Key Takeaways
- Why it’s important for investors to understand the difference between signal and noise.
- Signal can change long-term cash flows and affect a company’s competitive advantages, while noise only affects short-term expectations and sentiment.
- Noise can become signal over time. Here’s where to look for signs of that and what specifically to look for.
- Is it too early to separate signal from noise when it comes to AI’s possible impact on companies?
- Misunderstood stocks that look undervalued because investors are confusing signal and noise.
In this episode of The Morning Filter podcast, co-hosts Dave Sekera and Susan Dziubinski discuss why stock investors should learn how to tell the difference between signal and noise when evaluating investments. They review examples of both and cover how, over time, noise can become signal. Tune in to find out what resources investors can use to discern signal from noise, why a Securities and Exchange Commission-proposed change to company reporting may make it more difficult to tell the difference, and whether artificial intelligence is more noise or more signal.
They wrap up with three misunderstood stocks to buy because investors are confusing signal and noise. And as a bonus, they share an overvalued stock to sell that’s shooting out the lights based on noise, too.
Got a question for Dave? Send it to themorningfilter@morningstar.com.
Transcript
Susan Dziubinski: Hello, and welcome to a special episode of The Morning Filter podcast. I’m Susan Dziubinski with Morningstar.
Every Monday before market open, I sit down with Morningstar Chief US Market Strategist Dave Sekera to talk about what investors should have on their radars for the week, some new Morningstar research, and a few stock ideas. But this week, as those of you who are watching us can tell, we’re doing something a little different. We’re taking a deep dive into one reader question, a very thoughtful and multifaceted one, about signal versus noise. We hope this conversation will yield some key takeaways our audience can use when evaluating stocks. And of course, we’ll still have some stock picks at the end of the episode. We’ll never let you down. We’re taping this on Tuesday, May 12.
Good to see you in person, Dave.
David Sekera: You know it’s strange. I’m so used to saying good morning and seeing you on the screen, and here we are, face to face. So it’ll be fun this afternoon, but I still got my coffee.
Dziubinski: But it’s a boring white mug. You’re letting everybody down there, Dave, but that’s what we have here at Morningstar.
Sekera: We gots what we gots.
Dziubinski: That’s right. All right. Let me lead with the viewer’s question. This is a great question. We’re going to break it down into multiple parts. It’s from Christian, who is tuning in from Hungary, on top of it all, which is pretty cool.
Christian asks, “I wonder if Dave can provide viewers and listeners with some useful tips and hints on filtering out noise from all the news. I personally consider this a very important factor in successfully navigating through volatile times such as the last few months this year.”
Well, great question. So let’s start with how important do you think this skill is for a stock investor—developing that ability to be able to discern what’s signal and then what’s really just noise?
Sekera: If anything, in today’s day and age, I think being able to differentiate between signal and noise is increasingly more and more important. We just get bombarded every day with so much information from lots of different types of sources, lots of different positioning behind all of this information, and trying to understand what’s actually signal, that’s something that makes you think, OK, here’s something that could change the value of the company and why, versus all of the noise, all of the headlines. I mean, everything you see on social media, all the news articles that’s coming out, trying to understand the difference is, like I said, probably more important now than it’s ever been in history.
Dziubinski: Yeah. Just because there’s so much of it. All right, let’s talk about the difference then between signal and noise. First, how would you define something that would qualify as signal rather than noise?
Sekera: When I’m thinking about signal, I’m thinking about something that is going to make us rethink our long-term forecast and projections. Something that’s going to cause us to move them up, move them down, move our margins, but something that’s going to be meaningful enough that it changes our long-term intrinsic valuation of a company. Now, of course, the way that we value stocks is really the true academic way of doing it. The value of a stock today is the present value of all the future free cash flow that this company’s going to generate over the course of its lifetime. Signal is something that’s going to change those long-term cash flows to the point where it’s a meaningful change in our intrinsic valuation today. So if it’s a 1% or 2% change in intrinsic valuation, that’s not necessarily meaningful to me. Signal is something that usually it’s more like a 10% or more type of change to our valuation, enough that oftentimes you even see our valuations move from one star rating to another.
Dziubinski: OK. So then what’s noise, everything else?
Sekera: Exactly. Noise is just something that maybe it does have an impact on the company. Maybe the next couple of quarters, earnings will be higher, earnings will be lower for whatever reason. But again, that’s usually not something that really changes that intrinsic valuation of a company to the point where I’m considering it to be signal. So it’s going to be much more of a temporary change. Maybe there’s some weather effects going on that might impact a company for a couple of quarters that, over time, is going to normalize so it’s not something you’re going to change your model for.
So again, noise is something that, yeah, even if it does change the business dynamics for now, it doesn’t change really those long-term dynamics of the company and the sector it’s in over the long term.
Dziubinski: So then talk about how investors can tell the difference between signal and noise. Is this something just time you develop a knack for it? Or are there particular questions that investors, no matter where they are on their journey, can determine whether a piece of news, what questions can they ask to help determine whether a piece of news is signal or noise?
Sekera: Experience certainly helps. I’ve seen enough situations over the years where I think I’ve got pretty good judgment for being able to determine what signal versus noise. But even for younger investors, I think just take the time, look through whatever the information is that you’re looking at, and just kind of take a step back, use your own intuition, use your own judgment, and really think through: Is this something that is going to be a long-term shift in the business dynamics for the company, within the sector? Are the competitors doing something different that’s really going to impact the way these two companies compete? Think through the different five moat sources, whether or not that could impact the economic moat of the company. But again, it has to be something that’s really forceful enough, deep enough, really significant and meaningful to get you to rethink those long-term assumptions.
Dziubinski: All right. So then Dave, give us some examples of things that you would consider to be signal.
Sekera: I mean, I would think things that are really going to change the long-term dynamics of how a company makes money. So again, if a new competitor is coming out with some sort of product that has more economic value, has an edge over a company’s existing product, you’re going to assume that over time they’re going to lose clients to that new competitor. That’s something that’s definitely signal. Some of the other things I’m looking at—new technology. Of course, today we’re all talking about artificial intelligence and how that may impact companies over time. But of course, we can look back over the past couple of decades. Lots of different technological advances, certain companies that didn’t even exist, which are now some of the largest companies in the world, and some of the companies that were the largest companies in the world 30-plus years ago aren’t and may not even be around any longer.
Maybe sometimes if you have a management change. Now, typically, management change is one, it could be noise, it could be signal. It really depends on why management is changing. If it’s just kind of regular, ordinary course of business, someone in the senior leadership team is retiring, they knew this was coming, someone else has already kind of been positioned to take over that job, that’s probably noise. But a lot of times if you see management change unexpectedly, it’s probably because the board of directors are seeing a change in the business dynamics, and they’re not thinking that the current management team are the right people to be able to address it. So that to me is going to be a signal.
Some of the other things I was looking at, regulations, how that may impact a company. Patents, that may impact a company’s intangible assets. Accounting irregularities, that’s always a big red flag.
Anytime you see that come out, that’s one where stocks always sell off to some degree whenever that’s announced. But a lot of times the accounting irregularities is because the company was doing something where maybe they were trying to cover up changes in the underlying business dynamics, which are now coming to the forefront.
Dziubinski: So then let’s talk noise. What are some common things that are maybe sometimes perceived as signal but are really more often than not noise?
Sekera: We’ve even talked about in The Morning Filter a lot of times, like just your regular quarterly earnings announcement for the most part are usually going to be more noise than they are signal. Company beats by a couple of pennies, that’s not signal. Every company tries to always beat by a couple of pennies. They always guide the sell-side analyst down so that it’s easy for them to outperform expectations. And even to the downside, if they miss by a couple of pennies. Again, that’s usually not necessarily meaningful in and of itself. Sometimes it just might be, like you said, weather, on one hand, maybe because there’s timing differences, maybe you had a shift in some sales that didn’t get done by quarter-end, they got pushed into the second quarter. So those kind of short-term shifts aren’t anything that really changes the long-term dynamics of the company.
One-off costs, legal expenses sometimes, but anything that you can look at and say, OK, here was a specific reason why they incurred some costs. This isn’t something that we expect is going to be incurred on a go-forward basis from here. FX, foreign exchange, like translation swings, that’s another one where you can see a company have some short-term swings in earnings if the dollar’s appreciating or depreciating against another currency they do a lot of business in. But those are the things that you need to look through because they’re not going to really change the value of the company overall.
Dziubinski: Yeah. They’re more like explainable blips, right?
Sekera: Yeah.
Dziubinski: Yeah. OK. Well, but we do know that noise can become signal over time. How can investors tell when that’s perhaps in process of happening? Yeah.
Sekera: I mean, first of all, I would watch revenue. So again, companies always going to guide toward what their revenue expectations are. Typically, you get the quarterly guidance; hopefully, you get some annual guidance. So if they’re starting to accelerate faster than what their guidance is, that might be a good signal. We certainly have seen that over the past couple months with a lot of the commodity hardware in the tech sector. Same thing with margins. Again, that’s another one where you can watch those margin trends. Again, quarter to quarter, maybe you have a couple of basis points here or there deviation. But if you start seeing that ongoing trend where a company’s able to gain and expand their margins over time, that’s usually probably a good shift signal there. And if their margins are contracting over time, well, why are they contracting? What’s changing here? Is that something where you’d expect that to continue to keep contracting over time?
I think in maybe the consumer products companies, a lot of companies where they have maybe a really strong brand, but if that brand is starting to erode over time, then you’d see those margins contract over time. Maybe not necessarily a huge amount any one quarter, but you kind of see that slow bleed every quarter. So again, that would be another one that I would watch. Watching what’s going on with the competitors, what new products they have coming out, maybe what new technologies they’re coming out with, how that might impact the company that you’re invested in, how that changes really the business dynamics over the sector overall. Again, as a consumer analyst, I try and watch what’s going on with consumer behavior, what’s going on specifically with that consumer as far as changes in habit, changes in buying patterns, that could impact companies over time as well.
Dziubinski: So now signal can lead over time to changes in a company’s competitive advantages, which would mean, of course, it’s economic moat, could be eroding or increasing over time based on signal, but noise won’t have that kind of impact on a moat. Talk a little bit about things that would be not probably going to erode a moat. What is really more noise in those situations, but might be something where investors are thinking, “Hey, this will erode the moat.”
Sekera: Yeah. And again, I mean, this is a tough one because also when you think about what is a moat, it is those long-term durable competitive advantages. And if a company has a narrow moat, we expect that those advantages are going to last for 10 years or more before they start to get competed away, a wide-moat company, 20 years or more before they start to get competed away. So again, it’s trying to understand what the dynamics are and is that something that’s really going to erode that moat over that really long time period. So again, trying to think through these type of changes really have to have a different mindset than trying to be a trader where you’re trying to gain quarter-to-quarter changes in those short-term earnings.
Dziubinski: And then what are the types of signals that could actually erode a moat over time? Because as you said, we’re talking about very long time periods with moats, 10, 20 years. What would be of that magnitude to be signal?
Sekera: And again, I think this is when you need to go back toward the five moat forces and really go through those five. And if it’s a company that we rate with an economic moat, read through the write-up, understand what those moat sources are, and then think through how those moat sources may either be widening if the company is getting more and more of those competitive advantages compared to their customers or, conversely, whether or not that moat might start to be eroding. So again, something like the network effect, is there a new competitor out there, maybe in social media that has a new platform, that platform is starting to take viewership away from the existing platform. So maybe the network effect isn’t going to be as strong going forward. Companies with cost advantages again, is there a new competitor, maybe a new technology coming into that market that they have a new way of doing things where that company that you thought had that cost advantage no longer has that cost advantage going forward.
Intangible assets, things like patents. Patents are great in the healthcare sector. You have however many years it is of patent protection while you have that pharmaceutical drug out there, but if another competitor comes up with a competing drug that maybe has better efficacy, that patent that you thought was going to be very valuable might not be as valuable if you start seeing people switching over to those other drugs. So again, it’s really just kind of going through what those five forces are, what the moat sources are for that individual company and whether or not they might be eroding because of competitive action or, conversely, depending on what the company is then what they’re doing, maybe they’re actually increasing or even coming up with some new moat sources.
Dziubinski: Yeah. Let’s stay on the moat theme. Morningstar did downgrade the economic moat ratings, maybe two months ago, on some software and tech-related companies that our analysts perceived at being at risk due to AI. Talk a little bit about AI, specifically, how to separate the signal from the noise in this huge theme that’s really, as we’ve talked about, driving the market.
Sekera: Yeah. And it’s incredibly difficult right now because I think to some degree it’s still really unclear with artificial intelligence, what exactly will it be able to do, what it won’t be able to do over the foreseeable future, much less what it’s going to look like 10 years from now and 20 years from now. Our analytical team, our equity analyst team, looked at, I think it was like 130 or 140 companies, and really kind of dug back into our moat analysis to determine, do we still think this company will have these long-term durable competitive advantages? And it turns out that because there is less visibility now than there was even a year or two ago, we did downgrade a number of different companies, a number from wide-moat to narrow-moat, a couple of narrow-moat companies that we stripped the moat away from altogether.
But I think what we found more often than not that there were two main moat sources. So its switching costs and intangible assets that we think are probably going to be most at risk going forward from the artificial intelligence. And interestingly, the one that we think is actually going to be the strongest moat source to kind of defend against AI was the network effect. The companies that the moat source was really based on that network effect, those were the ones where we actually held our moat rating more than anything else.
Dziubinski: And there were a couple instances where our analysts actually upgraded the moat ratings on a couple stocks, and they were both in cybersecurity, which again, anyone who watches this show frequently knows how you feel about cybersecurity. Talk a little bit about when it comes to AI and cybersecurity and its perception as a threat, was that noise, not signal? How does it fit into that framework?
Sekera: Yeah, so there’s both going on here. There’s definitely noise, and there is also a signal. On the noise side, a lot of the cybersecurity stocks got caught up with the SaaS complex. All of these software-as-a-service companies were all selling off. A lot of them have really been whacked hard over the past 12 to 18 months. A lot of them really got hit hard earlier this year, and they just got caught up with that downdraft. So in my mind, when I think about what’s happening with software, a lot of people are very concerned about how AI may displace a lot of the software, at least disrupt the software business. But when I think about cybersecurity specifically, that’s not what we expect to happen. So in this case, we think AI actually makes cybersecurity ever more important going forward, just because criminals and hackers can try and use AI to be able to gain access to all of these different companies.
So what we actually found in this case is we reevaluated all of our moat sources there. One of the ones that really stood out to us with cybersecurity was the network effect. So if you just think about it, you have whoever your cybersecurity vendor is, they have a huge client base out there. If they see one of their clients have some kind of issue, get hacked, whatever, they can quickly figure out what the patch is, and then roll that patch out with their other entire client base very quickly. Whereas if you’re trying to vibe code your own cybersecurity as a company, you’re not going to gain that kind of economic value because AI really can only protect against what’s already been identified. So in this case, I think you would actually be more at risk of a cybersecurity hack if you’re trying to go it alone as opposed to going with some of the larger vendors.
So that’s just one of the reasons why I still think cybersecurity looks particularly attractive for long-term investors.
Dziubinski: Dave, what company communications should investors be looking at or examining if they’re trying to suss out the difference between signal and noise? And then within those reports, what in particular should they be looking for?
Sekera: First and foremost, if you’re investing in individual stocks, you really got to keep up with what the company’s putting out there. First of all, the annual reports, the 10-Ks that get filed with the SEC, the 10-Qs, their quarterly reports, the press releases that usually come out with those reports as well. They often will have an investor day. So once a year, most of the companies will invite all the analysts to their headquarters or somewhere else, and they’ll give usually a full-day presentation on their business and their outlook. They’ll have regular quarterly conference calls or their annual conference call. I always really like the second half of those calls. So that’s the chance where the sell-side analysts get the ability to ask questions of the company. More often than not, they’re usually pretty bland questions, but every once in a while, you get a couple of zingers in there, but really what you want to listen to is how management responds to those calls.
Listen to the inflection in their voice, listen to what they’re focusing on. Sometimes you kind of want to listen for what they’re not saying as much as what they’re saying. If you’re an individual investor in stocks, you need to keep up with what the competitors are doing, trying to understand what they’re doing as far as trying to gain inroads against the stock that you’re invested in. So keeping up with their press releases, whether or not they’ve got new products coming out, type of economic value that they’re able to bring. Depending on how deep you really want to get into it, there’s always industry conferences for every sector that’s out there. You can usually find out if a company is going to be presenting somewhere. A lot of times they may end up having that broadcast on their own investor relations website or depending on the conference that might be available on one of the social media platforms as well.
So again, really there’s always a wide range of types of information that’s coming out. Personally, I always like the information coming directly from the sources as opposed to reporting that you might get from the media.
Dziubinski: Now, Dave, the SEC proposed some rules earlier this month, where they’re considering moving from a quarterly reporting schedule for US companies to a semiannual reporting structure for companies. What impact could that have on investors who are trying to figure out signal versus noise? Is it better to have less frequent reporting, or do you think that’s going to make it even more difficult?
Sekera: Who knows? But to be perfectly honest, at least in my opinion, I think it’s going to make it a lot harder. I think some of the concerns I have is that if you move to that semiannual reporting, you have less disclosure, less timely disclosure. And so what can happen is over that longer time period, a company’s performance may drift further from what expectations were than if they reported quarterly and gave those more regular updates. In my mind, that actually could lead to a lot more volatility around earning season. So you could see stocks move in one direction or more than what you might see more with a quarterly earning cadence as well. Another concern I have is that oftentimes even when there’s semiannual reporting, like in Europe, a lot of those companies will give some quarterly updates. Some companies give more information, some companies give little information, even within the same sector.
One company may give more than the other. So it’s really hard to compare apples to apples in those cases. Some companies will give their income statement, but they won’t give a balance sheet, others will give both. But again, I think it’ll actually make it much more difficult over time. So just thinking through, I mean, what does that mean for stocks overall? Again, just one man’s opinion here, but to me, if you’re going to have higher volatility, potentially less disclosure, less timely information, that to me makes me think that the cost of equity that’s kind of imputed within how you value a company probably should be higher as well. So if you have higher volatility, higher cost of equity, that actually means that the stock is probably going to be worth a little bit less over time.
Stock Pick: CRM
Dziubinski: Interesting. All right. Well, Dave, thank you for bringing us picks this week. Everyone’s going to be happy about this.
Now this week you’ve brought us three stocks to buy that look undervalued and where investors are maybe confusing signal and noise. These stocks are misunderstood today. All right. Well, your first pick this week is Salesforce CRM. Tell us about it.
Sekera: Salesforce is currently rated 4 stars, or at least as of taping today. And it’s a company we rate with a high uncertainty and a narrow economic moat. This is one of the ones that we did downgrade our moat from wide to narrow because of the emergence of artificial intelligence and just some of the less clarity we have as far as how this company may be operating over the longer term.
Dziubinski: Talk a little bit about that, Dave. How does this fit into that signal versus noise framework, and why do you like this one in particular?
Sekera: One of the reasons I like this one in particular, it is one of the top picks from our equity analyst team, from our technology sector, and the valuation on it looks very reasonable today. I think it trades at about 12 and a half times our forward earnings estimates. So it’s one where it’s just really gotten pulled down by the marketplace. Overall, what’s going on is, I think a lot of people are just selling these software stocks because of just the uncertainty as far as how artificial intelligence may play out over time. Our investment thesis is we think these type of companies, Salesforce in particular, they’re using artificial intelligence today. They’re using it to make their own products and services better, increasing the economic value to clients, and so therefore it actually gives clients more of a reason to continue to keep using their products over time as opposed to displacing their product by trying to do their own customer relationship management system in-house.
The other concern is that, over time, if artificial intelligence makes companies much more efficient, well, then maybe they won’t need as many seats. In this case, I think probably the biggest displacement that will occur is that they’re going to end up having to change their business model. To some degree, while it’s a seat-based model today, they charge X amount of dollars per seat that they sell to an individual company. Well, if they’re selling less seats in the future, but they’re still adding economic value to the company, they’ll probably end up having to have some kind of a consumption charge. In that case, they’ll figure out some way of charging for the number of AI tokens. So a company may have less seats, but if they’re using more of the AI features within that product, you can charge them for that feature.
Stock Pick: ECL
Dziubinski: All right. Well, your second pick this week, an undervalued stock to buy where investors may be confusing signal and noise is Ecolab ECL. Run through the key metrics on this one.
Sekera: It’s a 4-star-rated stock. It’s a medium uncertainty, but it is one we rate with a wide economic moat.
Dziubinski: Now here is a situation where we have noise that’s maybe being interpreted as signal. Is that right?
Sekera: Exactly. I talked to our equity analyst on this one, and he just made a mention that what he’s hearing in the marketplace right now is a lot of people are very concerned about the commodity inflation for chemicals and how it’s going to impact this company going forward. What we are seeing is a company did lower their guidance for the second quarter. Their costs are going up faster than they can push them through, but this isn’t the first time that this company has been through this. They went through really the exact same thing back in 2022, and there’s a lot of different levers that they can pull. In our mind, this is something that is just going to be more of a shorter term or temporary hit to the earnings, but not something that really changes the long-term earning stream of this company.
They can do a number of different things. They can actually put through different surcharges in the short term to make up for those higher commodity chemical prices, but they’ve done a number of things in the past as well. I mean, there’s different ways that you can cross-sell. You can cross-sell to maybe other different types of products. They’ve found that when the prices are going up, it’s actually sometimes easier to be able to sell people more premium products. Again, if you have the commodity products going up faster in price than the premium, sometimes it makes sense to actually upsell people that way. So again, this is one where the noise is something that we don’t think changes the long-term intrinsic value of this company.
Stock Pick: EIX
Dziubinski: All right. And then your last misunderstood pick this week is Edison International EIX. Run through the basics on it first.
Sekera: Edison International, utility stock, definitely a lot of noise surrounding this stock, 4-star-rated company with a narrow economic moat.
Dziubinski: Yeah. Get into the noise with this one, Dave, because this one has been in the news quite a bit over the past several years.
Sekera: Yeah. And when you think about Edison International, I mean, the noise is all going to be focused around the wildfire risk. The potential for California may be changing its rules and regulations as far as what the company is responsible for, what they’re not responsible for, what the damages could be. There is the wildfire damage fund, whether or not that gets depleted, and then if the company might be responsible on top of it. So again, there’s a lot of different factors that could play out here. Now, in our mind, we think that this is more noise than anything else. Fundamentally, the company is doing very well. Travis, who’s our equity analyst, has done a lot of work looking at the existing rules and regulations regarding wildfires, and he’s very comfortable with the company’s dynamics here. This is one where it’s actually been one of the better-performing utilities out there fundamentally, yet it’s trading at a very deep multiple. According to our numbers, it’s trading right now at 11 times earnings.
But if you look at the rest of the utility space, that averages 18 times. So in this case, even with all the noise included here, and even if maybe there were some disruption in the future with some of the wildfire risk, we still think that you’re buying it at more than enough margin of safety to compensate for that risk.
Stock to Sell: QCOM
Dziubinski: Right. And you brought us a bonus this week, Dave. You brought us a stock to sell on the signal versus noise framework, and it’s Qualcomm QCOM. How does this fit into the framework, to the concept?
Sekera: Yeah, this is an interesting one. Before earnings came out, the stock was undervalued. It’s 4-star-rated stock. Earnings came out, and the stock really took off afterward. I think it was up like 50%, but it really wasn’t up because of any real change in the fundamentals. It was up because the company announced that they had a new deal with a “leading hyperscaler customer, shipments beginning here later in 2026.” However, they didn’t really provide any actual detail with who that customer is, what exactly they’re going to be supplying them with, or really try and give the marketplace any kind of way of really encapsulating—what’s the value here?
Our poor equity analyst, Brian, he did his best, he included some modest revenue into his model, trying to come up with some assumptions as far as who that customer might be and what kind of the program might be that they’re talking about.
But in this case, that stock moved up just too far, too fast. Personally, I’m very leery as far as giving a company too much credit for something that they can’t give you too much detail on in the short term. So in this case, with that stock having run up as far as it has, well into 2-star territory, so this is one where I’m very concerned that you could see this one maybe gap down until you get more information. I think it was toward the end of June, maybe that’s when they have their investor day, but that’s, I think, when they’re talking about giving the marketplace more detail on what that deal actually is. But until then, I think this is probably going to be pretty volatile.
Dziubinski: Dave, it was nice to see you in person. We’ll have to do this again soon. Thanks for your time.
Sekera: Well, of course. Great talking to you, Susan.
Dziubinski: A programming note for our audience: We will not be streaming a new episode of The Morning Filter next Monday due to the Memorial Day holiday, but we hope you’ll join us again in two weeks on Monday, June 1, for The Morning Filter podcast at 9 a.m. Eastern, 8 a.m. Central. In the meantime, please like this episode and subscribe. Have a great week.
Closed captions are generated by AI and may contain errors. These captions are provided for convenience and accessibility purposes only and are not a verbatim transcript. An edited version will be available by the next business day.
The transcript for this episode will be posted by the next business day. Tune in to hear our full insights.
