S9E15: From deal-driven to purpose-driven, with Stuart Tragheim (CEO, Holloway Friendly)

Richard Medcalf
Well, Stuart, it's great to have you here today. Thank you for joining us. Pleasure. So back in 20 16, you were business development director at Equiniti, and then you got the call. And and joined a Holloway friendly as chief executive officer. Yep. And since that time, I know you've led a multi award winning transformation program. To really, I guess, reinvent that business in in many areas. So I'm really interested in jumping in as to what that shift's been like for you from being that business development leader to this full fledged CEO, and what the mission is that lies behind that. So why don't we just jump in? First of all, perhaps in a nutshell, you know, what is Holloway friendly, and what was it that got you to jump in to this new role?

Stuart Tragheim
Okay, Richard. Yeah. I'll see if I can answer both of those points. Holly Friendly is a friendly society, a specialist type of insurance company. And we provide income protection insurance. So disability cover somebody's off sick -- Mhmm. -- due to accident or injury and their income reduces, we step in and fund that shortfall. The IP income protection market has been around for hundred and 50 years. In fact, the founder of Holloway was 1 of the people that started income protection going back to 18 75. Recently, last 2 or 3 decades, most of the market has been driven by growth mindset, lots of organizations looking for market share growth, volume growth, and all those kinds of things. So big insurers have taken big market shares. Mhmm. And the the reason why Holloway was attractive to me as a small specialist insurer is because I I'm a firm believer that small firms can make quite a big difference in in markets if they do things differently. And as you know, my background is almost entirely business development, sales and marketing type roles. But I felt there was a huge gap in the income protection market that very few people were talking about the real purpose of IP, which is providing claims. So looking after customers when they when they're at their most vulnerable when bad things happen to them. So moving from you know, pure commercial hunter type type roles into something which is a lot more esoteric and and more purpose driven was the real big attracted to me. That, combined with the fact that it's the first CEO role I've had. And therefore, I can get my arms around the whole of an organization and build it in the way that I've wanted to, including ensuring that I don't do some of the things that I've seen happen in other businesses previously. But the fundamental reason was that shift in looking for a an organization which has a mission, which is different to the way the rest of the market is operated.

Richard Medcalf
So is the mission that actually attracted you to that business?

Stuart Tragheim
Well, it's creating a mission, I think, and and recognizing that, as I say before, most of the market has has been driven by new business growth, policy counts, and premium incomes, and all that sort of thing. We tend to forget that the most important thing that we do in the insurance sector as a whole income protection just being part of that is to look after people when bad things happen. So having a business whose mission still is to be there when our members need us the most, when our customers need us the most, and to look after them properly as if we were claiming ourselves is really what sets us apart. And that's been part of the transformation.

Richard Medcalf
It's really interesting because this is a very historic company. Right? It's been around for a long time. Yep. So when you joined, did you have a sense that it had lost some of that mission? Because you said, I I had to create a mission, create a purpose. So did you feel that it would it had gone off the rails somehow?

Stuart Tragheim
I I believe when I when I joined, it was a business that was well capitalized, but with no direction. So former executives and board members had tried a number of things actually to try to invigorate and reinvigorate the organization and had tried to look for growth in particular markets. But the the inability to execute those strategies was the thing that was really holding the business back. A lot of it was down to bravery or the lack of bravery, I think. If you're going to be in a specialist market, you need to be able to take on the market opportunities and execute them properly. Which I think is 1 of the reasons why the board wanted a CEO whose background was more business development and less finance at that particular time. So -- What? -- you know, situation I'll just pull up if I can interrupt.

Richard Medcalf
Sorry. What's an example of like, how lack of bravery can get away in in the way of execution. You know? What kind of things did you see, or or what did you heard about? Bearing in mind, we're talking about an organization that that's minute. It's very small.

Stuart Tragheim
There tends to be tinkering around the edges rather than doing something fundamental. So rather than trying to enter brand new markets, which can be quite scary, you tend to end up just doing something that's in an adjacent market, which is no bad thing as long as you can execute properly. So part of the strategy development work before I joined had identified some some particular markets that, in theory, looked attractive. The difficulty as as anybody in who's got a background in distribution knows isn't actually about building the profit products. It's about taking them to market effectively. So they had built some products, which looked okay, but they were unable to take them to market effectively. And therefore, I had to consolidate the existing product range when I first joined to strip it back to its fundamentals and then rebuild from there.

Richard Medcalf
Yeah. So tell me about that. So you went in, you saw that there'd been these these longing to do more few halfhearted attempts or, like, we got things, but we're not going the full way. We're not making those brave commitments. So you started to peel things back. And so what was the nature of that transformation? Like, what did you actually do to perhaps get that organization, which perhaps might have been I don't know. But it might have been a bit jaded. Right? It's tried a few things to get growth going again. It's not succeeded. You know, how what was your game plan as you went in?

Stuart Tragheim
Very much top down initially with which was to look at transformation program that covered all of the fundamentals. So without ignoring the history of the organization and the heritage, because it is important, Starting again from First Principles, what's the mission? What's the vision? What's the values that we want to operate within? And from there, into business strategy, looking at all elements from operations, functionality, IT, infrastructure, products, distribution channel, governance, the whole lot. So that particular project started very soon after I joined. Probably about a week or 2 after I joined. Nice. There's no point in hanging around and took quite a long time to get to get executed. My objective was to get a strategy signed off by the board by the end of the calendar year. So by the end of 20 16. And that's what we had that's what I achieved, again, with input from others. And that was what kind of time frame -- 5 year. -- when -- Yep. Looking for a 5 year 5 year plan, 5 year strategy. A 5 year plan. And but then the time frame for actually creating that vision, you see what I mean? The end of the year, was that 6 month period there? Or -- Yeah. It was about 5 months it took from start -- 5 months. -- from start to finish. And it included all the all the things you that you would normally expect in a typical business transformation plan. So target operating model, product sets, you know, markets that you wanna operate in, markets that you don't want to operate in, all those kinds of things. So it was a proper strategic review. And at the beginning of 20 17, we had a plan, a direction anyway, certainly, that the board were comfortable with We had a financial plan that looked broadly okay. A load of heroic assumptions in there about market share growth and all that sort of thing. But based on experience, not based on on May numbers. And we then moved into execution in 20 17. We started I started the the recruitment of the right team to develop the culture that I wanted in our organization that was focused on the member, putting putting our customers absolutely at the at the heart of what we do. A lot of companies say they do that, but don't really, and we really do. So how we look after people who claim is, in my view, is kind of best in market, really.

Richard Medcalf
Well, this is what I really hear about you is that you you you move from this kinda hunter business development mindset Yep. You said it before. I said, well, times that you really wanna say, well, what happens when people claim? Like, how do we actually fulfill our fundamental promise? Yep. To customers? And was that something that you kinda went in knowing was gonna be a a key topic? Or was that already your industry understanding? Or was it in just as part of this transformation program, going back to first principles that you identified that this was, like, an opportunity. I think it was a combination of all those things, Richard, actually.

Stuart Tragheim
So the b BD, as you know, is about is about deals. It's about winning deals, winning market share, growth on all that sort of stuff. And you'd as a as a as a BD director, which I was in a number of organizations, It is just focus on the next deal, focus on the next on the next acquisition, the next whatever it is. But as a CEO, I think you have to do something different and you have to work out where you can compete in a market or in an adjacent market to the 1 that exists. And, again, you'll have you'll have read, I'm sure, you know, blue ocean theory and red ocean theory. And the IP income protection market is not different to any other market. There are 4 or 5 firms who take 80 percent of the market share pretty much. They all compete on on similar grounds 1 of which is price. And if we had followed that same strategy, then we wouldn't be here today because we can't compete on price with multinational PLCs have got, you know, significantly stronger balance sheets that we have. So it wasn't difficult So identify the fact we needed to do something different. The the difference, I think, is about trying to find something that we can do different, that they are unable to copy that quickly. And that's where I ended up focusing on. The the obvious thing, which is what happens to somebody when they claim It's the it's the proof point, if you like, for for all insurance products. We we know that from whether it's motor insurance or travel insurance. Life insurance, whatever it is, it doesn't really matter. It's what happens when somebody gets into trouble and whether the insurer can can step in and help them. And it means that you move away from chasing pure growth for growth's sake, but you chase growth because it enables you to provide better services to more people. And it's that kind of theory and that kind of belief that ethos if you like, that shines through. And we developed here something which is known as The Essence of Holloway. And it and it and it's about what does it feel like to be a member of staff, what does it feel to be an adviser given you're selling our products? What does it feel like perhaps most importantly as a customer? So understanding customer journey understanding the the the the ethos and how it applies to to our members. And I say we're a mutual company, so we we aren't owned by shareholders, actually owned by our customers. Again, that that's an important differentiator. We don't have shareholders to pay dividends to. All of the profits that we may go back into providing services for our members.

Richard Medcalf
So it's -- Yeah. So I love this idea of the essence. Yeah. This idea of looking at the feeling of the emotional connection of the journey. It's fascinating. Let me tell me about that's your own shift in that journey because you came from this school of business development, right, where you did pursue the deal. Sure. And so was there any kind of conflict in you between, like, like, here I am. I know that my signature strength is my ability to drive the deals. That's why I've been probably got to where I got in business development. And now here I am kind of doing 7 months as 5 months of strategy, you know, focusing into the kind of core, you know, slowing down that deal process to really work on other things. Did did you feel discomfort in that process?

Stuart Tragheim
No. Like, you know, perhaps I'm not gonna be delivering what I know how to deliver or what was day you. The the opposite, actually, I think it's the it's the kind of mindset that I've got, which is doing things which are outside your comfort zone is actually incredibly motivating. And I've never had an opportunity to get my arms around every aspect of an organization before before joining Holloway. So spinning the the business development plate, something which just has to happen in every business. So I outsourced that quite quickly or or I delegated it rather by recruiting an excellent sales and marketing director who knows the market in the same way that I do and better in some areas. And we developed a distribution strategy together, which he has executed over the course of the last 6 years or so. So I felt I wasn't I didn't need to focus as much on on the BD side. And that then led me to focus on the things which I've not got the the same level of experience in. So part of it part of the excitement is about learning new things. And whilst I'm not an expert on IT, and I'm not an expert on operations and, you know, process improvement techniques and that sort of thing, because I'm old and I've been around the market for ages. You kind of know a bit about everything. Yeah. So I've been able to, again, to recruit people into the team who've got the same ethos, the same belief structures that I've got that who want to build an organization that does the right thing for members at the right time. That culture and they've helped me to execute all aspects of our of our of our strategy. And that's that that's massively motivational because it's you know, we're we're stretching into all sorts of different areas. I didn't know how difficult it was to re platform an insurance company. I do now. And I've and I've got all of the scars and many more to come, I'm sure. But I'm not gonna ask you to show these scars right now. No. You you would wanna see them. Don't worry.

Richard Medcalf
Tell me tell me about how this this program was received because you said it was quite intentionally quite top down -- It was. -- in some ways, and you could be led it. And I think 1 thing I surlines here with my clients especially those who are stepping up with the bigger challenges is all my word. At this point in my even bigger remit, do I need to go kinda bottom up and really get everybody on board with all the processes. And there's always a tension, right, between that kind of expediency of getting a small group together to figure it out and then sell it -- Yep. -- versus getting everybody to collaborate, going slower, but having something perhaps with more ownership. So I'm curious, it's kinda how you experience that process?

Stuart Tragheim
Well, I think I think situational leadership is is the is the phrase that I would use. So at different times, all CEOs need to be adaptable to change their leadership style. And in a small business that is largely directionless, has very good people, very capable people who haven't really seen where the future could be. You have to start with a directional strategy, so development strategy directionally. We are going to do this. This is really important because So the communication of what you're doing in the process you're going through is massively important. So I spent a lot of time. Very much, I only had 28 people who work for the time. Spent a lot of time regularly communicating what we were doing, why we were doing it, where we were in the process, because, you know, it's not gonna be done in a week So explaining, you know, next month, we're gonna be taking the board through our future distribution strategy. Next month after that, we're gonna be doing some work on IT strategy and where we see that developing. And as long as the individuals that are involved in those functions see the intention is about creating a better future for the organization and a better future for them individually, hopefully, then I I believe it creates what's I think what's been phrase phrase before is followership. So giving people enough of a vision, a vastly overused word, as we know, but creating an optimistic future what could this organization actually look like, and what could their part be in that organization? And then managing literally managing the the conflicts that are gonna come through and creating the opportunity for people to say, actually, I don't understand. Can you tell me more? Or wouldn't it be better if and to be able to alter those objectives objections rather.

Richard Medcalf
Yeah. Tell me about that. Tell me about the resistance. You know? Like, what what where were people a bit concerned how did you deal with that really, practically?

Stuart Tragheim
There there there's always concern, I think, when a new leader comes in and says, right, Chats. What we're gonna do is something vastly different to what's been going on for the previous 30 or 40 years. But I think as long as you're human and you're able to sit down and talk to people 1 to 1 or in small groups, to get them comfortable to be able to air their views and air their concerns and deal with them, treat people like adults, be honest. You know? If you if you can't answer a question, then tell them you can't answer it. You know, that sort of thing. No no lies. There's no point in in in losing your integrity or your honesty. Most people will will kind of they'll kind of get on board eventually. I had I had less resistance from some. As you would expect. It was a well, thank goodness. Somebody's coming in and telling us that we can that we've got a future that's gonna work. And I had others that were much more cautious about, well, I'm not really quite sure And those are the ones you have to spend a bit more time with. And, ultimately, they're either they're either on board or they're not. And I think if they're on board, And as long as they're willing to continue to develop and adapt, then that's fine. The ones who aren't on board and will never get on board have to be moved on. And there was a small element of that in here, but but not not very much. Not very much. Most people got it. And in fact, most people who wanted to move on self selected they didn't they didn't require me to go in and say, right. You know, unfortunately, you don't fit anymore. They'd actually worked out for themselves that the future probably wasn't what they wanted, and they decided to go and do something else. And that's fine, and we helped them on that on that journey. So I didn't get a lot of resistance. The more challenging aspect as a CEO as as you can probably know, is to make sure that you've got the board on-site. So we only have 2 exec directors and and a number of 5, 6 at the time, in fact, 7 or 8 at the time when I first joined nonexempt directors. And it was making sure that they understood that what they had asked me to do was going to be painful for the organization because it was gonna cost money. There were roles that were gonna have to change fundamentally we would have to get quite a big bill for changing some of the technology. And as long as they understood that, then that was that was that was more of a challenge actually than dealing with with colleagues here. And that was and that was that wasn't easy. That wasn't an easy journey because some of them ultimately ended having to be moved on. So some of the nonexecs had to go and were replaced by people who were more experienced in our market and who were technically better and and those sorts of things.

Richard Medcalf
Yes. You had to really exert leadership on the board side to say, you ask me to do this. Yep. This is what this is the cost of what you're asking me to do. Yep. And I need you to support me with that. Yes. And then rather than cow towing, if they just push back, you had to kinda have a bigger discussion, which is well. You started this. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Either I shouldn't be here or you shouldn't be here, potentially. Yeah. That's that's right. But if but in fairness in fairness to all of the all of the non they've all been very supportive,

Stuart Tragheim
the previous set as well as the current ones. And a lot of that, again, comes down to communication. I think if I presented them with a fait accompli and they hadn't been involved in the process, and I was asking them to sign off 5 years worth of capital spend, I wouldn't have got where I've got to, so I didn't. What I did was I I took them through the journey. So when we developed our IT strategy, It was presented as part of a bigger strategy, and I'm not asking you to sign off an open ended check today. What I'm asking you to do is to support you during this next phase. So at every stage of the process, the non execs had an opportunity to say no. And we had some challenging discussions about about things on the way, as you can imagine. But ultimately, this the the the belief in what we were doing, the demonstrable outcomes, the successes were were started to be achieved quite early. And that gives the board confidence that they can release funds or or allow us to do more. And that was that was quite interesting. So when I presented the 5 year plan, I presented it as a 5 year plan, but with a 2 year get out clause. So the 5 year plan's gonna look broadly like this. The numbers won't be quite right. The the achievements won't be quite right. But directionally, this is what we're gonna try and do. There's a load of capital that we're gonna need. I'm not asking you to sign off 5 years of the capital today. What I'm asking you to do is to give me permission to crack on with the first year, build the strategy, get it underway, do the implementation. And at the end of year 2, if we haven't hit the basic objectives, then we have a review. Either we carry on, and we we know that it's just you know, it's a timing difference. Or we say no when we when we change that fundamentally. And that's and that was and that's what works. And that's what I've tried to do ever since. It's not it's it's no it's no good again, explaining to or presenting to Ned to the non execs. This is it. This is what we're going to do, and you don't have any opportunity in in challenging or questioning. It is about keeping people on the side during that development journey and helping us to think through some of the what ifs. That's where the non execs really add significant value is they they're they're not involved in the day to day work and the day to day running into the business, although some some clearly like to do that as a non exec but they're actually really good. They do respect those boundaries, but they have a very good and very objective way of of just making sure that we've thought through the things properly.

Richard Medcalf
Yeah. Thank you for sharing that. I think it's it's really insightful. 1 of the things I often see with CEOs and their management teams is they do need to really exert leadership upwards as much as downwards. Yeah. No. I just said, not dominating. You can't do that, but to really create that leadership where you set out the vision, you explain, you know, the investment of all sorts of things, like short term results, money, time, whatever. Yep. That's gonna be needed for that as well as the benefit and also actually to secure an agreement -- Yes. -- around this period where we all will be in the investment phase so that you don't end up with that period where suddenly something happens and 2 months later, if there's a knee jerk, we act action by the board and you're being thrown off course, which I think as I heard you saying, like, you actually try to establish some some commitment in the in the time frame -- Yes. So that they would be with you for the journey. And, obviously, they were they were supported you because they were part of those

Stuart Tragheim
those agreements in the first place. But the interesting thing, I think, in to answer your very first 1 of your earlier questions about the transition from BD to to non BD to CEO. Is the principles about business development still apply. So if I'm negotiating with my board and trying to put something forward, I will do it in a consultative selling mode in the same way that I would do is if I was winning a contract with a supermarket to sell insurance. It's the same sort of principle, which is 1 of the you know, you start from you start from the from the first principles. So what's the problem we're trying to fix? And how can our solution enable that to happen and therefore what the costs and how do you implement and all those sorts of things. So there are some overarching principles that apply both as in in a business development role as as they do in terms of a a strategic transformation role. I I suspect that at some point, the the style of leadership that this organization needs will be different to the to what I can bring to it. So we won't you won't need somebody who is you know, driving a, you know, a a driver kind of personality who's really pushing the organization forward, you might need somebody where you can manage for cash flow or you can manage for profit. And and that's what happens, and that and that's okay. All CEOs have got a natural life cycle. I just don't know what mine is here yet.

Richard Medcalf
But -- So that's a great moment just to reflect. So over the last 5, perhaps 7 years, I think you said now. What's been the biggest shift that you can see in the organization?

Stuart Tragheim
Goodness. There are there are so many. On on the at 1 level, I think, the biggest shift is around having individuals at all levels aligned and supportive of what we are trying to do. So they get the plan. They get it. They understand it. They understand why we are different and how we can continue to be different, excuse me, in our market. So I would start with with the people first. If you then kind of take a step back from that and you go, well, if all the people are aligned, what else has shifted fundamentally. The the products have changed. But more importantly, the technology that we have had to install and build ourselves actually with some help enables us to improve some of the hard metrics that all businesses need to need to focus on. So cost of capital, cost of processing, cost of renewals, So automation, more digitization, all those sorts of things. That's the that's a fundamental shift. So when I first joined my operational colleagues here would be looking at green screens using a system that's been evolved over, I don't know, best part of 25, 30 years, probably. And it was incredibly clunky and very inflexible and all that kind of stuff. And now they've got dot net enabled, front ends, back ends, much more automation. Easier to change, easier to price, easier to to manage better outcomes for for our customers, for our members. So there's been there's been a there's been an an ethos change, if you like, a a cultural change, which is I've got a group of people who really get what we're trying to do and why we're trying to do it. Combined with some different back office infrastructure, different product sets that enable us to continue to drive say, some of the hard metrics, both speed of processing, operational efficiency improvements, automation, all those kinds of things.

Richard Medcalf
Got it. Yeah. Fascinating. And and so so those things have shifted so that, you know, people technology triple products technology. These are all fifties. Let's just look forward for a moment. You know, 1 of my favorite questions, as you probably know, on this podcast is, like, you know, where does this where do you want Holloway friendly to go in the future? Like, how where do you see that it could multiply its impact on the industry on its customers?

Stuart Tragheim
So I think that comes back to whether or not the business can grow organically or whether or not we have to look at corporate strategy corporate actions. The constraints that small businesses operate on in a regulated environment are driven largely by 2 main factors. The first 1 is can you achieve scale? Can you grow quick enough, inefficiently enough to be able to support your infrastructure costs. And the second 1, which is a technical point, is around solvency capital. So insurers obviously have to have reserves to make sure they can pay all the claims. I suspect, genuinely suspect, that we can probably solve 1 or other of those organically. But not the other 1. So I don't know whether it's a whether it's a kind of cash flow and liquidity stress or whether it's gonna be a solvency stress. But at some point, I think we will have to signature to the way that our that our current business runs. So they're they're they're quite technical answers, and I I apologize for that. But the the market opportunity is still big. Consumers still have the same kinds of needs. How they access our markets will change over time. How we underwrite will change over time. The the all of the the hygiene factors price and process things will will continue to evolve. But if you kinda take a step back and you go up a level and you think about, well, actually the direction of the market, the market will grow. How does a small firm continue to grow? And there are restrictions. There are limits on how quickly we can grow because of the the lack of scale -- Yeah. -- and the fact that we need to continue to put more money into reserves for claims. Mhmm. So I think those those will be our our biggest strategic challenges over the over the next 5 years, probably.

Richard Medcalf
Yeah. And and and what would your sense of ambition be? Like, what would you love to, you know, what would you love to achieve in that business? Or what would you love the business see if we could do Well, in the last in the last 5 years, we have doubled

Stuart Tragheim
our customer base, and we've doubled our revenue And I would like to think that in the next 5 years, we could do that again. So I don't I don't see if we could manage the the capital and the liquidity in a way that we need to the the cash, then doubling the organization's scale should be possible. Obviously, if we are able to look at inorganic options, then you would then you would multiply that by a factor. Yeah. So I think I think the my ambition is is about building a sustainable business over the longer term that that continues to challenge the market. I mean, we've we've won awards for all sorts of things over the course of the last 5 or 6 years. And I think we should continue to have that ambition to challenge the market a bit to pick off things where we can make, you know, good decisions and and earn some profit for our members. And I think those opportunities still exist, whether it's looking at the market in a different way by breaking it down, looking at subsidiary markets or whether it's about a broadening more of a waterfront product range and things like that. There's there's lots and lots of different options.

Richard Medcalf
Yeah. I I love this. So I love the fact that you've really focused in on this core service you provide, right, rather being deal led. So I think there's a lot there that you have to give. Yeah. A pivot to the market as you've made very clear. And let me ask you, in our personal level, as chief executive, what's it gonna take for you to multiply your impact within the business? Looking forward, you know, what's the say what what's the stretch for you as you kinda consider the the couple the next couple of years?

Stuart Tragheim
And I'm sure the answer that I'll give you will be the same as you hear from a lot of CEOs, which is about creating the the bandwidth, creating the time to focus, to be able to focus my my time and my exec colleague's time on those longer term issues. Opportunities. So I think those are the that's the real big challenge. When you've moved from a large organization to a small organization, which most of us have on the on the exact here. There's a recognition eventually that happens quite quickly that the the team resources aren't there to be able to do the that you think needs to be done. So you either decide not to do the work or you do it yourself. So we we have an executive team that is very hands on in terms of managing, leading, changing things that happen in the business. And I think our biggest opportunity is to create the bandwidth for that group of people, any for us, to step back for some weeks or months and actually start thinking about and doing some work on developing the next 5 year plan and picking up these challenges, picking up the liquidity challenge, cash flows, and picking up the solvency challenge, and working out what we could do And the the constraints, I think, are are probably twofold, Richard, really. 1 is around us having the the willingness to make the change and to allow our senior leaders to on with running the business on a day to day basis. We have a very good senior leadership team. But I think that we probably are too involved on a day to day basis with some of the activities. So the second part, I think, of that is about ensuring that that leadership team has got the capabilities, and we've helped develop them to be able to to take decisions which are which we are currently taking. So it's how far down do you delegate those big decisions. So I think it's around it's around those things creating the time and enabling the the next the next tier down to be able to run the business on a day to day basis. So we have to invest now in ensuring that it's that the senior leaders here can can do the work that we think need to do. Yeah. So you create that multiplication culture. Yes. Right?

Richard Medcalf
And and that's plus yeah. That probably isn't a great place to to to end our conversation. So So, Stuart, I've really enjoyed our conversation. I think I've, yeah, love this shift that we've talked about from this business development deal driven mindset, obviously, can create results to this broader CEO mindset of where do we play, where do we have competitive advantage. Right? How do we actually create value for people? And then I love this this process that you went on, which was that's the intellectual part of it. Very clear. And there's also that emotional strand. In fact, we could have spent even more time on that. But this, you know, this point around, what does it feel like to be a part of this company? What feel like you could be a customer of this company. And I think that in some way, it's such a great internal decision making filter that I think many companies don't actually use. So I think that's a great a great insight. And then I think again, we take a great discussion around the board -- Yep. -- around your leading leading upwards using consultative selling approaches, actually, to to make sure they get aligned, and they're supportive of investments that you might need to be make money to make for that breakthrough for that breakthrough future. So it's been a really fascinating conversation. We've covered some other things as well, but perhaps that's enough to kinda wrap up for now. If people are interested in finding out more about you or about the business, where should they best do that? Probably easiest through LinkedIn. Just ping ping me a note through LinkedIn.

Stuart Tragheim
Her private message something, and I'll come back to them.

Richard Medcalf
Perfect. Well, Stuart, it's been a great pleasure. Look forward to seeing how the business evolves over the coming years and whether you grow organically or make some bold moves, we'll we'll have to watch the space to find out. Indeed. Thanks again for joining us. Pleasure. Thanks, Richard.

Stuart Tragheim
Thank you.