E204: Going All In: The Risks and Rewards of Concentrated Investing

In this episode I speak with Rafael Costa, who co-founded Across Capital to back category-leading software companies across the U. S. and Latin America. We dive deep on the Brazil tech flywheel — from why the central bank and Pix have accelerated fintech innovation, to the infrastructure winners like QI Tech that are becoming foundational rails for payments, banking and credit. Rafael walks me through Across Capital’s concentrated, high-conviction approach (a ten-company portfolio, deliberate sizing, then backing winners over time), how they underwrite downside protection in growth equity, and what AI actually changes for regulated industries. Along the way he shares practical diligence habits (the “what really matters” slide), how they build conviction over ~17 months, and one piece of advice he’d give his younger self about focusing on the present to compound relationships and learning.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00David Weisburd?

  Rafael, welcome to the How I Invest Podcast.

• 0:03Speaker 01

  Thank you for having me, David. Pleasure to be here.

• 0:06David Weisburd?

  You started your career at some of the really top growth equity firms on the planet. You were at Summit Partners, you were at Vulcan, which was the investing arm of Paul Allen. And today you have your own fund. Tell me about what you're focusing on today.

• 0:22Speaker 01

  Cross Capital really started over a decade ago. It was a culmination of who I am as an individual. I was born in Brazil, been in the US for the last 25 plus years. I'm always investing in technology throughout my career. So I went down the traditional path and as you alluded to, had a great opportunity to kind of cut my teeth into the world of investing initially at Summit and subsequently at Vulcan. And now within a cross, we bring with us a lot of the learnings from those times. And we're focused on banking softer businesses across the Americas. Really started out a decade ago, the thesis for a cross, which was predicated on the fact that I was Brazilian. In Silicon Valley, I saw a lot of entrepreneurs come through here, particularly from Latin America,

• 1:05Speaker 01

  trying to raise money in Sin Hill. And I was helping them think through how to position their businesses for the Silicon Valley VCs. And at that time, I started personally investing in what went on to become the first crop of unicorns in Latin. That gave me conviction. Our timing in Latin made us a little bit of a unique animal in the US, where our portfolio company was seeking us out to help them with Latin America, whether that was on the talent front, whether that was in the business development side. And that was the genesis for a cross.

• 1:34David Weisburd?

  Tell me about the Brazil tech ecosystem. How's that evolved in the last decade?

• 1:38Speaker 01

  Great question. Look, I think Brazil has delivered one of the most successful returns in all emerging markets when it comes to tech. I'll say it's Latin, Silicon Valley, whether you want to look at the McConnell Lee rate of the world, which is 100 billion plus market cap company. New Bank, which is a 60 billion plus market cap business, perhaps one of the most successful fintechs globally. Or others such as Pogse, Seguro, or XP. We have had some in the day also happen down there, but it's fertile ground for innovation. I think the backdrop is a big. Market, a measure both in terms of population and GDP that is extremely tech savvy, both on the consumer side, was also the enterprise side. And we're going, reaching a point where the talent density is there, right?

• 2:23Speaker 01

  We're kicking into this flywheel where we have had exits. We have had folks building 10 billion plus companies and they're on to their second or third go around. So again, it's pretty for the ground for, for innovation in tech in general.

• 2:37David Weisburd?

  One of the undertold stories of Brazil is its fintech and financial infrastructure. Why is Brazil have such high market share when it comes to these fintech startups?

• 2:50Speaker 01

  If you take a step back and you understand kind of how the banking system in Brazil was built, was really built out of chaos, right? If you look at the eighties and the nineties, the country suffered from hyperinflation. That required the banking system to operate in effectively real time with same day, same day settlement. And that kind of sets the tone for a lot of the innovation we have seen and in the Brazilian fintech ecosystem, which is further propelled by a central bank that thinks like a startup, one of the most innovative central banks in the world, extremely progressive when it comes to innovation. What they've done in the last decade is nothing short of remarkable.

• 3:30Speaker 01

  We have had innovations such as PICS, which is the real time payments rail provided by the central bank, which now has a penetration of 80% plus of the adult population in Brazil, whether that's open finance and providing for, you know, data portability, embedded finance and a lot of innovation within, within, you know, the, the financial markets. And then you have other more structural nuances that makes it quite, quite compelling to perhaps disrupt these incumbents, right? You have a very concentrated banking system, extremely high spreads when it comes to credit. There's still penetration to be had as relates to just financial products in general.

• 4:12Speaker 01

  And that ultimately translates into a very compelling market when it comes to innovating on the fintech side.

• 4:21David Weisburd?

  You have a Brazilian company, Qitec, that really powers a lot of the infrastructure and the fintech in Brazil.

• 4:28Speaker 01

  Very fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with the team over at Qitec. It was actually the first investment we did out of the Cross Capital Fund, and we have been spending a great deal of time with an financial infrastructure in Brazil specifically, and the notion being, you know, picks and shovels plays into this massive team I just alluded to earlier, betting the race, not on the horse. In Qitec, what it does is provides the infrastructure that enables any company, whether that's a retailer, a fintech, a shopping mall, a big pharma company, to offer financial products. So think of it as a stripe of that part of the world, but with other elements as well. It is a business that was extremely capital efficient when we had the opportunity to get involved,

• 5:13Speaker 01

  was had explosive growth, growing 200% plus year over year with EBITDA margins in excess of 50%, something that you do not see every day, and still with plenty of runway ahead as relates to the market itself.

• 5:29David Weisburd?

  Tell me the difference between a LatAm fintech company and a US fintech company. How is it different to start a company there versus in the US?

• 5:38Speaker 01

  The way we see it is down in Latin America, you had the opportunity to build more end-to-end platforms. And this is just driven by just the overall market dynamics. If you look at Qitec, you really started out offering much more of a linear as a service product whereby they were providing the infrastructure for traditional companies or fintechs to provide credit. Now we have a banking as a service product, which is checking accounts and payments. Now we have a fund administration business, which also helps custody the funds of clients. So it is building much more of an end-to-end platform, which is very different from the US whereby oftentimes you're trying to solve a specific pain point or going after a big but perhaps narrow market.

• 6:20Speaker 01

  In Latin America, there's an opportunity to build things that are much more platform-driven and platform-oriented.

• 6:25David Weisburd?

  And why is that? Is that the barriers to entry? Is there some technological advantage? Why are you able to kind of verticalize these solutions?

• 6:33Speaker 01

  Resources are just more scarce down there, whether that's capital, whether that's talent. And as a result of that, the winners tend to compound and drive barrier to entry for new entrants. Whereas capital is more abundant here in the US, talent definitely density is much, it's much deeper relative to LatAm. So those dynamics drives some of these forces I just, I just mentioned.

• 6:54David Weisburd?

  And you have very concentrated portfolio construction, 10 companies. Tell me about the strategy behind concentrating into less than a dozen companies.

• 7:04Speaker 01

  Concentration forces clarity in the end of the day. When, when you only get 10 shots, you tend to do deeper diligence, you lend into your edge, right? You, it gives you the ability to partner with companies in a, in a meaningful and active way. So ultimately, it is something that's foundational across our investment philosophy. It's not a mindset of buying call options, right? The, it's every single one of our partnerships are meaningful to us. And that drives alignment with, with the entrepreneur. We don't have a portfolio of 30, 40 names. It's, it's 10 of those, so everything, it's incredibly meaningful to us. It drives a scarcity mindset, which, you know, for us means, you know,

• 7:49Speaker 01

  we need to have, you know, ruthless prioritization, I'll say, on how we spend our time. And that changes the way we source, it changes the way we engage with the companies and changes the way we pick them. So the punchline is, look, by, by only investing into 10 companies, that forces us to be incredibly focused. You know, everything is meaningful to us and we like that alignment with, with our entrepreneurs. And we also like the fact that, you know, gives us the ability to drive, in our view, very good risk adjusted returns for LPs.

• 8:22David Weisburd?

  And you said it forces ruthless prioritization. Why does having a concentrated portfolio change your sourcing capacity or your sourcing function?

• 8:31Speaker 01

  Couple of funnel, we're still talking to thousands of companies, right? But on the middle of the funnel and bottom of the funnel, that's where the ruthless prioritization comes in. Because we are spending a great deal of time with efficiency and speed to get to the bottom of things that really matters on the investment decision. So ultimately, we're spending. You know, incredible amount of time, probably around thirty or so opportunities per quarter where we're diving in and really conducting deep diligence. On average, we get to know companies seventeen months prior to making the investment. So that diligence is occurring over a year and a half period. That allows us to, one, ideally have built a relationship with that entrepreneur and have earned our seat at the table.

• 9:11Speaker 01

  Two, to have the conviction to move with efficiency and speed at the time that they're looking to raise or transact, if you will. We have these top companies that we're pursuing. We're ultimately aiming to do two to four investments in any given year, and we need to focus on the companies that are going to be those two to four. And that is where the ruthless diversification comes into play.

• 9:31David Weisburd?

  It's Warren Buffett that popularized this idea. When you become an investor, you graduate college, you should have a punch card of twenty companies, and you only get to invest in twenty companies kind of throughout your career. And it's this kind of ruthless conviction, I would call it, that you have to be so convicted. I also think there's this bias towards diversification on a fun level that's unnecessary, and that's a very pro GP strategy, not a pro LP strategy. LPs actually want to have high concentration, want to have a basket of highly concentrated names. Those tend to be the best performing funds. You could argue it's not the case for the pre-seed seed, where there's power laws, where any one company, you want a lot of shots on goal.

• 10:13David Weisburd?

  But once you get to a certain stage, you typically want your managers to be highly concentrated.

• 10:18Speaker 01

  Couldn't agree more. And it's actually, it's interesting because I can't speak for LPs, but if you think about it, at the LP portfolio level, they have ample diversification, right? Because you're investing across multiple funds, each one of these funds you're investing in underlying companies that provide further diversification. So they are diversified for all intents and purposes. In our view, as a manager of a fund, we like concentration because of the points I alluded to earlier. And to give you a practical example, our QY Tech, which we talked about earlier, is a twenty percent position in our fund. We truly live by this high conviction, high concentration mindset.

• 10:52David Weisburd?

  Is that a fund returner?

• 10:53Speaker 01

  It's looking like it. We just actually announced yesterday a follow-on round, which marks the fourth time we're investing into the company. We co-ed it with General Atlantic. You know, given where the pricing of that came out, which is close to $2 billion, we first invested in the business at $300 million, is very close to being a fund returner already.

• 11:15David Weisburd?

  I just interviewed John Felix, who was at Wash U St. Louis and worked under the the fabled CIO Scott Wilson. And Scott Wilson not only invested into funds that are very concentrated, but he would meet and his team would meet with the managers and find out their top concentrated positions, whether there was an opportunity to deploy even more. So you had this kind of like ruthless concentration. Now that being said, it probably was still hundreds of positions, but the idea that you have to have every fund be 30 to 50 companies and then you have 20 funds, the math does not justify that kind of diversification.

• 11:50Speaker 01

  Makes a lot of sense to me.

• 11:53David Weisburd?

  We had this back and forth last time we chatted. You believe that growth equity does not, is not about the power laws, it's about consistency and maybe even downside protection. What leads you to think that growth equity is kind of a different asset class than traditional early-stage venture?

• 12:09Speaker 01

  There's different types of strategies within the growth equity. I think growth equity, you know, has evolved quite a bit over the last decade. You could argue there's, what's saying, some of you as traditional growth equity, which is minority investing into high-growth businesses that tend to be capital efficient or profitable. This is how, you know, the likes of Summit TA in the mid 80s were born, right? So you're effectively sitting in between venture and buyout, but still driving returns predominantly through growth and have been a minority investor. And obviously, I think to a large extent, there is venture growth, which is just later-stage growth rounds. And that resembles much more of the growth equity 2.0 than the growth equity 1.0. But to

• 12:53Speaker 01

  your question related to consistency versus power law, particularly the way we think about it, given the concentration of our portfolio, we're much more focused on, you know, consistency of three to five X returns versus chasing something that can be binary, right? Which is chasing the power law, something that could potentially return 10, 20, 30 X will be zero. We're less interested in those. We're much more interested in finding things that we have a extremely high conviction on hitting our minimum return threshold of 3X with. The downside protection, whether that's driven by the state reinvesting, the structural reinvesting, the IP the company has, but we we have high confidence that capital impairment is going to be very low. In fact, now if you look across our track record, we only lost one E1 deal.

• 13:39Speaker 01

  Um, so that speaks to our mindset around downside protection and and being mindful of capital impairment, while still preserving the the the capability of still achieving a five X plus return. Um, so that's ultimately what we're looking for is this notion of consistency. That does not mean that we won't have perhaps one or two companies in the portfolio, in our case, of 10 companies that will drive a lot of the returns of the fund. We just alluded to QITAC being a 20% position and being a fund returner. Obviously, the fund returning component drives by us sizing that position accordingly, which I think is something that we don't talk about enough is how sizing matters.

• 14:19Speaker 01

  Um, and that's, you know, by product of concentration on the return of the overall fund and and portfolio. But I, as a manager, I cannot be chasing things that, you know, could potentially have capital impairment because the portfolio construction does not allow for that.

• 14:34David Weisburd?

  I want you to double click on the sizing component. You're at Summit, you're at Vulcan, you saw the kind of the best practices. Obviously, you invested 20% in one company and you have a 10 portfolio position. So it's roughly double your your average position. Is that basically how you explain your sizing strategy, which is invest even more into your higher conviction bets? Is there more math behind that or, you know, double click on your strategy?

• 15:00Speaker 01

  On QITAC, like like I said, we we invested four times in the business. So we built this position over time. Um, so it was not from the get go that we got to 20%. But from the get go, we did size this position at a 12 and a half percent. That was our initial check. And then subsequent to that, we have increased it to 20% as the company has beaten our plan every single time we have re-underwritten the business. And that's part of the strategy. Part of the strategy is to back your winners, if you will, and put more money in things that are working. And we think there's still on a risk adjusted basis, um, a compelling case to be had to allocate capital to. And I think, you know, QITAC is a is a prime example of our strategy.

• 15:37David Weisburd?

  One of the things that you see a lot in the venture space, growth equity space is this retrofitting of the thesis where you fit your thesis to what the current situation is with a company. And sometimes cynically, that's done to LPs to kind of paint a new narrative, but also it's done to fool investors themselves. So tell me about that. And it seems like you've institutionalized memo writing and assumptions and underwriting outcomes. And how important is that to stay on course with being a good investor?

• 16:08Speaker 01

  For us, discipline is core, right? We're not, we're not in the business of getting lucky. We're in the business of driving consistent returns and having a mythology to do so in a framework by which we do that. And that translates into into system frameworks and processes that we hold internally. So to your point, yes, every time we re-underwrote the business, we looked at the underwriting we did, whether that, you know, top line, bottom line, margins, returns, the drivers of each one of those things, how has it performed relative to plan? Why did it go better? Why did it go worse? Every memo we write, we have a slide that's what we call what really matters slide is really forcing ourselves to pick no more than five drivers of the investment case, right? Ultimately, investment decision

• 16:51Speaker 01

  in our view comes down to, you know, three to five factors. And that's what really matters. And in a very objective way, assessing that. And then as we re-underwrite the business, assessing how those what really matter points have changed. And as in an as objective manner as possible and as quantitative as possible, obviously, there's qualitative assessment that goes into any investment. But that's how we think about it. The second time we invested into QI Tech, I don't have the number top of my mind, but it was, you know, 20 to 30% above our underwriting plan. That gave us conviction to put more money behind the business. The margins actually expanded. We underwrote margins decreasing and suffering from competition was actually the opposite that happened. And as a result of that, we

• 17:33Speaker 01

  decided to put more money into the company. So it's all about having a process, which we're constantly fine tuning. I'll say that. That's also an element of for us is extremely important. That's what makes investing for me really fun and intellectually challenging because you need to be adapting and improving yourself every step of the way.

• 17:53David Weisburd?

  Tyler Sosin, who spent 17 years at Menlo and Excel, he told me that no company ever died because they saturated the market. In other words, if you go in, you saturated market, you execute well, there's always these tangential markets that oftentimes you don't see until you've gone to that level. So I often think about this embedded asymmetry in companies that succeed. A famous case is Karta. They went in, they did the cap tables, and then they did fund admin, and 408 evaluations, and all these different markets. Have you seen that over your career, this embedded asymmetry of if you do execute, sometimes a 3 to 4x could end up being a 1020x? Or is that an extremely rare case?

• 18:33Speaker 01

  The way I think about it is the compounders keep compounding, and the compound is much more powerful than at times you go in thinking about it. And to your point is exactly that, I think, is this notion that these businesses that are foundationally solid with phenomenal teams behind them, they consistently find ways to keep compounding. And in this case, whether that's expanding time, that's expanding products, organically and organically. And I have seen that. I think you are talking something that we're living through as we speak. The business has expanded time considerably since the first time we invested, both organically and inorganically. At times, we see geographically as well.

• 19:16Speaker 01

  So you're operating in one given market, which we underwrote the base case on them just playing that market. All of a sudden, they are playing regionally or globally. So I completely buy that. And I think we, at a different sort of level, we see that with the Magnificent, with the Mac 7, right? These are businesses that just have, they just keep compounding, right? It's a flywheel that just keeps getting stronger, whether that's because they have phenomenally sound businesses, which I think is the case, but also talent, capital, products, is a flywheel that just has gotten stronger and stronger. And I firmly believe that. And why I think investing,

• 20:01Speaker 01

  you know, one thing I learned in my career, investing the number one player in a given market is incredibly important, because the value disproportionately accrues to that.

• 20:11Speaker 01

  Number one player.

• 20:12David Weisburd?

  Going full circle to these businesses that compound in Brazil wants to have an advantage. But even the US, even Uber, who would have thought that Uber Eats? And now probably at some point they'll have driverless Ubers. It's, it's almost literally unknowable what the opportunities will come either from within the company or something happens in the industry. When Uber started out, it was just black cars and then Lyft started with their pink mustaches and the peer to peer. And then this unlocked this whole industry. So there is something extremely valuable to staying alive and compounding that I think is underpriced.

• 20:45Speaker 01

  Absolutely, absolutely. I couldn't agree more. And I think just to throw that in here a little bit, I think as an investor, it is almost like the blue sky case scenario that we talked about earlier, the whole notion of parallel within growth and how we think about it. Ultimately, we're investing businesses that have that tail potential outcome of keep, keeping compounding and being the parallel. So we want to have that. We do not want to depend on that. So that's, I think, a very different way. And in fact, when we underwrite, we underwrite cases and we assign probability to them. And also we get to like a weighted probability set of outcomes. And oftentimes in the upside case scenario, if I will, it relies on this, you know, expansion of product, time and future compounding.

• 21:29Speaker 01

  And if you know the best ones, you know, we always undershoot it, always. But you cannot rely on that.

• 21:35David Weisburd?

  Perhaps an obvious question, but what compounds in the market leaders? Is there anything non-obvious that compounds in a market leader?

• 21:43Speaker 01

  Look, I think the obvious one is what is often talked about, whether that's network effects, data, network effects. But ultimately, if you think, you know, in a very first principles thinking, you're, you're ideally investing in businesses that as they scale, the value that they provide for their customers increases over time. And perhaps the cost to serve that additional customer decreases over time. And that drives the compounding effects, whether that's grounded on the data network effects, whether that's grounded in just the social network effects, whether that's grounded on, you know, the infrastructure that they built, what we're seeing now with LLMs and, and, you know,

• 22:25Speaker 01

  the, the likes of, of OpenAI, we're talking about, you know, the compounding effects. I think that's a business that's going to keep compounding for a long time. Why is that? Users drive data, data drives monetization, monetization drives capital. As capital comes in, they can drive more users and drives a five wheel effect and drives the stickiness. And they're able to drive more value with the unit cost of serving that additional user decreasing over time. So that is ultimately what drives this compounding effect.

• 22:55David Weisburd?

  You mentioned AI. How is AI affecting the growth equity space? There's this thesis that in the future, there's only going to be the pre-seed investors and the Andreessen's and the Sequoias writing billion dollar checks. You know, there's this concept of seed strapping where you just raise a seed round and then you don't have to raise more money. How's that affecting you today, day to day?

• 23:16Speaker 01

  It's an interesting, interesting question. Look, I think bootstrap companies have existed for a long time, so that's nothing new. I think that's the reality of it. We talked about the growth equity 1.0, 100% of growth equity 1.0 was predicated on backing bootstrap companies that had got into growth and scale without a single penny. And, you know, why is that? I think it is the best proxy that you have a sound business model and a great team, right? If you're able to get to scale with growth and being profitable, it's you probably have a good business model. You're very good at executing behind it. So it's just empirically very, a very clean way to look at things. So I don't think the whole seed bootstrapping is anything new.

• 23:58Speaker 01

  The way we think about it is like there's tremendous amount of disruption happening. And as an investor, that, that creates, you know, excitement, but that also creates a very dynamic environment that you're investing into, which I tell my team with a lot of landmines, right? Because the, the level of innovation is only speeding up. So what may be unique and, and innovative today may not be the case tomorrow, may be disrupted extremely quickly. So, you know, modes become increasingly important. What we are very, very excited about on the advent of AI is related to growth equity is regulated industries. It's industries, you know, a la financial services, which we just discussed, which are going to benefit from AI in a massive way.

• 24:38Speaker 01

  And perhaps that's driven by efficiency, automation and drive what was a good business to become a great business. But they're not necessarily going to be disrupted by AI. They're going to be enabled, but I wouldn't call enabled, but they'll be sort of propelled by AI. They're going to benefit from AI. And that's what gets us excited because just playing on the. The edge of AI of innovation, I think for us as a, it's just tricky. It's very tricky and that, there you go to the whole notion of, you know, betting on binary outcomes and perhaps having the need to back thirty or forty companies and two of them is gonna pay for the entire portfolio. It's just not the game that we're playing. So we, we tend to shy away from those. Wherever we're excited, it's more regulated industries that will benefit from AI in a massive way

• 25:22Speaker 01

  and teams are adapting that in, in very quickly.

• 25:25David Weisburd?

  So we've known each other since my senior year in college, your freshman year. So we go way back.

• 25:31David Weisburd?

  If you could go back and give yourself advice when you were graduating from college and starting at Summit Partners, what would be the one piece of advice that you could give yourself that would accelerate your growth in your career? And maybe avoid mistakes as well?

• 25:44Speaker 01

  It's a great question. I think, look, focus more on the now and, and just make sure that you are, you know, oftentimes I think a lot of individuals, myself included, that tends to be ambitious, that tends to be, you know, a builder, if you will, you tend to focus a lot in the future and kind of how to maximize the future. And you don't realize the future is being built now. So focusing more on the now, whether that's on the networking piece, which is incredibly important and obviously that only compounds with time. I think now that I'm, you know, fifteen years in my career, I'm still crossing paths with you, as you alluded to. We met each other, you know, I was a freshman in college and here we are, having this conversation. So these, these relationships compound, whether that's also on the learning, learning today that will compound.

• 26:28Speaker 01

  So say to some of it always focus more on the now. I, I think oftentimes I was so caught up with what the next step may be, whether that's my career or my learning, on the investing. And I lost sight at times that, you know, the fu, the future depends on what I do today and today is the most important thing that I can do. So be ruthless about today.

• 26:47David Weisburd?

  I've tried to a little bit focus on the now. I, I still respect my future thinking, but sometimes it's like, let's celebrate this, like, let's celebrate this milestone. Yes, it doesn't mean that we're done. It doesn't mean that we're at the finish line, but let's take the time to celebrate this milestone because that'll only motivate us more in the future.

• 27:04Speaker 01

  Yeah, couldn't agree more.

• 27:05David Weisburd?

  What would you like our listeners to know about you, about across capital or anything else you'd like to share?

• 27:10Speaker 01

  Ultimately, a cross is built on conviction and I think we covered this on craft and on our cross border insight. We're looking to forge meaningful relationships, which I think is the best kind of relationship where you're mutually meaningful to one another. And that translates into 10 partnerships where we can be relevant and additive partners to them. We're builders first, investors second. We're not in the business of chasing momentum or things. We're in the business of building

• 27:38Speaker 01

  businesses for the long haul. That's ultimately what we stand for and who we are. The final piece is we value a lot the personal relationships. I think this is something that oftentimes gets lost. This is notion that great businesses are built by people and you want to be in business with people you're enjoying. Enjoy being in business with and we value that component of it quite, quite a lot.

• 28:02David Weisburd?

  Well, I value my relationship with you. It's 18 years and counting probably in a couple of months. So I appreciate you being my friend and jumping on podcasts.

• 28:10Speaker 01

  Appreciate it, David.

• 28:11David Weisburd?

  Thanks, Rafa. Thanks for listening to my conversation. If you enjoyed this episode, please share with a friend. This helps us grow. Also provides the very best feedback when we review the episode's analytics. Thank you for your support.