ACUMA ONpoint
ACUMA ONpoint
Redlining and Fair Lending: Why Credit Unions Can't Let Their Guard Down
Imagine a world where nobody's watching. Would you still do the right thing? This thought-provoking question lies at the heart of our enlightening conversation with Jon Seward, former Department of Justice fair lending enforcement leader and current Of Counsel with Mitchell Sanders.
Drawing from over two decades of experience as the architect of the DOJ's combating redlining initiative, Jon delivers a powerful warning to credit unions that might be tempted to relax their fair lending compliance efforts during the current administration: the regulatory pendulum always swings back.
"When the feds are back in the picture, they're going to be looking at what we do now," Jon emphasizes, explaining that future enforcement actions will examine years of data spanning multiple administrations. Credit unions that maintain strong fair lending practices even without federal scrutiny will be better positioned than those that took their "foot off the compliance pedal."
Looking toward future enforcement priorities, Jon predicts increased focus on underwriting disparities, particularly regarding assistance provided to marginally qualified borrowers across different demographic groups. He also provides practical guidance on automated underwriting systems and manual override practices.
For credit union mortgage lenders navigating this complex regulatory environment, the message resonates clearly: maintaining robust fair lending compliance isn't just about avoiding problems, it's about serving communities effectively, building a stronger business, and remembering that behind every statistic is a real person whose life is impacted by these decisions.
How is your credit union maintaining fair lending practices when nobody's watching? Join the conversation and discover why doing the right thing is always good business. Tune into the latest ONpoint Podcast for the full scoop.
Sponsored by Consolidated Analytics
The views and opinions expressed in this podcast do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of Acuma, its board of directors, its management staff or its members. The podcast discussion presented is conversational in nature and for general information only.
Speaker 2:Hello, welcome to Actors On Point podcast, a series focused on sharing the stories of people who are making a positive impact in the credit union mortgage industry. I'm your host, Peter Benjamin. Before we get to our episode, just a quick word from our sponsor.
Speaker 3:This episode is brought to you by Consolidated Analytics, helping credit unions make smarter mortgage decisions, from origination to servicing and beyond. With expert valuation, risk management and compliance solutions, they provide the insights you need to protect your members and grow your portfolio with confidence. Whether it's due diligence or a collateral risk assessment, they help you navigate the market with ease. Learn more at consolidatedanalyticscom.
Speaker 2:Welcome to the fifth episode of our compliance miniseries, where each episode will feature an intimate conversation with people who I consider to be experts in their field and supporters of the credit union movement. As a reminder, each of these episodes, it's our goal to take a deep dive into various compliance topics that are impacting and reshaping the credit union mortgage industry. Our next guest in the Compliance Miniseries is John Seward, of Council with Mitchell Sanders. John, how are you doing today?
Speaker 4:I'm doing great, peter. Thank you, it's great to be with you.
Speaker 2:No, it's our pleasure. Over the last really few months we've had the opportunity of getting to know you. We've had you at both our Savannah workshop and our Seattle workshop and it's truly been an honor to hear from you and learn your story, but, more importantly, for you to share your expertise with our members. And I think today's episode is going to be even more important for all of our listeners to kind of hear your valuable words of wisdom but more to come on that. So you know, really the pleasure's all ours. But, as always, I got to pause. I need to bring Justin into the conversation. Justin, how are you doing today? And please tell me what is the latest greatest happening over at Acuma?
Speaker 5:I'm good, peter. How are you living the dream? Thank you, I love it. All right, I mean over here at Acuma we are six weeks six weeks roughly from our make your mark annual conference, which is going to be September 21st to the 24th. That's taking place in Denver, colorado. If you haven't heard that by now, we've not done a good job. I'm looking forward to that agenda, the speakers, the sessions, the attendees, the stuff up your sleeve. We just have so much planned. There's a few things, just a few things. One of these days we're going to have to drop like breadcrumbs. You know we'll call them the hidden acumas.
Speaker 2:I can't do that, man. I mean we always have a surprise, or 10. That happens with every annual conference, because you know we have to again. There's a reason why we have them coming back, because they they always want to know what's peter gonna do next yeah, that is always a great question. I think the team asks that too sometimes I tell you, the running joke is how, whenever I go into a meeting, it's how can I screw things up or what? What else can I actually everyone's plate?
Speaker 5:There you go. I like that. That's right, sort of. I don't know how I feel right now, but later I'll feel great. But no registration's open. So if you haven't registered, head over to the Acuma website register. Come make your mark with us in Denver. It is going to be a spectacular event. You do not want to miss this, I agree. Other than that, we have our networking and educational opportunities that are just going on year round. So our next network meeting is the volume based network that they are having their Q3 meeting in just over two weeks, so that's going to be taking place on August 21st. And then our webinar series, our fast tracks and inside tracks and our lovely on point podcast. They just keep the fun going, hands down.
Speaker 2:All right, man, anything else? Um no, I didn't mean to trick you up, it was just asking.
Speaker 5:I mean it was like a loaded question. I was unsure, I was like, oh, did I forget?
Speaker 2:anything.
Speaker 5:No no, it's going to be a great one, so we look forward to seeing all of our members out to something soon Awesome. Thank you very much, all right, john.
Speaker 2:So one really excited to have you here. And a couple of things, a few about, I want to say. I don't think it was a year ago, but close to you know, I reached out to Daniela Caceres, who is a partner at your firm to our events, you know, because you know she's a mutual acquaintance and you know I think very highly of her and you know she's, you know, a subject matter expert on a lot of things within our industry. And she said hey, we recently brought on John and he is the foremost expert in, you know, fair lending and redlining. You have to talk to him and he's going to blow you out of the water and if you're going to have someone speak at your conference it has to be him. I said, make the intro could have been more right and on point with that introduction and I've always been meaning to thank her for it and one day I will. I don't know if she drinks beer or what, but maybe I'll buy her that beer or whatever. But I couldn't be more thankful for that because the value that you have brought to our community and just sharing your knowledge, like I said at our workshops, has been instrumental. I've had a lot of conversations with our members, but also like Michael Christians, who is a regular at our events but also contributed to a lot of our stuff. Again, we're just blown away by your knowledge, which is one of the reasons why you're here today as contributing to our compliance podcast. So, to that point, you know it's.
Speaker 2:I think it's important for us to kind of take a step back. You know and get to know you a bit more and, as I mentioned prior to this podcast, prior to the recording, you know and get to know you a bit more and, as I mentioned prior to this podcast, prior to the recording, you know, one of the first questions I always ask is you know? It's an important question because we often forget the things that make us who we are. We always focus on the work aspect. We always focus on, you know, the, the accomplishments. We always focus on the things that we do day to day, but we, we, we often forget that there's always the things that drive us, always the things that motivate us, the, the things that are in the next room that are making way too much noise, right? So the big question is you know who is John and?
Speaker 4:so thank you, peter. Thank you for the kind words. I'm humbled to hear those things and thank you for the question. Because I am in the camp of people's fair lending enforcement program for two decades I've probably brought more fair lending matters than anybody in the country. I'm the architect of the department's combating redlining initiative, but I never define myself as what I do for a living and so kind of. Who is John? Well, I'm a family guy who loves playing games and I love music games as a hobby and probably within the next year I'm going to turn that music game hobby into a professional team building business because I love the way music unifies people in such a divided world and so um. So I'm a family guy who loves playing games and loves music. That's awesome.
Speaker 2:That is. That is awesome. I can't wait to learn more about that in the near future. Now, and I and your family is is is, I think, important for all of us, and I think that that was one of the reasons why we started this podcast, and it's a lot of the messaging that we do within these conversations and in many ways, it ties into this conversation today. You know, fair lending and redlining because it's all of it really is connects, and so today's conversation is really going to focus on, you know, fair lending, compliance and how it all can change.
Speaker 2:I guess that's maybe that's a good way of framing it up, how it can change, but also why we still need to, I guess, prioritize it, consider it important. And so, for your edification, john, obviously, as you know, credit unions are our main focus. Credit union mortgage lenders are our main focus. You know credit unions are our main focus, credit union mortgage lenders are our main focus and, as you know, the past few years, you know, fair lending has a bit been a big focus for credit unions and that's been a big target on credit unions backs Right and with this new administration, the, the, and I'm concerned that credit unions are considering going away or thinking that maybe we can ease up on that focus. I guess the first question really is why should credit unions continue to prioritize that fair lending compliance even during this new administration, during these changes and everything that's happening in DC? I mean, I think you can agree it's like a moving target right now.
Speaker 4:Yeah, no, it's a great question and you know, I think of it. As you know, there's a pendulum that swings back and forth, and I've been doing fair lending enforcement work for so long that I've seen it swing, you know, from Clinton to Bush, to Obama, to Trump to Biden, and I think that when lenders get caught up in what is the you know, what do I have to do or not do in this particular swing of the pendulum, then they spend too much time trying to catch up when the pendulum swings back the other way. And so what I try to encourage lenders to do is really have some core beliefs that drive their business and including in those core principles those core beliefs that fair lending is actually good for your business. And so that's what I try to encourage. But in terms of why lenders should continue to prioritize fair lending compliance in this environment, where it's very clear that the federal regulatory and enforcement agencies are not going to make this much of a priority is that I think that state regulators and state attorneys general will very likely fill the void or attempt to fill the void left by the feds. We have seen so many professionals leaving the CFPB, leaving the regulatory agencies, leaving the Department of Justice and many of them are going to these state supervisory and enforcement agencies and others are going to private consumer protection groups, and so I think that, in the absence of the feds, you're going to see a lot more activity from the states. So that's one. Two, as I kind of alluded to, you're also going to see private groups that a private group threatened to bring a redlining case against them, to file a redlining lawsuit. This lawsuit was seeking more monetary damages than DOJ or CFPB ever settled for against lenders of much greater size. The fact that the feds aren't in this space doesn't mean that there aren't other entities that are looking to act as private attorneys general, as the statute provides.
Speaker 4:The most important reason is, I really think, that prioritizing fair lending can increase business and profitability. I listened to one of your podcasts on HMDA and I thought it was fantastic. I would encourage people who haven't listened to it to listen to it, because at the heart of that discussion was this you know HMDA shouldn't be thought of as this compliance burden, but actually, you know, a valuable opportunity to see where we can increase our business, and I think that when you have that paradigm shift, it really drives lenders in a different kind of way, because if it's just, oh, I have to do this, you're going to do the bare minimum. But if you look at it as a tool that is going to make your uh, whatever kind of lender you are more profitable, then you're going to look at it um you know, a lot more closely and and to see where those valuable opportunities are. And I'll, I'll I'll close with uh with with a story that, when I used to work for the Department of Justice, at the end of a red lining consent order, I would go and meet with the senior officials of a lender and I would ask you know, tell me what worked well under this consent order and what things you did that you just felt like you had to do because it was required.
Speaker 4:And the general story that I would get was they would say hey, john, at the beginning of this we didn't like you too much because we didn't appreciate that we were targeted. We didn't feel like what we were doing was that, you know, against the law. But having gone through these steps, we have realized that there were a number of improvements that we could make to how we serve, you know, our customers and our communities. And invariably they would say that we are a stronger bank or lending institution at the end of this thanactively. Look at the steps that are required in many of these consent orders. They will have the tools to do those things proactively to increase their business and become more profitable.
Speaker 2:And one thank you very much for the kind words about our Honda podcast. But kind of going back to a statement that you made and please forgive me if this is a stupid question but the consumer groups and you know the potential lawsuits that they could bring against a credit union. You know what happens and let's role play.
Speaker 5:Okay.
Speaker 2:You know, you have these people formerly at the CPP and they go to these consumer groups and they take these cases against a credit union and obviously you're on the opposite side and you're defending the credit union, but then it goes to a federal court. What happens when the federal court just I don't know, I don't want to say it doesn't care or, or you know, it doesn't really take fair lending. That seriously, I mean what? What happens then? I mean, is it just does it ever get to that state or or or? Is the law the law like what I mean, or am I thinking of it like incorrectly?
Speaker 4:So, so let me, let me answer it this way I think and I've brought every kind there are ways that you could increase your business with qualified borrowers, and both sides may disagree on some of the evidence that is being considered, but at the end of the day it is. We can do these things to increase our business, and so why would we spend conceivably millions of dollars litigating this in a court of law when we can take that money, invest it in improving our practices and offering subsidies, if we need to offer subsidies? And so what is that? 30, 31 years?
Speaker 4:In 31 years, only one case has gone to contested litigation, and that was because it was at the very beginning of the first Trump administration, and the lender thought maybe we can, you know, maybe because these political winds have shifted, maybe we'll fare well by not settling this. And so it went into litigation. The lender filed a motion to dismiss. The government opposed it. The court said no, the government has a case we're going to dismiss, we're not going to dismiss the case. And then that case was settled. And so I think that in many consumer protection cases, even fair lending cases, there are reasons that, if the sides can, the lender to increase its business in a profitable way.
Speaker 2:OK, and thank you for that. So I think you touched on the first Trump administration and I think that kind of leads me to the next question, which is the second Trump administration, and without getting political, and I think we all can agree that the second term or the second term of this administration is most certainly different than the first of this administration, is most certainly different than the first. So, to that point, you know how, how is the second Trump administration impacting fair lending, supervision and enforcement?
Speaker 4:So I think that that, um, what's very different in this administration from the Trump? From the ongoing litigation with respect to the CFPB, where they're trying to fire 80 to 90% of the staff. They've rescinded rules and guidance, they've dismissed court cases, their efforts to defund the agency through the budget appropriation process, and so there seems to be this effort to dismantle the infrastructure of that agency. The same thing with the Civil Rights Division, but in a different way. So, in, in with CFPB, they just tried to out and out, uh, fire 80 to 90% of the staff.
Speaker 4:Well, with the civil rights division of the justice department, uh, at this point in time, I've seen estimates that 70% of the attorneys have left. And they have left because, you know, here's a division of the Justice Department that, since 1957, has had the mission of protecting the civil rights of marginalized communities. And so, whether that's in housing, lending, education, employment, policing, voting, the mission has always stayed the same going to seek to enforce civil rights laws on behalf of marginalized communities. But look for instances of reverse discrimination to see whether white males have been discriminated against. And so, for the civil rights division, the attorneys who choose to work there are typically people that come from the top law schools, the top of their class.
Speaker 4:It is one of the most prestigious jobs you can get if you want to do civil rights work. And these people could have been making millions of dollars doing other things, but they chose to work at the civil rights division because of this mission. And then, once you so, for example, when I was hired a million years ago, uh, 800 people applied and they hired four of us. And that is kind of typical for how difficult it is to get one of these jobs. And but it's the mission that brings people there. And when you change that mission, attorneys have been leaving in droves the mission that's caused this exodus from the Civil Rights Division or trying to out and out fire people at the CFPB. If you don't have people left to do the work, then there's no work that's going to be done and you reshape the federal standpoint.
Speaker 2:I forgot who I asked, but it was someone I asked recently and whether it was on our policy podcast or on our compliance podcast but or one of our compliance episodes. You know, with everything happening, and whether you look at, you know the CFPP or you know the executive orders that the administration's putting out, you know there's a lot of things that are transpiring within the government. You know, and, of course, when you look at, you know the deregulation. Will it ever get to the point where there's so much deregulation that things like I don't want to say fair lending, because that, in the root of everything, is a fundamental law that we have but does it ever get to a point where it's stripped down to the point where it's almost non-existent?
Speaker 4:So we've never seen that before.
Speaker 4:I think that what will happen going forward?
Speaker 4:So, as I described, I think that this administration has really dismantled the infrastructure of these protections and so, when the pendulum swings back, who is going to be left to really enforce these laws as they had been before?
Speaker 4:And I think that that what you're likely to see is a lot more cooperation between the states and the feds once the feds are back in the game. So I don't think that it will ever go away because, as we've talked about, you know, the states are going to step in, private groups are going to step in, but when the feds are back in the game, I think that there's going to be a lot of coordination between the states and the feds moving forward. And I think that what's bad for the industry is because the states are going to spend so much time ramping up and developing more expertise to do work that had been done by the feds. Once you put that investment of resources and training into place, the likelihood is you're not going to move away from that later on, and so, when the pendulum swings back, you're going to have all of this attention from the states as well as by the feds, and that will be even more, uh, even more eyes looking over the shoulders of lenders than existed, you know, uh, a year or two ago.
Speaker 2:I mean, and I think that's I mean.
Speaker 2:I think that that's another conversation that we've had.
Speaker 2:A lot is, you know when, when pendulum does swing back and I'll use I'll, I'll use your, your phrase, but when there is a new, new administration, because you know, administrations come and go, what happens when this is a democratic administration, you better believe that this, everything that the current administration is doing is to come back in force Right, right is doing is to come back and force right, right. But to kind of say what you're saying, the states are already investing in ramping up their enforcement practices and then when you pair that with a CFPB, that's going to jump back from, you know, 200 employees back to their I'll just round up 2000 employees. I mean that's going to be a tough spot for all of us. I mean I don't want to say tough spot, but you get what I'm saying. It's that right there is. I don't want to say a recipe for disaster, but it's going to be a tough time for us and we'll go back to the regulation by enforcement, but it's going to be on two sides state and Fed.
Speaker 4:Yes, and that's why I and well, let me say something quickly about when the feds come back into the picture at DOJ, in order for it to bring a lawsuit, it has to prove a pattern or practice of discrimination, and so it's not like, oh, you did one bad thing, we're going to sue you.
Speaker 4:It's a pattern or practice, and so it's not like, oh, you did one bad occupy.
Speaker 4:They're going to be looking at, you know, five years of HMDA data, which is going to give them the last year of the Biden administration and three and a half, four years of the Trump administration to look at, and they will see, they will be able to make comparisons as to, well, here's what the lender did, here's what its peers did, here's what the market did as a whole, and it will be very apparent to see which lenders decided oh, we can take our foot off the compliance pedal and see how that compared to what their peers did and what the market as a whole did.
Speaker 4:And so you want to think about for these next few years that when the feds are back in the picture, they're going to be looking at what we do now, as opposed to you know what we're doing three years from from now, Um and and so there's a lot of. I think that there's a huge upside in lenders taking proactive steps now when the feds aren't looking over their shoulder, because when the feds come back they can say look, you weren't looking over my shoulder, but look at what I did, and I think that that will gain a lot of favor and take the target off your back because you've demonstrated that you know you're committed to these principles of fair lending and consumer protection.
Speaker 2:No, it's interesting, right? So I was talking to someone yesterday and they're getting ready to go through an audit and they called me because they were looking for again they're about a month out from an audit. And they called me because they're looking for month out from an audit. And they called me because they're looking for fair lending and humda training so they can prove to the auditors that they took this training. I'm like, well, you're the might mean that in the back of my mind I'm thinking you're a little late on that, like you.
Speaker 2:Why take this training a month out, like just so you can show to them that you took this training before they came in? I mean, this needs to be part of your regular practice, like you need to have policies, procedures, you need to have everything related to this. You know it's, it's an everyday thing. Why do it now just to show them that you took it in, that you have it? It doesn't make sense, but it kind of relates back to everything you just said. It's a pattern of practice, right? Are you consistent with this and not just before they come in and audit you, right, exactly? So last question before we need to transition, and I do have one more question after this last question, as weird as that sounds. So thinking about you know, your pendulum and a crystal ball type question in a crystal ball type question, you know, are there future hot issues or things like that that that we need to think about, you know, for when that pendulum starts swinging back like are there certain things that we really need to focus on?
Speaker 4:Yeah, in the interest of time, I'm just going to focus on one. I think that if I was in my old position of directing DOJ's Fair Landing Enforcement Program, I think that the specific issues that I would really be laser focused on is what happens in the underwriting space. I think you know, and I think there will be a lot. There may be a lot of focus on denial disparities, and I think that. So I think that redlining will not go away, but it's not going to be the single issue focus as it was in the previous administration. But I think it could be tied to this kind of underwriting analysis and and in this and one of the reasons that I would focus on it is because there are lenders that may misread the tea leaves that now, if the focus is making sure white males haven't been discriminated against, well, we're going to give them some preferential treatment, and you know my 20 some odd years of fair lending analysis has showed that. You know they haven't fared too bad in the past.
Speaker 4:But I think that there may be some lenders that are going to give preferential treatment when they're making underwriting decisions to white males, because that's the current focus of making sure this group of people are not discriminated against. And so, in your typical underwriting analysis or denial disparity analysis, people who are very qualified, they're going to get loans. People who are not qualified, they're not going to get loans. But those marginally qualified borrowers, that's where the focus is going to be and the focus is going to be on you know what uh quality of assistance did those marginal borrowers get or not get, to ultimately make an underwriting decision. So I would, I would, I would suggest that lenders in in addition, cause I think redlining is it's and, in addition, because I think redlining is it's, it's, it's a relatively easy analysis to teach new people and I think they're going to be new people in these positions and and new partnerships. But I think that, beyond redlining, I think that I would encourage lenders to look at their pay close attention to their underwriting and denial disparities.
Speaker 2:So I'll ask you a quick question. So you brought up, you know, underwriting and and I don't mean for this to come off as a loaded question but you know as an industry, but as an industry do we rely too much on automated underwriting systems for our decisioning, when we think of how we approach our decision making.
Speaker 4:Well, I mean, that's that is kind of a loaded question. I'll try to. I'll try to answer it as succinctly as I can. I mean, I think that automated underwriting systems that don't have embedded discriminatory factors in it should lead to the same outcome for similarly qualified borrowers, and that's a good thing. I think that the where you, where lenders, should be uh concerned and make sure they do some due diligence around this for potential discrimination is uh in the overrides that oftentimes go along with those automated underwriting decisions and, you know, are those overrides administered in a non-discriminatory way? But in terms of, is there too much reliance? Well, automated underwriting is here to stay. Terms of is there too much reliance? Well, automated underwriting is here to stay and it's only going to get more sophisticated as more advances in AI and like that. So I think that it's here to stay and we want to make sure that it can be used in a way that allows more expedited, fair decisions in a non-discriminatory way.
Speaker 2:Okay, thank you for that. All right, last question, then we'll start transitioning. Similar to the first question, this is all about you. This is all about getting to know a little bit more about you. But the final question is what keeps you going, what keeps you motivated, what keeps you driving day to day out?
Speaker 4:I mean I think that the work that I have done whether it's for DOJ or in a law firm helping lenders navigate these issues At the core of everything that I've done, I never lose sight of the fact that there are people behind every statistic so much of fair lending is statistics but I never lose sight of the fact that behind every single data point, there's a person, a person's life, and I have. When I was with the government, I took time to meet with people and hear their stories about how the department's work impacted their lives in a positive way, and that has always driven me and I I feel like, if I can share my expertise in a way that helps a lender uh, uh serve its client base more effectively in a non-discriminatory way, that is going to positively impact people who I will never meet, and that's what drives me.
Speaker 2:I love it. I love it. Well, thank you very much. All right, john, it's time for us to start transitioning to the second segment of our podcast. Again, this is where we, for our compliance miniseries, we're doing the most fan requested, favorite segment of dad jokes. So, prior to the recording, I should come prepared with two dad jokes. So, prior to the recording, I asked you to come prepared with two dad jokes. So here's what we're going to do You're going to do your two dad jokes, justin will do his two dad jokes and I will wrap up with my two dad jokes. So, john, when you are ready, fire away.
Speaker 4:Okay, when does a joke become a dad joke?
Speaker 2:When.
Speaker 4:When the answer is apparent, I love it.
Speaker 5:Good one.
Speaker 4:And then the last one is a little different format, but my boss told me to have a nice day, so I went home. I'm here all week, peter.
Speaker 2:All right, justin go.
Speaker 5:A ship carrying red paint and a ship carrying blue paint both collided with each other in the middle of the ocean. Both crews are marooned. All right, I like thated. All right.
Speaker 4:I like that Okay.
Speaker 5:All right. And then can a frog jump higher than a house? Of course it can. A house can't jump, all right.
Speaker 2:Good, good, good, all right, so my term all right. Good, good, good, uh, all right, so my turn. Uh, if honeybees make honey, what kind of bees make milk? Boobies, all right um, I'm developing a new fragrance for introverts. It's called leave me the foo, cologne thank you.
Speaker 2:Yes, don't worry, I just added the explicit tag no, it's, it's b-o-o and then b's okay, it's okay, just in case. Just in case, all right. Well, john, thank you very much for for taking time out of your busy schedule to sit down with us on this conversation. I really enjoyed it. I say this about all of our guests, but this is really my favorite. Compliance episode Really means a lot that you would share your wisdom with us, and I hope our audience takes away some good nuggets from this, because it's such an important topic. So again, thank you very much.
Speaker 4:Thank you for the invitation, peter, of course, and Justin.
Speaker 2:Thank you, of course, it was my pleasure. And, to close out, thank you again to Consolidated Analytics for sponsoring today's episode and to all of you. We know your time is valuable. Thank you for tuning into the latest episode of Acuma's On Point Podcast. We hope you enjoyed it. Until next time. You won't, my friends.
Speaker 1:Thanks for listening. We'll see you next time at the Acuma On Point Podcast. If not already, be sure to subscribe and give us a five-star rating For more great episodes and information. Be sure to visit us online at acumaorg and to get the latest updates. Head over to our LinkedIn page.
