can knock down a block of units and build another block of units. but we're not going to have uh any increase in dwellings.
>> So, think of maybe Paramea as an example or one of these Sydney suburbs that are already built out. So, let's just say Paramea, it's already built out. Um you can maybe knock it down and maybe put town houses on, but there's no more extra supply coming on from land. Only the unit aspect can be built. They get knocked down. So let's assume that a local government area, I'm not saying this is the case for the Paramea LGA, but let's say that council decides, yeah, we're not going to have any more increase in infield in densification.
We're not going to reszone anything. So the same number of dwellings are there and let's say they keep this policy for a whole decade. Now the population cannot grow without extra dwellings. Can you imagine that over a decade the prices would not have moved? They would not have gone up for an entire decade. So there's two examples where you can have zero population growth and yet property prices can double.
Uh the point being that population growth does not have this close correlation to capital growth as many people assume >> because the residents would be the same but there's still that pressure on pricing because people still want to live there and it drives all the prices up and there's no supply. So, a property comes on the market, it'll get snapped up right away. >> Yeah, that's right. That's why I'm saying I would prefer a market where there's zero population growth forecast. Yeah. >> I remember um back I'd say 2015 I went to a property expo in Sydney and I listened to one of the professionals um haven't heard of her lately, but uh I asked cuz she she did talk about going into areas with population growth and back then I believed a lot of uh what I was hearing.
Me too. >> But you learn you learn from it. And um I said, "How do you find it out?" She goes, "I just Google it, the population growth in a market." But now I realize it's um it just didn't make sense to me back then and it doesn't really make sense to me >> now. Yeah. And it doesn't doesn't help. We'll show some data to support that.
>> And look, if I'm a if I'm a um let's just say, you know, an investor or I go through a buyer agent or they provide a report going, "Oh, this is the population growth." I would challenge it. >> What's this mean? Is it growth for capital growth or not? But let's move on. So, population growth. What have we got here?
So, I think this is my example from a CPA presentation. So, it's a a two-bedroom unit in Dockland's Victoria. So, I actually remember a while ago now when I was in um Melbourne for the Australian Open tennis and I went to Dockland's and this when I was in a property investor. I'm like, this is a great investment. I want to, you know, look at all these units, the lifestyle. But then I'm lucky I didn't buy a unit back then.
I couldn't have afforded it anyway. But but this is an example of I think an area where you could say great population growth cuz there's so many dwellings coming in to that sort of Melbourne CBD. So this is an example 2014 contract signed and then let's say to build 2 years they purchased this unit for765,000 back in 2016 and then in 2023 sold for $630. So that's a $135,000 loss through a 7-year period. And imagine the other markets you could have purchased in. So, you know, one of these property experts could go, look, there's population growth.
Buy this. And I think people are very educated now around high density units. Um, back in the day, I don't think it was um there was much education around it, but you can see here that you definitely had negative growth and really impacted your financial future over an 8-year period. But, you know, Dockland's could be or Melbourne, you know, great population growth, but um you're not seeing that capital growth there, are you? >> Yeah. It's interesting uh these numbers you you're talking about 135,000 backwards, >> but in those uh seven years, you could have invested the same amount of money.
It could have doubled in value. So you add $130,000 to $765,000. That's almost a million opportunity cost. I'd say even more. You think about it back in 2016, 17, 18, you could have bought, let's say, what a house in Hobart for early 300s. You could have bought in Adelaide pretty cheap.
You could have timed that Brisbane market through that period. and regional markets like New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland. But that's a massive >> opportunity cost. But imagine if that's your first property, first one, and you inject all this is where you'd hear someone, I wouldn't touch property again >> cuz they've had that really bad experience first up. But as we know, >> establish is the way. Um, and obviously trying to, you know, avoid buying right at the top and trying to get on that upswing.
But yeah, this is um and I wouldn't be deterred either. Like you might hear a lot in the industry, you know, I've got this many properties, you know, I've done really well. But there are a lot of times we've all made a mistake. I haven't made a mistake in property. Jez, you've made a mistake. Like it does happen and we're very open about it and you learn from it.
So just don't be deterred if you're hearing this going, "Hey, this is me." And you know you can always reach out um suburbdata.com.au you can always reach out to us. But moving forward let's have a look. Hobart. >> Yeah. So uh this chart compares the growth of Hobart with the growth of the three largest uh population growth centers of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Uh the period on the chart in the bottom left that starts in 2017.
It goes to 2021. Now, in this 4-year period, Hobart's growth uh embarrassed the uh the other big three state capitals, and the growth difference is over 20%. So, for a $500,000 property, that's an opportunity cost of $100,000. 20% of $500,000 is $100,000. But the entry prices in Hobart were much lower than the other three. uh and yields were higher as well.
Uh and this growth difference was um despite Hobart's population growth being way slower than the big three both leading up to and during this period that's shown and uh there are other examples on other charts. What's interesting the first from 2017 January for that first year period in Melbourne was sort of at the front and I know there was a lot of talk about Hobart and there were some professionals out there that avoided Hobart but this is a clear indication to say hey it has outperformed through through that period and you know you don't just buy in a market um because it's blue chip or whatever it might be or whatever excuse they use experts you know you want to get that run as soon as possible and you can clearly see here that if you got into Hobart early, you would have done really well. >> Yeah. And I think uh if we're talking about the same experts, I I can remember someone saying the population growth is actually in decline for Tasmania. I think in the in the years leading up to that, I'm not sure. I'd have to fact check that.
But it was definitely inferior to uh the eastern seabboard of Australia which had I mean most most migrants first of all land in either Sydney or Melbourne and that they might head to Brisbane as well. So yeah population growth does not equal uh capital growth and uh this is another good example uh the population of canes uh grew at 6.4% peranom for the 5 years from 2006 to 2011. Now, just to place that in context, that is about four times faster than the long-term national population growth rate, which is around about 1 and a half% peranom. Now, you'd think that population growth would spur some capital growth. Uh, but instead over the next 5 years, the capital growth rate was only 1.8%. And that's about three times slower than the national capital growth rate.
So you've got high population growth followed by low capital growth. >> So you've had population growth of around call it 6 12% from 2006 to 2011 but the capital growth didn't follow that nowhere near it. And the national capital growth um was actually below it was an underperformer wasn't it? So cans had >> high population growth but and if you based buying in that just because of that indicator then you'd be going backwards. >> Yeah. Yeah.
So imagine you you're you're an investor at 2011. You've just seen the last 5 years uh cracking population growth. I'm going to buy in cans and then the next 5 years disappointed. >> It's really interesting, isn't it, Jeremy? Because I think to myself, is there a science or art to all of this? like because you can cherrypick all these different metrics and put them in a report and make them pretty and make them 50 pages or whatever to impress a client, but you just we have to find like what is actually relevant into markets that we're going in.
You know, cut out all the stuff that's not necessary. You know, what isn't relevant and what is relevant to buy into specific markets. That's what we want to get to. >> Yeah. And this is just uh one great example of of something that's not not relevant. >> So move over to Townsville now.
>> Yeah. So Townsville had a population growth from 2006 to 2011 of 4.1%. And that's around about three times faster than what's considered normal. But again, it did not result in capital growth. In fact, prices went backwards a little. Uh they dropped by around about 2% each year for the next 5 years.
What if um putting you on the spot here, but like see the population growth of around 4% peranom. What if a lot of that chunk of that population all happened in 2011? So let's say population was slow slow and then 2011 a big influx and then that capital growth. Oh, you had it there anyway. My apologies. So you've gone from two I like that.
From 2006 to 2011 and then the following 5 years, that's where you'd see that capital growth cuz you've got that population. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay, >> so you remember that these figures of population growth are only published once every 5 years. So the investor has that opportunity in 2011. Actually they do take a a bit of time to come out.
So we have had a census in 2006. There was another one in 2011. And so you can now measure the population growth, the change in in population over that 5year period. Then you make a decision in 2011. How did that play out? uh well for the 5 years to 2016 not so good.
>> How do I know and I guess everyone listening out there that these just aren't cherrypicked? We've got a couple there but let's say don't you need to look at everything as a whole because this is what experts do. They'll just cherry pick what they they will cherry pick >> what you want to see. >> Yeah. So I've just got one more example and then I'll I'll give you the broader picture. >> So let me talk about Sydney if that's okay.
Sure. >> So Sydney population growth was about 1.4%. 4% peranom from 2006 to 2011. So as we know Sydney I guess out of all the capitals is um it's already quite built out like there's not really any sort of land release areas unless you sort of go a bit further out from Sydney and then I guess the capital growth was 9.4% in those following 5 years afterwards. So low population growth but >> sorry that that population growth at 1.4% 4% that's about normal. >> Oh, straight away.
>> Yeah, that's that's sort of uh long-term uh norm >> 1.4% but the capital growth was 9.4% through that period. >> Well above norm. Yeah. So the point that I was trying to make with this example is that we had normal population growth but we had abnormal abnormally high cap capital growth. So the other two examples they had abnormally high population growth and abnormally low uh capital growth. Anyway, like you were just saying, these are just cherrypicked examples.
>> This next slide um well this this chart is trying to get a more comprehensive view of what's going on here. It considers a whole bunch of markets, not just a handful of cherrypicked examples. So, the bar on the left, that represents all the markets that had below average population growth for any 5-year period. And the bar on the right represents all the markets that had above average population growth. >> So, these are all the markets, all the suburbs within Australia. >> Yes.
>> So, below average 5-year population growth. So, what's this? Uh, okay. So the ones that had below had a return of around 8% peranom where the ones that had a lot more population growth had a lower return around sort of 6 1/2%. So pretty much saying that the lower populated areas or had better capital growth than the ones that where they had higher population growth >> growth. Yeah, that's right.
So not necessarily populated or population but population growth. Yeah. So there is not the correlation between population growth and capital growth that most people assume. >> But you're looking at this as a whole though. You're not just cherry picking. Now we're aggregating all the data and bringing it into one.
>> That's right. We're looking trying to find a general rule. And uh this next chart uh shows in more detail the relationship between 5-year population growth versus the following five-year capital growth. Now this is called a scatter plot. Each one of those uh tiny plus signs represents a market for which both population growth and capital growth were measured. Um now the further one of those little markers, those plus signs is to the right, the higher the population growth was over the uh the 5-year period leading up to the 5year capital growth period.
So the x-axis along the the bottom there horizontally the x- axis that represents uh population growth 5-year population growth and the yaxis represents capital growth over the following 5 years. So the higher up the chart that a plus sign appears the more capital growth there was. That's in the five years following the population growth. For population growth to lead to capital growth, there needs to be a a splattering of these these markers going from the bottom left up to the top right. But instead, there's no real pattern. >> Yeah.
It highlights to me, and this is what I love because it's all about probability. It's easy to cherrypick, but you need to look at everything as a whole. And these little plus signs that you've got now, are they local government areas? Are they suburbs? Are they SUAs? Are they SA2s, SA3s, SA4s?
Because there are so many suburbs around Australia, there are, you know, well over 10,000. And because there are so many 5-year population periods followed by 5year capital growth periods, there would be hundreds of thousands, possibly even a million of these plus signs. So I did have to aggregate them to some extent otherwise the um the chart would have just blown up. >> And how did you aggregate them? >> Uh I really just pulled them by their uh population growth. So that five year I put them in little buckets.
Um they may have been uh also pulled geographically to some extent. It could have been like SA3. I can't actually remember what it was. But um it was there was no sneaky business. I'm trying to discover what leads to capital growth. >> I guess my point is if I see a plus sign there, is there an indicator that that might include for example um let's just say um the a suburb in Sydney and then a suburb in Brisbane like can that be correlated into one or or could this just be one local area for example?
>> Uh I would have to look at the code. Yeah, that's fair. See? Yes. But that's Yeah, good point. Um, you've got some extreme cases there, don't you?
That's um that's pretty good. It's almost 25% peranom growth for 5 years. That's u more than doubling in value. >> Well, I like the fact that there's a probability to go. You can just see it, can't you? You got a couple outliers here.
And these are the ones you don't really want to factor in, but it's this big. >> Yeah. and the the general trend that uh turquoise >> thick dotted line that's showing the general trend. That's called the line of best fit. Now, obviously, it's not a very good line of best fit. That's because there isn't a really clear relationship between 5year population growth and 5year capital growth.
Uh and it's relatively flat, but you can see that uh the higher the population growth, the lower the capital growth. It's not much. There's not much in it. You wouldn't even want to use this to try and avoid markets. Oh, this market's got um uh 5 years of really high population growth. We shouldn't buy in it.
Uh well, the the line, the trend line is so flat there that you wouldn't want to base a decision on on population growth. >> Well, anyone can just pick anything, can't they? I'm investing in this area because of population growth because I heard off someone and that's it. It's so easy to believe blindly. >> Yeah, that's right. And always be skeptical.
>> Yes. Yes. Have a healthy level of skepticism. Challenge everything. Uh you'll be much better off. All right.
>> So I think actually the conclusion here is like don't follow I guess blindly to just listening to someone invest in this area because it's got high population growth and challenge the expert. Well, why am I investing in a market where there's more supply coming on? That >> I'll let you uh conclude Jeremy. >> Yeah. So there's there's all sorts of uh uh problems with population data that make it more more or less useless for investors. Um first of all, it's only published at the suburb level once every 5 years.
Uh it's definitely a lag indicator as those last two charts uh showed. Uh there's no breakdown of the cause of population increase. So it could be purely births and babies don't buy houses. uh and a vacant dwelling has to exist before someone can move into it. So you need the supply before the demand can match that supply and it doesn't measure the demand exceeding supply which is what we want to know as as property investors. So yeah, contrary to what the experts have told investors for many years, um high suburb population growth uh does not lead to high capital growth.
In fact, it could be uh if it's a an accurate measure of supply of over supply, it could lead to uh negative uh capital growth. So, you're more likely to be better off pursuing areas with projected zero population growth than than high population growth. >> So, would you if you're shortlisting suburbs to invest in, would you factor that in like population growth forecast or you sort of just leave it out alto together? >> Well, the last chart because that trend line was so flat, just ignore it. >> Okay. So maybe suburbs where there is a um I guess a high level of Oh, so not even look at population growth forecast cuz >> if if there was a forecast with a high population growth, >> I would be concerned that there's supply.
There's a huge amount of supply about to come to this market. >> And you can find out, can't you go on Google Maps, you can go to council websites, there's way to mitigate your risk. And that's what this is all about is just mitigating your >> risk. But if you buy in a builtup area, if you buy a house in a builtup area, that extra houses require more land. So if there's no vacant land around you, you're pretty safe. >> You're going to do okay.
All right. Well, uh, thanks for joining us on this, uh, on our expert busting series journey. Uh, this is part one of our series. >> Yeah. And there's lots more to come. So, hit subscribe to be notified and join us for the rest of the story.
>> Yeah. So, again, you can go on any of our podcast platforms. You can go to suburbdata.com.au under the educational section. We'll have our blogs there for the expert busting series. See you in our next episode. Take care.