Is Your DESPAC Built on Governance or Just Hype?

Chaz Churchwell: How's it going everybody? This is the DESPAC podcast, and I'm your host, Chaz Churchwell with Churchwell Insurance Agency. I have, we've gone international. I have Danielle Alvia who is with us. He is straight out of London. By way of Italy. Like the guy is just an international phenom here with me on the phone.

And I say phone, but it's Zoom, right? And so it's it's us grabbing some time together to talk about DESPACfrom an angle of a consultant and not just a consultant of of, of any pedigree, but somebody who's. Done postdoctoral work studying the economics of the SPAC DESPAC environment. And not just on a US front, but literally on a global level.

Danielle, take me just take a moment and kind of tell us a little bit about who you are, what your background is to give some credentials to yourself. 

Daniele DAlvia: Thanks. Thanks for having me. I am Daniel Alvia and actually I'm the director of banking and Finance Law Institute at er, university of London.

We're a director, a team towards especially fields in financial innovations. Among which I am an expert on special purpose acquisition companies within spec, special purpose acquisition companies. I actually am the CEO and founder of SPACs Consultancy through which during the last years I could add the opportunity to consult and advice sponsors and the writers and this SPAC exactly.

So business transactions performed by SPACs. 

Chaz Churchwell: Outstanding. So let's let's dive into it and just go looking at SPACs and, and talking about just some of the, the boom bust type of things that we've seen over the past several years. Like whenever I look at the data. I see that SPACs in it of themselves are a phenomenal vehicle, but there's ways to do things right, and there's ways to do things wrong.

And so like if, if a SPAC itself isn't the problem, but rather a mirror of capital discipline, what do you think that the, the booms and the busts that we see in the SPAC DESPACdeals really tells us about? Investors, sponsors, and even Wall Street itself. 

Daniele DAlvia: Thanks. Actually, this question can be break down in three steps.

So the first one is the one concerning the investors and with investors. I mean people that are institutional investors, but also retail investors, although they're very different investors, are a confirmation for pacs. So actually. We can see this in the level of redemptions. Redemptions, they constitute optionality, but also they are a parameter through which we can understand whether the business combination that has been proposed by the PAC team.

So at the moment of the DPAC then is reliable. And this kind of confidence is actually, I mean seen by redemptions and the level of redemptions. Then we have also the part of the sponsor. The sponsor, actually, I guess that at the start of the SPAC boom in 2020. Up to 2022 actually sponsors. They were not always diligent, and sometimes they also undermine the, the essential value of governance.

Governance is key. And today we know that also is key. The quality of the sponsor team. This quality shall be reflected in the evaluation of the target business. So many times during the PAC boom sponsors, they relied on. Speak, we can say projections or projections that there were too much reality promising companies.

And once you have a promising company, the problem is that you are not get, you are not ready to get listed. And once you get listed, essentially you lose any possibility to. Trusted by investors. In fact if we see, think also about Lucid Motors, for example, didn't produce even one electric vehicle at the end of the day.

And that is where actually SPACs, they should refrain to rely too much on projections because they are not effective or they're not real sometimes Then. Coming back to the third point, wall Street. I think Wall Street has shown to the world a great financial innovation that is the special purpose acquisition company.

Something that before was not seen as a pure and. Real alternative. Yeah. To traditional IPO today. I think we are in this moment where everyone knows that is a legitimate alternative to traditional IPO, but of course we should always take this instrument with prudence because of the effects of the spark boom and dust of 2020 2022.

Chaz Churchwell: So I, I appreciate that. So there's something that you said in there that I keyed on, and it's the idea of governance. Obviously me being a d and o insurance guy I know that governance is really, to your point, it's one of the, it, it's one of, if not the most paramount thing that has to be contended with on the SPAC side and on the target side for the Go Forward company because.

To your point, private companies going public, not being ready, not having governance, really figured out, still kind of wanting to just be buds with each other and kind of, and do things the way that they did it when they were private. And then on the SPAC side, you have sometimes the sponsors that, because they wrote the big checks, they throw their weight around and say, no, we gotta get this deal, push this deal through.

And is, I mean, is that what you mean by it? Or is there actually more to that? 

Daniele DAlvia: There is for sure. I mean, it's what you were saying, but also I think it depends on the kind of sponsor. As I said before, the quality of the sponsor of the management team is key because PACS are casual companies, so we don't really have any item to evaluate apart from the quality of the team.

This quality of the team then in the US is reflected on the promote also. So the fact that at the depac moment the sponsor is allowed to take that famous 20, 25% of the post-business combination of the target, that is something that, in my view, should be earned by the sponsor, should not be automatic.

And so the incentives to close a business combination should be aligned with. The incentives to create value for investors, for example, in terms of governance, could be that the sponsor, rather than having the full 25 at the start things, for example, to have 10%, 15%, and then to upgrade that percentage only values created for investors or public investors.

Chaz Churchwell: So I, I appreciate that, and this kinda leads me into another thing because obviously with governance quality and I, I think that there's also kind of an acumen of how realistic there, there's a correlation I think between how realistic a company is about their valuation as the go forward company. And how solid their governance is and how willing they're, they are to really be serious about that and get it dialed in.

So for me, I, I think about like, and also like the sponsor reputation oftentimes will be connected to the governance as well. So for me, I think a, a solid question comes in around valuation because I believe that second to a. Private company going public, but not being public ready. Governance being a big part of that.

That I believe that's the top reason that we have securities and derivative lawsuits that come through. But like, but more to that point, I think that usually the, the number two thing I see as to why these companies go public through a DESPACand end up in litigation with the SPAC team being drawn into it as well.

Is valuation and just the valuation being off one side or the other in just a, a staggering way because they were just trying to get a deal done. And, and sometimes, like I, I've said it before, I'll say it again. In business, when you're talking to these private companies they always think that every part of who they are is more valuable than it really is.

Like, and part of it is I get you're maximizing everything you can. You're getting the best valuation you can, but if you overhype yourself and you end up taking a deal to where you get overvalued, then it ends up coming back to bite you. On the backside and I, I would love if you could take a minute to just.

Like when those numbers, like talk about kind of before those numbers get digested, like while they're, while they're working through everything on valuation, when you're talking, when a private company's talking to the SPAC team and then looking at what the outcome ends up being on that. Post D SPAC.

I, I would, I would really love your value and your knowledge to be imparted to our audience on that. Like, what do you see happening? How can these private companies do good deals that aren't going to end up coming back to bite 'em on the backside? How can they be honest about the numbers? Go for it. 

Daniele DAlvia: I think essentially it's like a marriage.

So once you find your person, you might find also the good company that you can merge with. The main point there is honesty on numbers, but also that is a process of m and a. So as every m and a process, in fact, I would like to stress that this is the big quality of sparks, the greater than having in a traditional IPO, an investment banker that is setting in reality the price of that.

Securities that will be listed on market in this case the process is the, between the PAC and the target, and that process has to be conducted with due diligence. Due diligence will help for sure to mitigate the risk that we were saying about projections. Today in the US I think this risk is even more remote because actually if we think about the SPAC reform in 2023, 2024, by the securities and the Change Change commission, that actually was conservative, but also very progressive because today the Depac moment is very similar to a traditional IPO.

Yeah. So today I very I mean, I'm sure that we will not see what we saw in the past. So that stream valuations were also, for example, there were money in the PAC that were seeking seven times more in terms of valuation of a target company. But another thing that I would like to add, I think, is the business culture.

So it's not only about due diligence and getting the numbers right, but also to see whether there is a match of business culture between the Spark team and the target for this. I was mentioning wedding in some way. 

Chaz Churchwell: Appreciate that. And man, and, and the culture part, it's so important. Like I, I feel that it's so important.

You see, you see deals to where everybody was happy in the beginning and then it's toxic at the end. But like if you are doing a good deal with a good team and they're, and they're genuinely just some good people that are trying to make it a win for everyone, then there's so much value there.

Especially if you have good chemistry. Because as you know, and I, I think everybody, all of our listeners know. That communication wins. If there's people that you can't communicate with and it feels like you're banging your head against a wall right out the gate, it's not gonna get easier as you dive deeper.

Right. So would you, would you say that that's kind of been what you experience is and what you see? 

Daniele DAlvia: Yes, essentially sometimes mergers or reverse the cover with their own company. In terms of business culture, that is fundamental as much as the due diligence process and getting the number right.

But it's also true that, as you know, in corporate finance, we have different methodologies evaluation. So that is the main point that at the end of the day, that is an m and a transaction, and we cannot even. Put too much limits within m and a transaction because it's govern by contract law. And that is the beauty of contract law and of SPACs that are a contractual instrument, in my view.

Chaz Churchwell: So let's switch, like, let's switch gears for a moment. You like, you've got this focus on SPACs and you're like, you're just. Deep in the SPAC world. Do you like, I mean, is this kind of strategic for you or did you just fall into it? What was it that ended up pulling you into, I guess, man, what pulled you into finance and what pulled you into focusing on SPACs?

Daniele DAlvia: Thanks at the start, essentially, as you know before 2020 sparks, they were not very well known in the world. Probably they were always an instru over street, but even before 2020, we experienced very. Low number of listings in New York, around 10, 15 listings per year. Then after the boom, everything changed.

But I was interested in SPACs since 2010. So reality is something that I followed. I was even in reality, I mean, in Italy. Directly involved in the first PACS in Europe. And then I saw this process growing when I was writing for the first time on my PhD, the first one in law in the world. And that by chance or maybe even destiny culminated with the Pac boom.

So. In the Pac boom. That is why I enter SPACs because I think it's very intellectually challenging instrument where actually I could even for the first time see in some way how markets behave, but also financial innovation because financial innovation are key for the progress of society. This is why I think also today, US is leading the market and is very competitive because financial innovation means progress.

Chaz Churchwell: A hundred percent. In fact, it was interesting, I, I saw somebody just recently talking about how how America isn't doing a great enough job at giving businesses access to capital. And I was, but for me, I'm just like. How can you say that? Because we're giving the best access to capital in the world, right?

Like, where else can you go and get money? When a business has a, like a one in 10 shot of making it, you know, and they'll, they'll throw, like, you'll have vc, PC or PE group, they'll throw money at something and they're like, ah, it's got like a one in 10 shot, but we're, we're gonna put some cash down there.

Like, where else do you get that? So I, I will tell you, I love that America has such an innovative capital market. And, and I agree with you, that's part of the beauty of who we are, is just continuing to innovate. And I see that SPACs are gonna be continuing to evolve. We're already starting to see that a little bit, particularly with with some things coming around with crypto.

Some things that are coming around with ai. I believe that there's kind of a, there's some evolution that's happening within the SPAC ecosystem. I, I know that this is a little bit off topic, but is that something that you're seeing as well from the AI and crypto component? And do you have anything that you've given on, on insight to that?

Daniele DAlvia: Yeah, crypto asset treasury companies, for example, they were the target companies of PACS in the new Renaissance of pacs during the summer and also in the fall of 2025. So I think that US actually is leading the way also, especially if you think about stable coin. That is another financial innovation in the digital asset area, but still connected as you can see with SPACs.

In fact, I still remember the words of the previous security exchange commissioner before the year of Trump, so under President Biden that he was even. Putting together SPACs and crypto assets are some, are something negative. And I like very much the idea that now this has been turned back as something that is positive, not something that is negative actually.

And this creating success of business people, but also for the market in general. 

Chaz Churchwell: Agreed, a hundred percent. So let's talk about, like you mentioned a moment ago, the idea of of kind of the SPAC boom and everything that kind of came out of that. One of the unfortunate, in my opinion. Evolutions that has happened in the world of SPACs has been the massive redemption rates.

And it's basically become a tool for these investors to come in, park some cash, get a sweetener, get some interest, and then move on down the road. Right? And so. I would love to hear from you. How do you see kind of like the distinctions and similarities in SPACs from retail investors and institutional investors as they're like, as they look at redemptions?

And, and do you believe that there is a, a, a, an akin similar approach that can be taken to mitigate redemptions? Or do you believe that they each have their, their own approach? 

Daniele DAlvia: Yes. I think this is interesting question in the sense that there is a different approach how an institutional investor can approach redemptions in comparison to a retail investor.

If we think about retail investors I would like to say that in Europe, for example, retail investors never invest in sparks. So it's not our problem in Europe, in the US there was this phenomenon, but it's also true that I think the Securities and Exchange commission in reality put. Has put in the past too much drama on it because actually then if we think materially, all the names of those retail investors are not even known and they are also.

People that they can redeem. But post-closing, not at the moment. That is something that the reality is reserv for smart money. So smart money can really move the market and the, and the charter. So that is what happened when you have a group of hedge funds that the in spark, and of course they have a reality optionality at that moment.

That op optionality can also create some incentives to redeem because as you know, if you redeem, you redeem a 10 per a $10 per share, plus also interest that is matured in the trust account and you can still be part of the business combination and to keep your warrant. So this kind of decoupling actually between the voting right.

The redemption right has been key in the fest of sparks. And this is something that, I mean was due to Douglas OV that negotiated at that time with the security change commission, this possibility on the other end. This possibility also opened. Something that can give rise to concern because if there are too many redemptions, then there are not enough money to buy the target.

But there are other mitigation strategies like the private investment in public equity, so it's not the end of the game. 

Chaz Churchwell: Right. And actually again, another good segue. So if SPACs are going to make it, like, if this is going to continue to be a credible asset class, if it's gonna continue to be a solid vehicle for companies to use as a go public strategy.

What do you think has to structurally change to mitigate redemptions, and what do you think we need to see as a change in the pipe financing? 

Daniele DAlvia: Yes. I think essentially, I mean this kind of structure where a person can redeem is the essence of Spark. So if we think in a simple way, the spark is a risk-free investment.

Yeah. So that is the beauty of Spark that I can invest and I have the possibility to redeem before business combination. Post business combination, that becomes a normal business risk. So this kind of division, although seems very simple, it's not truly understood by investors. So investors and I mean especially retail investors, they are moved by market Sentiment.

Redemptions, for example, can even be influenced by external factors like inflation. In fact, there was a moment of inflation where I also wrote an open at in the past where the level of inflation that was growing was justifying the level of redemptions. So actually it's not the spec per se that this negative instrument giving this kind of structure in corporate governance, but it's how investors move.

To for example, forbid an investor to redeem would be a mistake because otherwise we then not realize the spark as an instrument. Yeah. But for sure if the sponsor has quality, in fact. The main message that I wanted to give to this podcast is the quality of the sponsor and quality of targets. So if there is a business combination where the target actually represent a good transaction, the deliverer or redemption will never be so high because investors, they will trust the management team.

Once this trust is lost. It is right that reality the management team receive a vote of con co confidence, essentially like a, like in the parliament. 

Chaz Churchwell: Speaking of confidence like I want to talk about you as a consultant and so obviously the, the private company that's gonna go public through a SPAC it's the SPAC teams.

Sometimes they have consultants, sometimes they don't, whatever, but, but why would a private company be able to have more confidence in their deal by bringing somebody like you onto co consult? Like what do you bring to the table as a consultant that these private companies should value? 

Daniele DAlvia: Yes. What happened in my life is that I was many times involved in the Spark team, but actually then indirectly also in the evaluation of the, the value of the target company.

So the main point is to the risk. The instrument, the spark vehicle. So the spark is bringing some risk, as we said, the redemptions or the impossibility to find the pipe investors. So a consultant and especially a non-executive director, that is what I am actually doing in Sparks, is bringing this kind of corporate governance, the risking.

And so the possibility to check a conflict of interest in the board, the possibility also to be realistic on projections and evaluation of the target company. And to install a sort of debate between the, between the target company and the spark. And that I think is what makes then the difference the opinion of a third person that is independent from the board, but also knows the spark vehicle as an investment by.

Chaz Churchwell: I appreciate that. Let's go beyond just what you bring to the table from like a, like a punch list perspective. I, I think of like, when I think of a coach for sports, obviously the coaches, they're watching film. They know the other team. They know and understand the plays, they know their players. But part of being a coach, I think is really being able to.

Help move the pieces on the board. And, and really by knowing your players, knowing how to inspire them. Talk real quick about like these private companies that are looking to go public talk about what they're gonna experience emotionally, because I, I think a lot of times they, they anticipate the adrenaline, they anticipate the highs.

I don't think that they realize the other components that are gonna be there and what they're gonna experience. So kind of what should they be expecting for kind of a range of emotion setbacks, things like that. And, and then how do you come alongside to, to help them manage that? 

Daniele DAlvia: Yes, essentially, I think from the perspective of a private company that is approached by a SPAC, they should not look only to the money offered.

So even the IS bid is not the one to go for. Should be a mix between consideration price that is offered, opportunities that are offered to the private company to get public, but also knowing that becoming public is another game. And this game you should be ready. To get listed maybe, of course not at the level of a traditional IPO where actually the main advantage here of the PAC is that it's bringing already the capital for you to get listed and also to simplify a bit the process in terms of compliance, but as the target company is essential and key that.

You carry out also your own due diligence. So this is also another difference in m and a. In m and a useful is the buyer conducting the due diligence to the seller in this case, also the seller, or in general, the target company in this case should, carry out its own due diligence to check, especially the quality of the management team of the SPAC and whether they are credible and they know also the direction how to get listed and whether also they will stay, maybe some of them with the target company for a number of months after the listing.

Also, that can help of course, the target company to get on board. 

Chaz Churchwell: So. You bring up a, a good point with the, like, with the help after the private company becomes public with consultants, I, I see things go a couple of different ways. I see things to where somebody like you will step in and as soon as the the business merges with the SPAC, then the consultant is like.

My job is done and they take their cash, their shares, and they run. And then whatever happens, happens. And then there's other consultants who say, no, I'm gonna stay on six months after. And an advisory standpoint some of them end up stepping into a board position doing different things. Like what do you feel?

From your research and your experience is really the right path there. Should these private teams be expecting from a budgetary standpoint and from a just a training wheels coming off standpoint to have their consultant walk with them post D SPAC? Or is that something to where they should just expect as soon as the DESPAChappens, consultants gone.

What? What and why do you think should be happening there? 

Daniele DAlvia: I think you can find any kind of scenario. It depends on the SPAC sponsor. So for example, once they're going to involve an advisor or maybe a non-executive director, usually part of the compensation will be a part of the promote.

And so. That is also to align incentives. So if actually we find a good target and the target in reality can perform well on the market also, your own share shares, founder shares can be valuable. But if you do very bad also your shares will go very bad. So I think to attach sometimes this kind of incentive of the promote to the advisor is key because actually you are motivated to do well.

And to stay also after, and then to decide whether to sell after six months for those shares or not. Other times, of course that is a decision of the CEO of of the pac. So other times there are just consultancy agreement that are signed for a specific activity that can be the depac. And after the Depac, of course, the advisor will not be anymore There.

Of course, probably it depends on the type of work. Once the work may be is less I mean it's more legal. That is even fine, I think. I don't think any problem because I am also lawyer. And as a lawyer is what you do every time with every client. If the job is more about accountancy. So you are performing also in economic terms, valuations.

That is another kind of story where probably. You should have incentive to carry out a good valuation because in the, at the end of the day, this can also go against yourself if you have a part of the promote, for example. So it depends on the type of advisor I think. 

Chaz Churchwell: Okay. I appreciate that. So, alright, let's, let's jump in.

I, I want to ask you, you actually were in a financial mirror recently talking about SPACs and an art or a science is, is SPAC is a SPAC and an art or a science. And I thought that in my mind, I, I know that. It's both, but I, I would think it's both. Right. But it's because. Because there's a lot of ambiguity that that's there because of all the people, all the parties.

It's, they say that selling is an art and they and, and leading people is an art. And so when I think of trying to make everything come together, I think of that being the art piece and then the science of it. Looking at the data, looking at the numbers, trying to use analytics to figure out. How do we structure this thing to have a solid deal on the backside and to where the, the company can perform well?

But I, I have a feeling that you can speak to this with much more elegance than I can. And even if it's not more elegant, because you have an awesome accent, you're gonna sound better than me saying it. 

Daniele DAlvia: Thank you very much. I think it is like love. So essentially I'm in for example, I'm in love with my girlfriend Viviana.

And I think that was more like a science because we had chemistry, but then to carry out the relationship, maybe it's like an art. Okay. So I think pacs should go in the same way. Where the science is more the part of setting up the capital. And so promoting your investment vehicle getting listed on the market, but then at the end of the day the art is on the part of the sponsor, how you can carry out that relationship in time.

The case of apac, there is also a time that is quite limited. So creativity in pacs I think is important, especially at the moment of the dpac. So two different moments, and the DPAC is key because there matters a lot of creativity. So sometimes that deal can even be founded by debt, by bonds, by convertible bonds, or also you could.

In the past, before starting the SPAC, some forward purchase agreements or maybe pipe investors, of course, if you run at the end to find pipe investors, will be more difficult, not impossible actually in business. Nothing is impossible. But I think it's more realistic. Addend. And there is where of course if there is not a pipe or if there are not some mitigating strategies at the, you might experience, in fact, coming back to your question, even before you might experience more redemptions because investors, they don't have confidence anymore.

Chaz Churchwell: So man. I appreciate that. I like, I know that there's so much more that we could dive into and just you've got a lot of data that's in between those ears and and so I want to just wrap with one final question on the business side of things, and then we'll hit one final question on a personal side just to kind of.

Leave people with just a little flavor of who you are as an individual. But but on the business side, I, I want to ask, because I feel like pipe structures are all over the place. They can, they can be so vast and varying. What do you think these private companies can be doing to position themselves, not only well in front of a SPAC team, which matters, but how do you make sure that from their side, as they're involved in the deal position themself with excellence to where there's better pipe terms being procured?

Daniele DAlvia: Yes, essentially that, I mean, from a legal standpoint, would be a little bit more challenging because the pipe terms of agreement are negotiated by the SPAC sponsor at the start of the process or towards the end if it is towards the end. Maybe there are already negotiations with the target and that is where maybe the target can in reality influence the thinking of the sponsor.

Although very much depends on the sponsor. So very much depends also on its ability to even maybe listen to critiques or maybe be open to other suggestions and that is very subjective. So I think being contract law and being at a moment where actually the depac is directed by the sponsor of the SPAC that is injecting liquidity to the target.

The target might have a say if there is a good relationship with the sponsor. So everything becomes contractual and agreeable in general terms. 

Chaz Churchwell: I think that's so huge and, and I think it comes down to a heart of humility. Right, like a spirit of humility. Like I, I talked to so many companies and they're like, yeah, we have two SPAC teams courting us right now.

We're talking to three different SPAC teams. And so it's, it, it's one of those things to where you can, you can develop into a position as a private company, as the target. You could develop somewhat of an arrogance, like, I'm desirable. Everybody wants me. And if you carry that same. Like that same attitude with you through the process.

There's a level of toxicity that's there that's gonna permeate through the deal. Whereas once you find who you're gonna actually do a deal with, then having a spirit of humility and, and a spirit of teamwork that just seems like it's imperative. And unfortunately some kind, like sometimes that's not the case.

Is that what you see? 

Daniele DAlvia: Yes, absolutely. I think to be humble is essential in business to succeed. So that is an approach that will help, and especially to understand that to get public is not something not serious, is very serious because can also ask, especially many investors, public investors, so to have responsibility, integrity is important.

Chaz Churchwell: So private companies, if you're listening. When you find yourself in a position to where you are going to do a deal with a SPAC team, you're gonna go public through a SPAC vehicle. Remember, at that point, they're supposed to be your ally. Like you guys, you've already decided you're gonna do a deal together.

Work with them in tandem, have a spirit of humility. They want to get the deal done just like you, and they want to make sure that, that they are aligned with you. Because remember, on the backside of that deal, SPACs, they get their money whenever your stock performs. That's where their payday is. So they want you to perform well and they're not the enemy.

Just make sure that you've got that heart of humility as you engage with them. Let me ask Danielle and I, I want to come to you with one final question. It would be horribly wrong for me if I didn't ask a guy who's from Italy, who's got the best pizza, what, like, is it gonna be Rome? Is it gonna be Naples?

Where do I go in Italy if I want the best pizza? 

Daniele DAlvia: I think, I mean, it depends what you like, because if you go Naples can be the more classic pizza and Napoli style. But if you go Rome also, many people they say it's the best because it's very thin. Then if you go Sealy, where Vian is from can be a mix.

It really depends. But thick maybe is the best. 

Chaz Churchwell: Got it. Got it. I love it, man. What do you, what do you put on your pizza? What do you like? 

Daniele DAlvia: I like, usually, sometimes simplicity. So I like like spots that I like. A simple formula can be margarita or even the Ola, for example. 

Chaz Churchwell: Got it, got it. See, I'm don't crucify me.

I love a Hawaiian pizza. I'm the guy who wants to put pineapple on it. I love Hawaiian pizza with jalapeno or give me a meat lovers. That's, that's just kind of my, my take. I just want to pack it all on there. So, but hey. Everybody. Alright now, if you're watching the show, take a moment, smash the subscribe button, follow us, go to the DESPACpodcast.com, and you can actually go and you can sign up right there.

Make sure you're getting everything that's dripping through. And also you'll see that there's opportunity for you to connect with Danielle and make sure that if there's questions you have. You can have him answer those and then possibly even bring him in to consult with your team. He's phenomenal and you will not regret it.

He's a, he's a wealth of information and just a beautiful person to engage with. Danielle, thank you so much for being on today, everybody. This is Chaz with the DPAC podcast.