It shows how much attention there is on this stuff. And you know, of course, you'd call in the guy from the financial crisis to make sure that everything goes smoothly. Yeah, Eric, I also wonder if he's sort of zoom out and look at it from a macro level. Was there a bubble in venture capital after a decade of low interest rates that just popped? Is the golden age of the quote unquote founder over after this? I just got about. Wow, that's an excellent question. I think you can only call a bubble after it's actually happened and the dust settles and I don't think we're quite there yet. We're not there where we can look back and say it was a bubble. There's no question there was way too much liquidity. There probably still is. We said it the other day, Carol. Jay Powell secretly might be not glad, but boy, a bank collapsed sure does help to tighten financial conditions and make it easier to get a rain on inflation. No, it's a really good point, right? Because you've got to look at this all the big picture here. Probably not his preferred way to smiling you guys. All right, we gotta run Patrick New York, Mark. Markets and finance editor at Bloomberg business week, editor at large Eric schatzker, Bloomberg news and Joel Weber, our editor Bloomberg does this week. Folks, it's a finance takeover. It's the cover. It's a must read for the weekend. This is Bloomberg radio. Bloomberg radio on demand and in your podcast feed. And the latest edition of the Bloomberg surveillance podcast, a conversation with a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve system, Richard clarida of pimco. There's been a lot of progress Don Frank and in particular for the large systemically important institutions with stress testing, liquidity, and all the rest. I think what this episode does reveal is that institutions may look small, they can get big as you know, S&P, for example, tripled in size in a couple of years, and even institutions of that size as we saw over the weekend can be systemic. So I think the clear direction of travel is going to be that under existing statutes and laws, the fed has enormous flexibility in the way that it's supervises institutions on a case by case basis. And I think we're going to see that level of supervision in particular scrutiny of things like the hold of maturity portfolios being underwater and liquidity and the uninsured deposits are all going to be factors. And so the direction of travel is going to be tighter vision. Would you suggest our Central Bank will have to adapt to the political realities of Republicans hugely distrustful of the big accumulation of capital almost in a jacksonian way, how big will that umbrella extend out from the too big to fail? I think it's going to certainly extend into a number of the names that are in that 100 to 250. Remind you, that was actually by statute in 2018, the statute said that less Prudential scrutiny for banks under 250 billion. But again, the legislation given the fed a lot of autonomy within that on an individual bank basis. And we're going