The REGIS-TR RoundUp
The REGIS-TR RoundUp is a hub for regulatory reporting news and views from your leading Trade Repository team and industry guests from across the globe.
The REGIS-TR RoundUp
S10:E14 Navigating the new MIFIR: The Next Regulatory Wave
In our feature-length season finale, Matthew Vincent (Dir. MIFIR Reporting, Kaizen) and José Manuel Santamaría, (Head Regulatory Services, BME, SIX) join our regular virtual studio crew to talk about the next huge wave of regulatory change - MIFIR 2024. With far-reaching implications for market participants in non-equity instruments and equities, could 2025 signal even more disruption than EMIR Refit last year? Join Andrew Keith Walker, Nick Bruce and John Kernan for another lively show going in-depth and under the hood of the latest Regtech news.
you're listening to the registry, our roundup, which is brought to you by the six group and features members of registry, our team and special guests featuring their personal opinions not the opinions of registry are. As an organization, there's no representation made as to the accuracy or completeness of information in this podcast and nor should it be taken as any legal, tax or other professional advice. Yes, we are back and it's the season finale, actually, of series 10. Can you believe that? 10 series in? And I'm looking at a screen full of very fresh-faced, good-looking middle-aged men. Right now, only the ones who've had to work with me every week for the last five years have aged beyond their years, and that is, of course, starting in no particular order. Introducing our virtual studio crew this week and starting with the voice of reason himself, the head of business development, the very sprightly and young-looking Mr Nicholas Bruce. Nick, welcome back.
Speaker 2:Good to be back, andrew, and yeah, thank you for that. I don't feel sprightly and young looking, but I'll take that definitely okay, now you look good.
Speaker 1:Well, I see you've been doing a fair bit of traveling as well. You're just back, aren't you from, uh, the derivatives event in frankfurt? How was that?
Speaker 2:really good, really good event. Um really well attended. Um great, just to connect with clients again as well and just to get back out there. So it's yeah, we're going into a busy time, busy season. So on the road Brussels next week, I think, amsterdam the week after as well. So it's all good.
Speaker 1:Good. So you're hitting Europe hard. And that leads us to the other person who's aged prematurely from too much podcasting. It is, of course, the man who used to put the canary in the wolf, and then he was in Devonshire and never square. He now looks after St Mary's Axe. It is none other than the CEO of Registriar in the UK and longtime contributor, brexit reporter to Mr John Kernan. John, welcome back.
Speaker 3:Thanks, andrew, great to be back.
Speaker 1:Feels like ages since I've been on, but very happy to be here with these distinguished guests and nick, of course indeed, and what guests we have as well, because joining us, uh, to go in depth and under the hood with uh mafia 2024, yes, the next wave of regulatory change is upon us, and joining us for that we have Matthew Vincent.
Speaker 1:Now, matthew, you will probably know if you've done anything in and around the world of MIFIA, mifid regulatory reporting with any of the major players over the last 20 years or so, you will know Matt Matt is Managing Director at Kaizen Reporting. He brings nearly 30 years of experience in financial services to bear now in his regulatory consulting work there. Prior to joining Kaizen, he served as Director of Regulatory Reporting Strategy at the London Stock Exchange's Univista platform and he's also been head of MIFID Regulatory Reporting at Credit Suisse and had positions at Barclays Investment Bank, citigroup and Deutsche Bank. He also chairs the UK Finance Transaction Reporting Working Group over the last 10 years and he's serving on the Consultative Working Group supporting ESMA's Market Data Reporting Working Group. That's a hell of a CV, frankly. Matthew Vincent, welcome to the show.
Speaker 5:Thank you very much. When you say 20 and 30 years, that also has horribly long periods of time.
Speaker 1:Well, it's tough sometimes, because I started with 20, but then on LinkedIn it says 30. And I thought, ok, fine, we can fact check that you don't look like it could be 30.
Speaker 5:I was in Paris last week on a geek and it said 30 years since Eurostar and I thought, God, I can't believe it's 30 years ago since they opened that thing and I ventured on it for the first time.
Speaker 1:Wow, now you said that. That's it now I'm just going to retire after this recording and also joining us. We have a very special guest Joining us, from BME6, jose Manuel Santamaria Jose. Welcome to the show.
Speaker 4:Thank you very much, alu. Thanks for having me it's a great.
Speaker 1:It's great to have you on board and, of course, uh, everyone uh will probably know you if they've interacted with bme or six over the last 17 years or so. Uh, you've got a lot of expertise in capital markets, uh, extensive experience, encompassing various leadership roles within the financial industry, focusing on market operations and infrastructure. You run the Maffia reporting business, of course, and you have regulatory reporting roles here. You used to chair the Equity Committee at the Federation of European Securities Exchanges and, of course, you were an analyst at Deloitte as well. So, between you and Matt, we've got this whole thing covered and I expect you to ask some really tough questions to Nick and John just to keep them on their toes there. Talking of which, yeah, thanks, good, all right, I'm going to enjoy this.
Speaker 1:I suppose, moving on, everyone's sort of breathing a sigh of relief now that EMEA seems to be over and the big disruptions that were felt industry widewide uh sort of calming down and and it seems like things were starting to look a little bit better on the regulatory reporting front. And then 2024 amendments to MIFIR uh come along, supposed to enhance transparency and non-equity instruments uh, as well as equities. Um, we, we all know that implementing these changes is going to require some significant adjustments in reporting systems and processes. We should be used to that by now. So I want to kick off by asking the sort of the big picture question is this just another big compliance headache that will pass? Or is it a long overdue refit that's addressing shortcomings in original sort of specifications for uh, mephia in much the same way that a mere refit sort of came in and did that for the aging legislation there, and I'd like to start that one off. I'm going to fight that one over to you, matt sure.
Speaker 5:So I'll. I'll talk to the transact. So the mifia review covers lots of bits and pieces. Um, I'll talk to to the mifia review, sort of on the rts 22. So the transaction reporting and I think the question was, is it, you know, improving what we've already got from esmer? And I would say probably not improving, but it's absolutely adding to the burden that is placed on investment firms to send data to their EU NCAs. There's not a lot in there that is, I would say, focused on improving the data quality and the accuracy of the data that the NCAs currently get. So it's going to be a big change. It's going to be lots of work for firms to add data to those transaction reports to send to ESMA. And that's on what we've currently seen in a draft RTS22. So I don't think they're going to suddenly axe it back, but the draft says lots more change to come.
Speaker 1:Jose, I want to come to you on this one From your side, working obviously in a big securities exchange and obviously with oversight and connections into trade repositories as well. What does it look like from your side? We've heard from Matt about the challenge for market participants. What about from the infrastructure side side? We've heard from Matt about the challenge for market participants. What about from the infrastructure side?
Speaker 4:I tend to concur absolutely with what Matt just said. There's nothing really new aimed at improving really the vision or the view that the regulators would get from the markets. I would not only touch upon the RTS-22, on the transaction reporting, which for sure I share absolutely what has been said. I don't really know if this is going to be really useful or more useful for the regulators, you know, to gain access to what's going on. But I would also like to touch upon the RTS-1 and 2, which is not that much related to the transparency sorry, to the integrity of the market, which is much more on the side of the transaction report in infrastructures as Registria or BME regulatory services are, but mainly on the transparency side.
Speaker 4:If we dive a bit into the new regime, bring broad forward on the RTS1 and RTS2 for equities and bonds, it's kind of a nightmare, so to speak, especially when you go into the details of the federal publications for transparency. It is well intended, I would say, and it intends to standardize it a bit and to make it more normalized throughout the European Union. But in the end it is creating kind of a monster which is not that easy to comply with or not easy to implement. So from the industry participant side. I would say it will certainly be a challenge and it will be for sure as well for the infrastructures.
Speaker 2:It sounds to me very similar to the discussions we were having around EMEA refit. Where there's a debate, it's the increasing of fields Is that actually going to lead to improved data quality? And we know that the challenge that the market had as a whole to manage those changes and actually something that Jose Mar mentioned was about, you know, the end goal is to harmonize, but I've also then heard that potentially there's going to be a move from XML to JSON, so we're then actually changing the format of you know, of how you instruct Now then does that mean we're then going to see that retrofitted to other reporting regimes? And if that's the case, you know, we're just in this continual cycle of of refits and adaptations to the existing regulations, and that is a real challenge for everyone in the industry because that puts such a cost burden, you know, on the industry. Um, and that for me, I find that really interesting. I I'm just looking at what will be the final spec in that direction of travel yeah, I thought that was interesting.
Speaker 3:I mean, I have a slightly different perspective, I suppose on EMIR refit, that you could argue that the introduction of additional fields actually tightens the regulation, so there's kind of less ambiguity there, which somehow does improve data quality. Now again, like you, nick, I'm also not an expert on um myth here, but I'd be interested to know if, if actually the additional fields would do exactly that remove, remove some of the ambiguity in the reporting standard in terms of eliminating ambiguity, barely certain that there is not a single new thing in that document that eliminates ambiguity.
Speaker 5:It adds it is entirely additive. The only thing it removes and there'll be a a silent cheer when the podcast goes out is the short-standing flag is removed. So that is a huge burden, cost of fortune to implement and they've taken it away. So that that's excellent, that that's good news. I'm just trying to think of the various bits of the question, andrew, so if I miss a bit, then pick me back up. So then the other bit, I think, was the go live and the date. So we are currently, or we were expecting final text on my birthday, march the 31st.
Speaker 5:However, rumour has it that we're no longer expecting final text on March 31st. That's now pushed into June, july, august, where I think most of Europe and certainly most of the UK will be off. We're also hearing that the implementation date won't slip out. So we've got waiting longer for the actual text, but the implementation date will still be end 26, early 27. And one final point a lot of what they've put in the text requires guidelines. Lot of what they've put in the text requires guidelines, and the guidelines, if history is our guide always come out after the text they put to be translated into. There would be written and then translated into 27 languages or thereabouts, and then they'll get produced. So I've got a feeling that there'll be a panic. Not panic, that's not the right word. Firmers will make a start, do what they can, but without the guidelines to give the actual final detail about what goes in what box and when, the implementation will not go well because they simply won't know what to do.
Speaker 3:The implementation will not go well because they simply won't know what to do. I was looking at the process, you know, with my UK hat on, and it struck me that there was maybe a different calendar for the UK. I think the discussion paper concluded in February if I'm not mistaken concluded in February if I'm not mistaken and that we're expecting a consultation paper sometime later this year. But then what you just described with regard to the EU process and obviously you've got the element of the translation in member states, etc. So I'm working on a basis that we probably got these dual calendars, a bit like refit, where we had what was it? Five months between the two regimes, and am I wrong to assume that would be the case?
Speaker 5:No, joe, you're absolutely right. So the calendars sort, I mean, best guess is the calendars align. And you will be I think will be in a similar situation to refit, as in ESMA will go first and UK will follow, or UK will go first and ESMA will follow, but it feels very refit-like at this point. Fca have got DP, as you said, we've then got CP, we've then got policy statement and we then have implementation period.
Speaker 3:So they're aligning, but they're not aligned yeah, so there's there's pros and cons with that. Right, you know it's always good to avoid the big bang. Um. We saw with uh refit in in the uk that we certainly benefited from learning from some of the mistakes. Likewise, our clients were in much better shape because, although there was some um small divergence between the two regimes, you know, they were effectively in production for five months before before they had to um go live in the UK. Then some of our larger clients may not share that view because they're then having to maintain effectively two different sets of regulatory standards in parallel across the channel.
Speaker 5:This is a bit speculative, but I'll say it anyway. So up until the political political landscape I think has changed quite a bit as well since all of this process started mifia review, um, financial services and markets act 2033, etc. And the ceo of the fca was on linkedin this morning as being in europe yesterday and we never heard any of that until recently. And there's been a couple of linkedin posts on fca are talking to esmer. So I don't think that's going to make a radical difference, and I'm just put it. It's just something that's. The temperature has changed in the last three months. So that sort of divergence piece, that timelines timelines piece, that you know, are we going to go left at the road traffic lights and Esmer go right? It reads like that today, but there's plenty of time for that divergence bubble to emerge. So quite how far we go right and how far they go left really is yet to be decided. I mean presumably on that front.
Speaker 1:The thing to be avoided is no one wants a sort of dual track reporting regime where you're actually having to report the same data into two different authorities and two different structures and potentially, as Nick's raised, some of it in JSON, some of it in XML. I mean that sounds like a tech nightmare to me.
Speaker 5:Yeah, as it currently stands, it looks like there's a hard left and a hard right, but we just don't know. And someone's going to come out the gate first, but there's always going to be someone following behind. So we just at the moment don't really know how much divergence there will be and how much FCA will say what they said they were going to do reduce complexity, improve competitiveness and make things generally overall better.
Speaker 1:I realize this isn't really a TR issue, so it's probably not fair for me to throw this at Nick and John, but I'm going to throw it in any way. Consolidated tape this sounds very exciting. I wish I had some of that in my shed. It sounds like you know really high powered stuff. No, consolidated tape this is. There's quite a lot of jargon in here. We've got, you know, systemic internalizers. We've got consolidated tape in equities that's going to move over to non-equities and that seems to be doing something quite challenging for market participants to validate their own data and what have you, and create this sort of golden source, which I know, nick, you often talk about the golden source as being something that's very hard to achieve or attain in the one in the cloud. Okay, so is this the move towards the golden source? Is that what the consolidated tape issue is, and is that going to mean something for the derivatives industry? Matt, yeah, consolidated tape issue is, and is that going to?
Speaker 4:mean something for the derivatives industry, matt. Oh, thank you, I think. Andrew, when you refer to the golden source, I would ask you in return the golden source of what for what? Because what's what seems to be absolutely inexputable now is that the consolidated tape will not be useful at all for trading purposes. So, in my view, what seems a bit unbalanced is the huge effort that you mentioned the whole industry is going to deploy to set up not only one, but three different consolidated tapes one for equities, one for bonds and another for derivatives.
Speaker 4:Huge cost, massive cost to set up these consolidated tapes with, I mean, I would say, limited use, limited case usage for the users of the tape. By the way, as you know, and contrary to what happens in the reg, nms in the States, there is no obligation for users to consume this data, which I mean might end up with very, very, very low usage of the consolidated tape data. There is no obligation neither to refer to this data in order to find where, for example, where the best execution is in real time. And there is also a latency issue which I know this has been worked out very heavily by all contenders of C-frame tapes. But in any case, given the long distance between the more distant points in Europe. The latency with which the whole market data will be put together and consolidated and then disseminated to the wider industry makes it non-usable at all for trading purposes.
Speaker 4:And may I remind you all that the main, you know, use case that was said at the beginning, or that was used as a main motto for putting forward this consolidated tape, is offering wider and fuller transparency into the European market in order to ensure the best execution is findable, that trading can be done at the lowest cost possible. And we are seeing that this is not going to be a real use case. So that's on the one part. And then, as the rest of the guys here mentioned before, there is here again an issue with the timelines. We are watching. I say we in the European Union, three different types are expected, with three different launches of them, with three different launches at the same time of selection processes, of selection processes. So I mean again, I'm not sure this is going to solve really the data issue or the you know theoretically issue with the data that has been making so much noise in the last years.
Speaker 1:Is this push for greater alignment actually making the job of reporting, both for the regulators and trade repositories market participants? Is it actually making anyone job of reporting, both for the regulators and trade repositories market participants? Is it actually making anyone's lives easier or is it unnecessary complexity, matt, oh wow.
Speaker 5:I think in the transaction reporting space, it is very disappointing that there appears to be no attempt to fix existing issues for data quality. So we forgive the plug. We test for data quality. New firms to us still have 75-80% error rates on onboarding. Regulators are still reaching out to clients, to their submitting firms, to say your data quality is not good, please fix it. And it's seven years. In 2018 is now seven years ago. The back reporting volumes are vast, still as a percentage. I don't know how you guys see it on your arm, but my general knowledge of arms is it's massive.
Speaker 5:As to what's correcting at the regulator, so I think, from making things better, making things simpler, improving data quality, the esmer text as it currently stands is disappointing that nothing has been addressed. They've just added more stuff to get wrong, if you like. On top of the existing burden, there is some element of harmonization. They're changing the field names to reflect the same field names as EMEA and SFTR. So that is a tweak, it's a housekeep, a, it's a dusting the top shelf, um. And there is some element of cleaning up some of the reporting in the derivative space. So they've aligning the use of the buy sell fields, the direction.
Speaker 5:So there is some gentle move to make things look a little bit like emir, but that's not really. There's a lot more they could have done to sort out data quality issues and that I think is the biggest divergence is that FCA have gone to market to say what can we do to sort out data quality? What problems have you got? Here are some of the problems we know about and we've got and we'd like to solve for, whereas ESMA haven't done that and it's just a bit of a shame. Now, whether the SCA take any of that on board and do anything about it, of course I couldn't predict or tell, but it was a much, a tangibly different approach in the UK and on the ESMA side.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I think it was interesting as well. I know it wasn't strictly speaking data quality issue, but you know when we're talking, we're talking about the maturity of the regulatory regime and, uh, you know, market participants compliance with that. It's probably interesting to note that in january this year, um a firm was fined by the fca I think it was the first fine post-brexit for mifia transgressions and I think a firm was fined a hundred thousand pounds for non-reporting of cfds. And then also, which is always, what do they call it? Sorry, what's the word I'm looking for? Exaggerating factor. It's not.
Speaker 1:Exacerbating or mitigating.
Speaker 3:No, it's the opposite. But anyway, not telling the regulator Exactly, yeah, okay, so a firm would find 100, thousand and an element of that. I think that there's like a multiplier in the sanctions regime, um for not proactively, um notifying um the regulator of the of the emission. So uh, yeah, I just thought that was. That was interesting to know.
Speaker 2:So it's not, it's not even data quality, it's a in some cases it's it's non-reporting altogether we keep using this word harmonization, but I've said it before, when everyone's got a different flavor of harmonization, it's not harmonization. So you know, there we've seen too much deviation across the regulations. You know, and you've seen you're seeing different approaches. You're seeing too much deviation across the regulations. You know, and you're seeing different approaches. You're seeing an EU approach for more data. You're seeing, you know, in the US potentially going the other way as well. And it's what data do you really need to understand and be able to assess systemic risk? So what do you actually need?
Speaker 2:I actually think it's getting more complex and it's getting harder. And this is why, you know, we often sit and talk about and you've mentioned it already, andrew this kind of golden source. You, you know, as we move to like common data fields, do you really need to report it? Couldn't the regulator just pull that data? If it's common data? Could you have this golden source where people or the regulators, the ncas, could just pull what they needed, the reports out and when?
Speaker 2:But I just think it's been getting so complex. You just can't see a path to that at the moment because the burden of the build and the execution I just can't see anyone having the time or the inclination or taking the risk of owning it. So at the moment I think the heart's in the right place and I think the intention is correct and it is about ensuring that the data is there and it's correct. But I actually think that the burden's increasing and the complexity isn't necessarily helping Because, to Matt's point, we're seeing a lot of clients now that are having to back-report. We're seeing that a lot of people have been struggling with their data and with their reporting, certainly in reef you know from mere sightings, refit go live. So there have been a lot of downstream problems that are only now starting to be addressed okay.
Speaker 1:Now, sadly, we have to start drawing this season finale to a close here, and you know we love to end on a big finish, and I have a big finish question, something we can discuss no doubt long into season 11. Manuel, yes, we're doing season 11. And that is, of course, regtech plays a critical role here, doesn't it, matt? You've actually written quite extensively about this idea that the new MIFIA reporting requirements necessitate advanced technological solutions to address all these points to do with cost per transaction, to do with volumes, to do with the ability to keep pace with the regulation and all those requirements. So why don't you kick us off? Is this the time where you know, we know, that the regulatory burden will only get heavier? The tech is catching up and firms are catching up with their own internal tech. Is this going to be a sort of golden age of regtech?
Speaker 5:I don't see a lot of structural change in the firms and new radical solutions technically to get around the added burden of the regulatory reporting, because a lot of it is guidelines and interpretation, which, unfortunately, is not easy solved, although AI must be able to solve it because it solves everything. But no, it doesn't solve interpretation and guidelines, guidance, and that's where a lot of this new burden is going to come from. That said, you know we're a fintech firm. We automate testing and we do something that it is much cheaper for one specialist firm to do than lots of other firms all trying to individually build out, and I'm sure we'll see stuff from infrastructure providers like the arms, and we'll see stuff from some of the intermediary firms who will do what they can to try and solve some of these problems and help firms make the reporting and reduce some of that internal individual build across individual Ethereum investment firms.
Speaker 5:But there's one thing and this may be a bit controversial the regulators themselves could solve a lot of these problems a lot of problems with back reporting and data quality correction by offering a one-stop service that corrected the data in the database. Great, there's a lot of people in the middle making money out of back reporting and the regulator could just simply update the database once cleanly. But that isn't happening. That doesn't, isn't allowed and that's a bit controversial. But god, you could stop a hell of a lot of back reporting and cost on the industry if that was the case on on that point I'm going to dive in with j Ma.
Speaker 1:I got to ask you is this are you going to be replacing Nick and John with AI anytime soon? Basically, will there be robots sitting here? Because what Matt said, as he said, I did think to myself. If we're talking about natural language and processing and interpretation, clearly AI doesn't think, and we know. It's really just very, very generative. Ai is just very advanced predictive text with big uh language models behind it and neural nets that predict the likely meaning of things, and they do definitely get things wrong. But could that be a technology that starts to find its way into the operations of big market infrastructures like bme6?
Speaker 4:yeah, why not?
Speaker 4:I mean, you can train large language models with lots of stuff, lots of different types of regulatory issues, but, as Matt just mentioned, there is a big, big space for interpretation of the rules and there I'm not sure if the AIs can play a differential role there.
Speaker 4:In any case, let me stick to very basic statements which I can't get rid of when discussing these sort of things. In the end, I don't really think it is about AI regtech or whatever you want to call it. I mean, it technology is not a goal in itself, but I mean I think it would be as useful as it helps really clients and industry players to comply with the requirements. In the end, let's not forget that. Uh, you know, the ultimate goal of obliged entities is to demonstrate that they comply, but sometimes they do not get any real value out of that compliance with the regulations, except the compliance in itself and the avoidance of fines and these sort of things. So I would say it doesn't really matter if it is AI or whatever. The clients would opt for the solutions that better you know suit their needs.
Speaker 1:Great, thank you. Well, sadly, that is it. We have to draw season 10 to a close without me even name dropping my uh book published a year ago creativity how to rework, rethink and reimagine with generative ai. Do check it out, it's in all good bookstores. Um, I won't mention that and what we will do, in fact, is give a huge virtual studio. Thank you to our guests. Oh, and, incidentally, before we do that I do want to mention, because it's very important that you know, uh, on the 2nd of april, uh, we suggest that you are, um, okay, but before we go, I do want to mention that on the 2nd of april, uh, there is the f-i-s-d uh madrid, which is at the beautiful Palacio de la Bolsa, bme's headquarters there, and it is going to be a really important meeting talking about latest trends, shaping the financial data landscape. Ai is going to be on that topic. If you like what you heard in the show there, you've got to hear a bit more of this, jose. Tell us a bit more about it.
Speaker 4:Yeah, sure, you know, FISD is the global forum for industry participants to discuss around market data issues. There will be some nice discussions around reasonable commercial basis, which is something we have not touched upon today, but it's amazing and it's triggering the lowest passions through the whole industry in Europe, with lots of articles, lots of posts on LinkedIn, articles in the press and so on and so forth. There will be some discussions around technology, for sure. Ai and our CEO, Juan Flames, will deliver the opening speech. So I invite you all to go there and to join us to have a nice evening.
Speaker 1:Okay, so make that date in your diary for April 2nd John.
Speaker 3:Seeing as we're doing plugs, I'd also like to give a quick plug. So, registar UK, we're holding a client breakfast event for our clients on the 6th of may, where we'll be taking a look back at the last eight months or so since the implementation of refit and we'll be talking about some, uh, exciting new functionalities that that will be rolling out. Um, and I think actually you're also planning similar for Luxembourg and Frankfurt clients Not Luxembourg and Frankfurt clients, but those locations, I believe.
Speaker 1:All right, good, that's good. Yes, make sure you join John for that. That'll be turning up. No doubt We'll get an update on that, possibly some live interviews coming to you, live on direct from the client event. Fingers crossed, I'm looking at Manuel, please. I desperately need to get out of this studio On that front, just because I need some sun. It's been nice weather On that front. All that remains is to give a huge virtual studio. Thank you to our very special guests, starting in no particular order. Big thank you to Jose Manuel Santamaria, who is the head of the ARM reporting business at bme6. Jose, thanks for joining us, thank you, my pleasure. And a huge thank you to matthew vincent, director of mafia reporting at kaizen. Matthew, thanks very much. Say hi to tim for us too, we will do. Thank you, great, okay, that's good. And of course we have have to thank my long-suffering and very youthful colleagues, of course the voice of Reason himself and my most regular co-host, mr Nicholas Bruce. Nick, thanks a lot.
Speaker 2:Thank you, Andrew, and a huge thank you to Matt Jose Mar. I really enjoyed the show and thank you for joining us.
Speaker 1:I really enjoyed the show and thank you for joining us and also a huge thanks to the ever youthful and, you know, a very well-travelled, as he moves between Europe and the UK effortlessly, like pre-Brexit export, mr John Kern. John, thanks very much.
Speaker 3:Thank you and, like Nick said, thank you also to the other panelists. It's, uh, it's been a real education for me and, uh, I've enjoyed it thoroughly.
Speaker 1:Thank you join us on our linkedin channel, that's linkedincom slash company, slash regis hyphen tr, where you can network with matt and with jose mar and with nick and with john and even with me and everyone else who's been on the show, uh, over season 10, and we will be back for season. Who's been on the show over season 10. And we will be back for season 11. I guess, in the meanwhile, that's just a big goodbye from me, andrew Keith Walker, and from the studio producer, manuel Moreno-Garcia. I know Manuel doesn't normally come on the mic, but Manuel, thanks very much. Thank you so much. Okay, we're off for our spring break. Have a good few weeks, have a safe few weeks and we'll see you in a few weeks.
Speaker 2:Bye-bye.