We are L.A. Times reporters who write about rent control and housing affordability in California. Ask us anything!

Why force landlords to lower rent instead of using laws to promote the creation of affordable housing? What is the benefit of keeping rents artifically low instead of actually encouraging development with incentives for affordable and/or low-income housing?

How about instead of forcing developers to build "affordable" or "low-income" housing, which they do not want to do because they lose money building such housing, we instead incentivize them to build a LOT more market rate housing? This is a simple problem of supply and demand. Increase supply to meet the demand, and prices will normalize. Artificially build non-market rate housing and you create the same sort of perverse incentives and market distortions that we already see with rent control and Prop 13.

You are correct that the prevailing wisdom is that developers need to build a lot more homes at all income levels to address the state's underlying housing affordability issues.

The problem is that the housing shortage is so deep that even massive, unprecedented amounts of new market-rate home building is unlikely to do much for the state's neediest residents in the short- to medium-term, according to many researchers. -Liam

You raise a common objection to rent control, namely that the state should promote affordable housing construction, instead.

Ideally, that would be a more sound way to address housing issues from an economic perspective.

However, there are few problems with that. First, affordable housing construction in California is super expensive. A recent, well-founded analysis estimated that to simply house the most rent-burdened Californians, it could cost at least $10 billion more a year than what the state spends now.

Second, there's a lot of research — and recent experience with homeless housing in LA bears this out — that residents push back strong against low-income housing development in their communities making it more difficult for new homes to be built.

-Liam

When considering things like this, I like to think of the worst way it could go wrong.

So... how would you account for or address the following scenario:

1. Corporate developers and landlords see their bottom line impacted by these rent control limits.

2. They turn all of their existing units into condominiums to sell, and do not renew the rental leases of their current occupants.

3. They use the money from the condos they sell to buy cheaper apartment units in poorer areas, and bump up rent prices to account for the rent control limitations.

4. The supply of cheaper rental units tanks. New supply is priced higher in poorer areas.

5. Rental prices and property values increase in these poorer areas, accelerating gentrification.

6. Suddenly, the poor and/or disenfranchised population you hoped to help find themselves in a weird situation. Their rent may be controlled, but if their landlord ever decides to sell or not renew their leases, they have no options, as they're priced out of their area and displaced. Property values and rent prices are now increasing more rapidly.

Can you please explain why this wouldn't happen or how it will be prevented? It sounds like the language of the proposition undermines its own stated objectives, and it makes housing even more expensive for the next generation of renters.

A good look into what could happen could be seen in the effect of current rent control laws. A recent study from Stanford researchers found landlords were indeed encouraged to convert units to condos because of rent control, but rent control did also help existing tenants. Also, rent control ordinances usually include just cause eviction protections. So a landlord can not simply decide not to renew a lease. As long as the tenant pays rent and follows the rules, they can stay there forever unless a landlord takes the unit off the market.

Copying a summary Liam posted earlier on the Stanford study:

Researchers at Stanford recently published a detailed examination of rent control’s effects in San Francisco, where the policy is restricted to apartments built on or before June 13, 1979.

Among the biggest beneficiaries: longtime tenants who would have been forced out of the city without renter protections. The study found rent control especially helped older and black and Latino tenants from being displaced.

Landlords who weren’t able to charge higher prices lost out. The study also found that landlords responded to rent control in San Francisco by converting their rental properties to owner-occupied condominiums, which decreased available apartments in the city and increased prices overall. The research contends that the system added to gentrification in San Francisco by increasing the number of older rental properties being made into units that were typically sold to wealthier residents.

--Andrew

Are there any economists at a top 100 school that think that rent control won't raise prices in the future?

Rent control feels like a stopgap measure that will last forever and create more problems than solutions down the line. I'm leaning No as of now.

There is broad consensus among economists that rent control does not make housing more affordable. Here's a link for that: http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/rent-control.

However, sociologists and other researchers in different disciplines argue that economists overlook other benefits that rent control may provide. For instance, there's a good deal of research that forced moves increase stress and lead to lower educational outcomes for children. To the extent that rent control might reduce evictions, those benefits are rarely, if ever, baked into economists' models. -Liam

Thank you both for your reporting on the CA housing crisis. The argument seems to be about "local control" but doesn't this allow any special interest to put extreme proposals on the ballot that will affect single family homeowners and new construction? The two most vocal organizational advocates of "local control" -- League of CA Cities and CSAC -- didn't get behind this, and there have been battles between progressive local officials and special interest groups about what actually goes before voters (Richmond, Sacramento come to mind)? I'm wondering if this whole AIDS Healthcare Foundation funded initiative isn't just about organizing renters politically ACORN-style than it is about solving local issues. Thank you!

Let's start by making clear what Prop. 10 would do. Currently, California has a state law called the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act that prohibits cities and counties from doing three major things with respect to rent control. Local governments are not allowed to:

• Implement rent control on single-family homes.
• Take away the right of landlords to charge what they want for apartments after a rent-controlled tenant moves out.
• Control rents on buildings constructed after 1995. The law also locked into place rules in cities with rent control when Costa-Hawkins passed like 1978 in Los Angeles.

Prop. 10 simply repeals that law, allowing cities and counties to do what they want on rent control.

So to your point, yes it's possible that cities and counties — and organizations trying to add rent control via initiative — would try to extend rent control to single-family homes and/or to new apartment construction. However, proponents of the measure say there's no modern rent control regime that includes new construction and little interest in extending rent control to single-family homes owned by individuals rather than institutional investors.

In short, yes if Prop. 10 passes, cities and counties could do what you're saying. But supporters say it's unlikely to happen. -Liam

Thank you. You say it's "unlikely" but if that is the case, why didn't proponents exempt new construction, affordable housing, and single family homes? They could have, right? At a conference yesterday, an LA County supervisors representative said they would most definitely try to put rent control on single family homes and the SF supervisors said the same.

Also, isn't there more in the initiative -- like some provisions on lawsuits? And lastly, if this proves to be a disaster, the legislature couldnt do anything about it, right?

These are all good questions.

Our my housing podcast (please subscribe!) we asked one of the primary proponents of Prop. 10 why they didn't exempt new construction. The answer was that they wanted simply to pitch a clean repeal of Prop. 10: http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-may-2018-california-housing-crisis-podcast-why-1530288443-htmlstory.html.

The provision on lawsuits says that the state must cover legal costs for proponents only if the state decides not to defend the initiative in court. This is something that rarely happens — Prop. 8 on banning same-sex marriage is the only thing that comes to mind where the state refused to defend it.

And yes, the initiative says that state lawmakers would not be able to institute any new restrictions on rent control without going back to the ballot first. Supporters say the provision is to prevent legislators from undermining Prop. 10

-Liam

Michael Weinstein and his AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) are the major backers and financiers of Prop 10. A recent New York Times profile of him quoted Weinstein comparing himself and his persistence to “getting gum stuck on your shoe”. Given Weinstein’s history supporting unpopular ballot initiatives like Measure S that would have effectively put a freeze on new housing construction, should we be concerned that Prop 10 is just his latest attempt to gum up the works for new construction in California? Shouldn’t voters be skeptical of any ballot initiatives tied to Weinstein and AHF?

It's true that Weinstein and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation are the major backers and funders of Prop. 10. I ran the numbers last night and his group has contributed $22.8 million of the $24 million raised by the Yes on 10 side. (Opponents have raised $60.9 million.) It's also true that AIDS Healthcare Foundation sponsored Measure S, a slow growth measure in LA, and opponents of Prop. 10 have made a point out of noting Weinstein's ties to that.

I can't really speak to whether voters should be skeptical of him in general. But I will say there is general support among major tenant groups in the state to support Prop. 10. So ever though AIDS Healthcare is almost entirely funding the campaign itself, it's not just that group backing the initiative.

That's Liam

Also, as for rent control hurting new housing construction. The research isn't clear on that. Rent control ordinances have historically had a cut off date that exempts new housing construction. For example, rent control in the city of Los Angeles only applies to buildings built on or before Oct. 1, 1978. The state's non-partisan legislative analyst's office in a report said that in theory rent control would reduce new construction and raise rents for noncontrolled buildings, but it is "unclear the extent to which these effects have actually occurred in practice, as some empirical research has found measurable effects while other research has found no significant effects. " The research is much stronger that rent control encourages landlords to convert rental units to condos, reducing supply that way. --Andrew

Thanks Andrew! But aren't the cut off dates, such as the 1978 date you mentioned for Los Angeles, only there because of Costa Hawkins? Prop 10 would open the doors to municipalities creating rent control that applies to all buildings, even single family homes, built at any time. I think part of the problem with Prop 10 is just how sweepingly broad it is.

EDIT: I see you basically answered my question in your second part. Thanks again!

Also, the cut off date in Los Angeles existed before Costa-Hawkins. In between 1978 and 1995 when Costa Hawkins passed, Los Angeles could have expanded it to newer buildings if they wanted, but didn't. After a big rent control fight, which 1978 was, the political will to have another one is pretty zapped for awhile. Costa Hawkins then took that option off the table. If it's repealed I think the City Council would however look at moving up that date. Affordable housing since 1995 has become a much bigger issue. --Andrew

Of course much of the effects depend on what sort of controls cities apply if Prop 10 passes. For example, if a city decided to put rent control on new construction, experts say that that would definitely harm development -- Andrew

Rent Control is almost universally opposed by Economists. You see more unity than climate change science. Why aren't rent control advocates treated with disdain, derision, and contempt like climate change denials?

Why are you giving space to anti-science activists to push their agenda that is dangerous to society?

You are right on rent control being opposed by most economists. Though their level of opposition varies. They basically say it's not a targeted policy and it has adverse effects of reducing supply. Meanwhile some backers say it's not a perfect policy, but that it protects renters on the edge now, which is more important for them than any drawbacks. The measure is before voters and is a worthy topic of coverage. -- Andrew

What is the argument for non-means tested rent control? It's completely nonsensical to me that wealthy people can benefit substantially from rent control, at the expense of the landlord and the state/federal government.

The argument for non-means tested rent control is that landlords would discriminate against those who would economically qualify for rent control by not renting their places to them when they could find someone who they could charge market rents. -Liam

Also, what exactly happens on the ground really depends on the type of policies cities pass. I was on a panel yesterday discussing Proposition 10 and a major developer, Bill Witte of Related California, said he has no problem with rent stabilization -- which is the only form rent control can currently take in California. Rent stabilization is when rents can only rise by a limited amount for a tenant each year, but then when the unit becomes vacant the landlord can charge whatever they want with rents then being limited again for the new tenant. This is the form of rent control that has always existed in the city of Los Angeles. What Bill and others are worried about is the type of rent control that Santa Monica used to have which allowed them to keep rents low even when someone moved out. That was outlawed by Costa Hawkins and if Proposition 10 passes, it could come back.

that was andrew

Thank you for opening up the mic! What was LA times thinking endorsing Prop 10, going against most economists? Why has LA times never written an article on abuses of rent control in LA. There are people making $400K+ a year who own real estate, yet hold onto their rent-controlled santa monica apts b/c rent is <$800. These units are almost always vacant. Perhaps this is contributing to our housing shortage..

So Liam and I are on the news side of the paper and the people who write our endorsements are on the opinion side. We don't have any input on what they do and they don't have any say on what we do. They are completely separate. We don't even know what they are working on, so I can't speak to their reasons for endorsing Prop 10.

That was Andrew

To your point on rent control "abuses." Yes, a major criticism of rent control is that anyone can move into a rent controlled apartment. So you do in cases have people who make a lot of money and have limits on how much their rent can increase each year. Of course when they move into the unit, they do so at market rate. Many economists have advocated for some type of means testing for taking advantage of rent control. But advocates worry that by setting an income limit on who gets rent control, that would just cause landlords not to rent to lower income people. --- Andrew

I work in real estate private equity / multi-family development

​

Why would you support rent control - which puts an arbitrary cap on operating income for real estate assets when we have national affordable housing programs such as section 8 and section 42 LIHTC which don't hurt the returns of developers? Remember, when you hurt returns you shoot yourself in the foot and depress new construction and development. Both of those programs also ensure that affordable housing is available for those who truly need it because their rental rates are based on income.

​

Please don't listen to some clipboard reporters telling you that "the research isn't clear" that rent control doesn't hurt new construction. It does - and it would even more so now that we're in an environment with rising interest rates. Don't support this shit.

​

Edit: doesnt* hurt

​

​

You can find a decent overview of the research on how rent control impacts new construction on page 14 of this report from USC: https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/242/docs/Rent_Matters_PERE_Report_Web.pdf#page14

I really need to get better as signing my name! -- Andrew

What was the justification/policy behind the current rent control law in LA that only restricts increasing rent on buildings built before 1978? Why did it not extend forward as well?

The idea is to set a cut off date so as not to discourage new housing construction. And under the Costa-Hawkins Act, enacted in 1995, the city is barred by law from moving that date up. If Prop 10 passes, I would say there is a very good chance L.A. would do just that. --Andrew

Do you think California housing is an economic bubble? If it is when do you think it will pop or will it at all?

We don't know until it pops right? But in all seriousness, most economists say we are not in a housing bubble, which would be prices supported by unsustainable demand. Last decade, demand was supercharged by easy money lending that allowed almost everyone to get a loan, regardless of whether they could afford to pay it back. Prices surged as a result, until those people could no longer pay. Prices then crashed. This time around economists say the boom is more sustainable. Lending regulations are far tighter, the economy is strong and most people can afford the homes they are buying, even if they are stretching somewhat. That's not to say prices won't come down during a recession, or even that there couldn't be a decline absent a recession. The housing market is showing signs of slowing now as mortgage rates rise and one expert I quoted in the story below does think you could see some declines around the corner. After all, with tighter lending restrictions, people can only afford so much. --- Andrew http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mortgage-rates-20181011-story.html

As for the rental market, that also is showing signs of slowing, mostly on the high-end, but also somewhat on the lower end too. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rent-slowdown-20180921-story.html -- Andrew

At what point do renter friendly laws chase away landlords? For instance if you have a place to rent for $2000 a month and the tenant stops paying after a month, it takes 6 months and thousands in legal fees to evict them only to find they have done $25,000 worth of damage to the unit, it is cheaper and easier to just leave it empty.

I can't speak to the specifics of your example.

I will note that a common criticism of rent control is that it provides less incentive for a landlord to maintain a property. I found an anecdotal example of this when I went to Mountain View to report on its recent experience with rent control: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-local-rent-control-battle-20180926-story.html

Martin Cortez, 50, a San Mateo County psychiatric social worker, credits rent control with helping him stay where he has lived for more than a decade: a small, two-bedroom apartment he shares with his girlfriend and 22-year-old daughter who has severe autism. He pays $2,086 a month. Before the measure passed, he had been threatened with eviction and large rent hikes.

“It felt like the floor was being taken out from under you,” Cortez said. “You couldn’t live where you live. You did all the right things. You go to college, you work in the community, and then you couldn’t afford the crummiest of places anymore.”

Still, Cortez said he has noticed some changes since rent control has gone into effect. His previous landlord sold the complex, and Cortez said the new owners don’t maintain it. A plugged sink took weeks to fix, trash piles up and the complex’s washing machine jumps when used, he said. He’s also seen lots of new faces around neighboring apartments, which he believes are Airbnb renters, given the advertisements he’s seen on the site.

that was liam

Can you explain the impact rent control has on the homeless? Ir seems to me self-evident that rent control only benefits those who can pay rent, which would exclude the homeless. California, and specifically LA, has a huge problem with homelessness. So as somebody who is not from California, the whole issue becomes confusing to me. Rent control looks like a solution searching for a problem while the actual problem is being ignored.

This is a good question. Yes, to your point, rent control helps those who are currently paying rent. Those who are homeless, obviously, aren't directly affected.

But supporters of rent control would say a few things in response. There's a whole body of research, including among economists who are generally opposed to rent control, that says rent control helps those who are currently at risk of displacement from their apartments from being displaced. So supporters would take the extra step of arguing that rent control helps prevent increasing homelessness. (To be clear, there's not consensus on that extra step.)

Secondly, no one on the Yes on 10 side is saying that rent control is the entire solution to the state's housing problems. There are a couple of housing bonds on the November ballot — Prop. 1 and Prop. 2 — that address new building for low-income residents and those currently homeless. Interestingly, some of the apartment developers who are spending lots of money against Prop. 10 are also spending money in support of the housing bonds. -Liam

Would property values lower if prop 10 passes?

The legislative's analysts office says that yes it's very likely it would lower property values and thus property tax, because more cities would likely pass rent control on more buildings. A rent controlled building simply is worth less than a building where the owner faces no restriction on the revenue they take in. Of course, Prop 10 would only allow cities the ability to pass more expansive rent control. So the effect on property values depends greatly on what cities decide to do. An estimate from LAO says "Depending on actions taken by local governments, these property tax losses could range from a few million dollars to low hundreds of millions of dollars per year." --Andrew

How do you reconcile the timing of the original LA rent control act in 1978 with the majority of the city becoming a gross crime ridden expanse in its wake all through the 80s and 90s?

There is no evidence that I am aware of that links rent control to crime. Very few cities actually have rent control and crime was up nationwide in the 80s and 90s. There's a good graphic in this story: https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-crime-report-shows-america-is-still-getting-safer-2015-1 ---Andrew

What are your thoughts on Prop 5 which carves out lowers property taxes to select groups yet again?

I wrote a story last week on Prop. 5. Here's a link: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-prop-5-housing-tax-break-20181011-story.html. In short, it's true that older homeowners can feel "stuck" in their old homes because of their current low property taxes that would increase if they move to a new one. And it would be better for a healthy housing market to have older, empty nesters move out larger homes so young families can move into them. This is the problem Prop. 5 is trying to address.

But to your point, yes, Prop. 5 would provide more tax benefits to those who have already received large benefits through the state's property tax system. Here's the perspective from an economist from my story:

Fernando Ferreira, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School who has studied California’s property tax system, called Proposition 5 “completely nonsensical.”

“Right now, you’re giving a gigantic tax break to older homeowners who live in the best houses in the richest parts of the state,” Ferreira said. “This new proposition unfortunately will just perpetuate this inequality.”

-Liam

My understanding is that: When you build new apartment complexes, it makes sense to target higher rents than affordable housing. The cost of building an affordable apartment complex is similar to an upmarket complex. But when you build new apartments and increase the supply of units. The rents at older apartments units will go down. Effectively turning older units into affordable housing.

Is this understanding correct?

It makes sense for developers to build where they'll get the highest returns. In part because of some of the cost reasons you've laid out, you've seen a lot of homebuilding geared toward the top end of the market. However, currently in some locations, there appears to be a glut of that supply, while continuing to be a dearth of supply for homes targeting other segments of the market.

To your point about supply increases overall, the concept you're referring to is called "filtering," that is when you increase the supply of housing overall, you're lowering the cost of older, once-more expensive units that can go to the less affluent. As I noted in a response above, this process would take a while — if ever — to help the neediest in California given the depth of the state's housing shortage. -Liam

Is it true that Single Family Homeowners could fall under rent control when renting out a bedroom in their house? Owner occupied or not?

So again all Prop. 10 does is eliminate the state law that bars cities and counties from implementing most new forms of rent control.

I suppose, theoretically, if Prop. 10 passes, a city or county could then try to devise a policy that would address the specific issue you're raising. I'm unaware of an existing rent control policy that tries to do what you're saying.

One caveat: The initiative states that landlords are entitled to a "right to a fair rate of return" in any rent control regime, which is in line with existing court precedent. -Liam

Why do you write about rent control and housing affordability in California?

I write about this, because housing affordability is a big problem in California and rent control is one policy being put forth to help. Obviously it is hotly debated that rent control will actually help and many think it will make the problem worse. But people agree there is an affordability problem. Here is a story I wrote on the huge number of people paying more than half their income on rent: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rising-rents-affordable-housing-20171203-story.html

And here is one about how businesses are struggling to recruit workers because of high housing costs: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-housing-costs-economy-20180222-story.html

And here is one about the emotional effects of being evicted for redevelopment: http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-evictions/

-- Andrew

When will I be able to read your articles? All of your links say "Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. "

this is a frustration for us too. unfortunately, reporters have no control over the resolution to this problem. -liam

what are some underrated facts that people still don't know today about rent control and housing affordability in CA?

What a great question.

On housing affordability, the underrated fact is really how bad it is. For the state to build its way toward affordability, it would take an unprecedented amount of annual homebuilding, at a level not seen since at least the mid-1950s, and then that pace would have to be sustained for many years: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-new-home-building-goal-governor-candidates-20180306-story.html.

On rent control, I think the key issue is it's more nuanced than many think. The effects of the housing market, affordability, displacement, etc. very much depend on the exact kind of rent control regime at play. A frequently cited recent Stanford study makes this point well: https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pdf.

My summary: Researchers at Stanford recently published a detailed examination of rent control’s effects in San Francisco, where the policy is restricted to apartments built on or before June 13, 1979.

Among the biggest beneficiaries: longtime tenants who would have been forced out of the city without renter protections. The study found rent control especially helped older and black and Latino tenants from being displaced.

Landlords who weren’t able to charge higher prices lost out. The study also found that landlords responded to rent control in San Francisco by converting their rental properties to owner-occupied condominiums, which decreased available apartments in the city and increased prices overall. The research contends that the system added to gentrification in San Francisco by increasing the number of older rental properties being made into units that were typically sold to wealthier residents.

-Liam

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

Depends, African or European? --Andrew

So, I can't find any sources that say explicitly what will be done if this passes. How will this rent control be implemented? Is this the government stepping in and saying what you're allowed to rent your own property for? How is that right?

What happens if this passes is that the state's restrictions on rent control will go away.

What will happen in your specific city or county will depend on what that specific city or county decides to do afterward.

-Liam

Should tenants be wary of landlords jacking up their rent prior to the vote (or its enactment)?

So some tenant activists have said this is happening. Here's a link to one example: http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-may-2018-los-angeles-landlord-pledges-to-cancel-1538090659-htmlstory.html.

Many rent control measures have a "look-back" provision to roll rents back to a certain date so that these sorts of things are less likely to happen. -Liam

Has there been much call and/or success in the adoption of ADUs to help fight ever rising rent? It seems that many cities around the country are turning to this as a solution and when implemented correctly without needless restrictions cities seem to love them. Much like Portland.

There has been success here with the adoption of ADUs. Some recent state laws made them easier to build and there was a jump in new units. I wrote about it here: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-backyard-homes-20180413-story.html --Andrew

Has there been studies to show what effects short term rental services like Airbnb has had on rent control? If rent control was reduced or eliminated, have economists factored in these types of recent developments?

I'm not aware of a study specifically on impact of AirBnB on rent control, but studies have shown AirBnB does take units off the market, including in rent control buildings. The City Attorney here in Los Angeles also sued a landlord for illegally evicting rent controlled tenants so they could rent units on AirBnB http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-landlords-illegal-rentals-20160620-snap-story.html

--Andrew

How are you guys doing?

Feeling great! -Liam

Couldn't be better. Bring on more questions -- Andrew

Many commenters are discussing rent control as either an "always good" or "always bad" policy, but it seems like there must be more nuance. Are there certain kinds of cities where rent control would work better than others? In other words, could the effect of rent control depend on other city characteristics (maybe level of inequality, rate of gentrification, or current density)?

Interesting question and unfortunately don't have an entirely satisfying answer. But if you are looking at it only from a tenant's perspective and are also worried rent control would encourage owners to convert units to condos, implementing rent control in non-gentrifying low income areas might not lead to many condo conversions as there's not as much demand for condos there compared to a rich place like Santa Monica. This was a point raised by a tenant advocate on a Prop 10 panel yesterday. -- Andrew

What advice would you offer a young couple looking to purchase property in LA?

It's tough, so I don't know if I have much good advice. Other than to save up and if you can afford the mortgage payment purchase a home, but don't try to stretch with the assumption prices will go up forever. As we learned not to long ago, they do not. -- Andrew

Do you like sauerkraut on your hot dogs? Do you have any pets?

yes. no. a hot dog is a sandwich. -liam

OK, that's all the time our reporters have for today. Thanks so much for all the great questions.