Expert: Enrique Klix – Launching a SPAC for Aussie tech

Bryce: [00:00:15] Welcome to another episode of Equity Mates, a podcast that follows our journey of investing, whether you're an absolute beginner or approaching Warren Buffett status. Our aim is to help break down your barriers from beginning to dividend. My name is Bryce, and as always, I'm joined by my equity buddy Ren. How are you going? 

Alec: [00:00:30] I'm very good. Bryce I am pumped for this interview. We've spoken to a lot of managers, a lot of CEOs in our formative years of doing this show. This is a first for us, though. First Time we're speaking to the CEO of a SPAC.  

Bryce: [00:00:44] Yes, we've heard a lot about SPACs. If you haven't heard about them, we're about to find out about them. It is our pleasure to welcome Enrique Klix to the studio. Enrique, welcome. 

Enrique Klix: [00:00:52] Hi, guys. Great to be here. Fantastic to spend time with you today. 

Bryce: [00:00:57] So Enrique is the founder and CEO of Integral Acquisition Corp. a Nasdaq listed SPAC. The ticker is INTE. And we're about to find out what all of that means in a moment. But Enrique, we like to start all of these interviews with the same question to understand a little bit about yourself. Can you tell us the story of your very first investment? 

Enrique Klix: [00:01:19] Oh, great. Well, after graduating from uni, I started my career as an equity research analyst, so I was conflicted from many situations, so I couldn't invest in many of the stocks I was researching. So I had to wait a few years until I ended up investing in a Fidelity Fund China fund, which was not the geography I was focussed on. It was a good investment, but returns were not great. After that, when I left the equity research, my equity research role, I started investing in companies that were in the taxpayers. I started early in Google, but more than the tik-tok itself. I think it's important to reflect on my style. I'm very passionate about doing research. I would probably call it that when we took out the SPAC. I'm a great believer in doing your homework and reading financial statements and looking at management, looking at the market they operate in. And in particular, I pay a lot of attention to customer statements, so I don't invest in in a publicly listed company unless I had a look at the cash flow statement. I also look at debt levels. I have some level of respect for PnLs. Most people talk out PnL, but I'm passionate, totally totally passionate about cash, cash and cash flows. 

Alec: [00:02:50] Well, Enrique, before launching this SPAC, you worked as a management consultant and in investment banking. What did you learn from this career? And in particular, what are some of the hallmarks of the best companies you've worked with, both as a management consultant and investment banker? 

Enrique Klix: [00:03:07] Look, they're both amazing environments. I strongly recommend people who want to be in business, either as an employee or at some point start their own businesses to have an experience in these two industries, both in investment banking and management consulting. I learnt skills that are very valuable for the rest of my life. I'm thinking about valuation skills, the network of people you develop, you know, friends that will stay with you for the rest of your life doing business and helping you do business. Fundamentally, you gain exposure to very complex processes and some great businesses across different industries and geographies. But I want to emphasise in investment banking valuation skills, how to interpret and analyse financial statements, and also how to conduct due diligence. Those who wear the skills I gained in investment banking in management consulting, I learnt how to approach problems systematically and how to generate alternative solutions. Also, how to look at problems in areas that were not obvious for a finance person like me, like supply chain operations or organisational structures. And I learnt all that, and I'm finally how to lead large scale transformations. So the great experiences is the common denominator of my best memories are associated with companies that have very strong culture, you know, whether it's how a particular way of doing things, particular way of approaching problems. 

Bryce: [00:04:41] So let's turn our attention to the SPACs otherwise known as special purpose acquisition companies. And for those in the Equity Mates community who are unfamiliar with these, these type of vehicles. Can you explain the mechanics of a SPAC, as well as how these blank check companies, so to speak, actually operate? 

Enrique Klix: [00:05:01] Yeah, look first. You put together the sponsor at the sponsor level you you raise the what we call the at risk capital. The at risk capital is generally equivalent to about between three and six. A cent of the total amount that you're planning to raise at the IPO, then you conduct IPO, so you take the SPAC public. It's a long process that takes a lot of energy and time working with lawyers and accountants and auditors. Draughting the prospectus, I know, obviously at some point meeting investors who will back your thesis. We did that during 2021, started in in February and I ended up going in in November. After you raise your capital through an IPO on most SPACs, these days are listed on New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq. There are other stock exchanges like Amsterdam, London, Hong Kong and Singapore that are trying to catch up. But SPACs is traditionally a U.S. product. So after you raise your money in your IPO, you usually have between 12 and 24 months to find a target. During that period, you talked to many potential targets trying to find the best fit. Trying to find the best situation that will resonate well with the Nasdaq investors or New York Stock Exchange investors. You agree on the terms of the deal. The key terms of a deal are around enterprise value. Minimum cash that you will deliver to the balance sheet of the target. Once those two things are agreed and everyone is aligned, you announced a merger and you start another very legalistic process filing with the SEC, the merger documents. I would say that the two key aspects after announcing a deal are working with the SEC to get the deal approved and the merger approved, but also working with the shareholders of the SPAC, who need to approve the merger and vote on a the approval of the merger. I said, but also, if they want to redeem or not redeem their shares, there's a third leg. If you want to bring additional cash to the balance sheet of the target, you need to work with a pipe. Investors pipe is a private investment in a public entity and essentially new money that gets injected into the balance sheet of of the target, so you need to work on those city areas. The proceeds from from announcing a deal to closing a deal usually takes between three and six months, depending on the complexity of the deal and under kind of questions you get asked by the SEC. 

Alec: [00:07:45] So to summarise that a SPAC essentially inverts the traditional IPO process where a company lists and raises a bunch of money when listing. Instead it with a SPAC. You raise the money first and then you find the company to take public. And the last couple of years, we've seen so much buzz about them. The first part of the question is why are they so popular? But then you've just explained the very administrative and legalistic process and I guess all the headaches and hoops you've got to jump through. Why as a SPAC sponsor or as a company that's merging, why go through this process rather than the traditional process? Well, look, 

Enrique Klix: [00:08:25] there are four big ways of taking a company public right to traditional IPO where you go through a book building process and you need to explore the market and you're at the mercy of some bankers that will determine what the price of your shares a private company will be on day one. The second option is to do a direct listing like Spotify did or selected where you list your your shares on the stock exchange. But you don't raise primary money, you don't raise capital. And that's perfectly fine if you have a brand of of that calibre, but also if if you don't need additional cash in your balance sheet. The third option and it's not very common, I've been involved in a couple of situations like this in the early nineties is the the Dutch auction. So companies like Google or Morningstar went public through a Dutch auction process. Quite complex, and not everyone lives that process with good taste in the mouth. And the fourth option is a merging with a SPAC, right? And the SPACs have been around for more than 10 years, 15, 20 years. So very, very well regulated structure in the U.S. and that's what attracted me. You know, the flexibility, the transparency and the fairness of the structure. We'll talk about that later. But going back to your original question, when you're a private company and you decide to go public through a merger with a SPAC, you avoid what we call the problem of leaving money on the table. And by that, I refer to the situation where the share price pops on day one after the IPO. So say, if you price at 20 and the the share price pops to 30. As an issuer, as a proud, as a company that went public, you left money on the table, but you could have raised more money for the same number of shares or you. Could have issued less shares and reduce the dilution so you less money on the table. Everyone celebrates all of the share price pop from 20 to 30 in my eyes, a total failure because it's with the same information only one day later, you know your asset is worth, in this case, 50 percent more. So someone mispriced your business in the process of going public through a merger with a SPAC. First is is faster, is cheaper. You have more certainty on the amount of cash you raise. And if you are a manager running a high growth tech company, you don't want to be distracted by the tedious process of going public, dealing with lawyers, accountants and auditors. So merging with a SPAC is much easier, much faster. We've done the hard work for them. Hmm. 

Bryce: [00:11:09] Well, let's move to integral one. Your SPAC? Can you tell us a bit about it and how and how this came about? 

Enrique Klix: [00:11:17] I was here in Sydney with with a friend of mine who works in private equity. We are having our coffee in July 2020. Middle of the pandemic, looking at different options, what can we do together brainstorming? And he said, Did you hear about SPACs? I said, No. What are they? Well, basically it's a way to democratise private equity, he said. And I think the word democratises of it overuse. So I was a bit sceptical of the whole thing on the way from from the city to Bond II. When I was on the bus, I downloaded the seminal paper from Harvard Law Review. I started doing some research about SPACs, and I got hooked, totally fascinated again by the idea of being super fair, super flexible, super transparent. SPACs were booming in the second half of 2020, and I said, This is the perfect structure we need to offer in Australia to help some of the tech companies that we see here and New Zealand go public on Nasdaq. I started doing a lot of research as I said, talking to bankers lawyers in the US in November 2020, I decided to raise some capital and we started the process in February 2021. 

Alec: [00:12:34] Your SPAC, while listed on the Nasdaq, is focussed on Australian or New Zealand tech companies. Correct? Why? Why focus over here? 

Enrique Klix: [00:12:43] Australia and New Zealand are a great sandbox for innovation. Tremendous entrepreneurs, great teams, amazing technology being developed here. We've got some of the ingredients at the macro level that make makes this part of the world sensational, like English as a first language. Low inflation access to capital. Low unemployment. Relatively high levels of education. With a big influx from immigrants with strong technical skills that generates an environment that is very fertile for for tech companies. And if something works here, you have a very big chance of making it work in the larger markets like the UK or the US. Obviously, North America in general, Europe Asia is fascinating to see the teams that we come across and the technologies we come across in Australia, New Zealand and our goal is to help them go public and on Nasdaq. 

Alec: [00:13:42] Is there a certain dollar amount of the company that you're looking for or are you just going to put all your chips on the table and try and get Canva? 

Enrique Klix: [00:13:52] Now, look, the rule of thumb is that you merge with a company that has an enterprise value of between three to eight times the amount of money you're right at the IPO. So we raise $150 million US dollars doing IPO. We also have to. FBA is for a total of 30 million. The base will convert into pipes. We took our pipeline indicate. So all in, we think our sweet spot is in companies with an enterprise value of between 300 to 800 million US pre-money. 

Alec: [00:14:29] Oh, waking up? 

Enrique Klix: [00:14:32] Happy to. Remember, I'm very tough on diligence on 

Bryce: [00:14:39] our balance sheet is watertight, so. So with that context in mind through, you know, five to eight hundred million or whatever, whatever it was as you're exploring the tech landscape here in Australia, how is that playing out? What have you learnt? What's the universe of companies that you can be picking from? 

Enrique Klix: [00:14:58] As I said, we're coming across tremendous teams doing amazing things in terms of the technology they are developing or the the business models they are putting in place. We noticed that there is a healthy tension between some founders and VC. We noticed that. Most of the companies that are potentially attractive to us already left Australia so that the centre of gravity moved from Australia or New Zealand to the US and the UK. So they have a, I wouldn't say, a global footprint, but they have a footprint that involves US, Canada, UK, Europe, Asia. So they they change headquarters or they are in the process of changing headquarters, but they still have a strong Aussie or Kiwi DNA. They have strong management teams that are primarily Australian or New Zealand people. So it's no, it's it's going very well. We're very happy with what we're seeing and the tremendous companies who are very I think there are reasons to be very proud of the calibre of companies that are coming out of Australia, New Zealand. Yeah. 

Alec: [00:16:08] And then Australia, you know, traditionally known as a country that digs things out of the ground and serves law to to each other. But are there any industries or sectors that you're finding particularly exciting at the moment or there's a flurry of activity in at the moment? 

Enrique Klix: [00:16:24] I think sectors like fintech are tech at tech and everything that is deep tech. I'm thinking aloud leader quantum computing chips. There are few examples in all those verticals where you see mind blowing teams with tremendous, tremendous technologies. Very good, very healthy cup structures and very healthy cup tables with big names are shareholders that are very supportive. So now, look, it's sensational. But those are the verticals where I would say the most likely winners. 

Bryce: [00:17:04] Yeah, okay. So when you're looking at these Aussie New Zealand start ups and comparing them with the start-ups that are coming out of the US are the key similarities or major differences between those sort of start ups that are coming from the US versus the home-grown heroes here. 

Enrique Klix: [00:17:20] I think in the US and we spoke with a few companies in the U.S., in the U.S., the founders and the board members of those companies are more agile and they are generally quicker to react to market conditions and they don't get stuck in what the market is doing. I'm thinking more about the stock market, right? So they say, look, the market does what the market does. I will focus on what I can control, and they don't get super distracted if the Nasdaq goes up or down or Amazon Drop or Facebook drop all the way around it. They focus on the what they can control. The other big difference is and it happened in very few cases, but we've seen a couple of CEOs in Australia who said I'd rather be a big fish in a small pond. They decided to go public in the local stock exchange because they don't want to have the the governance. The listing cost the accountability and the and the regulatory burden that represents going public on Nasdaq. So yes, they are avoiding all that, but they are also missing the opportunity to talk to US investors in the most sophisticated and deeper capital market in the world. There are very few examples, but a few guys said Now I'd rather be a big fish in a small pond. Keep it simple and move on. It was disappointing. Obviously, we're not spending time with them, but we saw a few cases like that of the absolute minority. 

Alec: [00:18:59] Well, let's keep on that theme. We don't want to start any beef with the ASX, but we got a couple of questions about the Nasdaq ASX. But before we do, let's take a quick break to hear from our sponsors. So, Enrique, before the break, you mentioned that some companies take take the attitude that they want to be the big fish in the small, the small pond being the ASX rather than a fish in the big open sea, which is the tech heavy Nasdaq. So make your case. You know, I'm sure there's Start-Up founders listening to this podcast. Why should the next generation of Australian tech companies look to list overseas via a SPAC rather than stay here on the ASX? 

Enrique Klix: [00:19:45] Is a great stock exchange, right? Let's let's be clear about this. It's one of the best stock exchanges in the world. Very high levels of liquidity. Good governance principles. Good transparency. Sensational. But it's not the best stock exchange for everyone. If you are into mining, into mining services or you have a business that is very much Australian focussed perfect, probably the probably the ASX is the stock exchange for you to list on. But if you have global ambitions and you're trying to attract clients talent and use your equity as currency to conduct bolt on acquisitions, you probably need to think about listing on on Nasdaq or New York Stock Exchange, especially if you want to raise your profile with customers, employees, suppliers, cetera in the US. That's number one. SPACs are a great structure, as I said. Very fair, very flexible, very transparent, very, very great. Struck a very good structures to raise and deploy capital. So if the goal is to promote the creation of capital, well, I can tell you the numbers speak for themselves, right? Like in 2020, we had 240 SPACs. In 2021, we had a five hundred seventy eight SPACs going public on Nasdaq. So that promotes the creation of capital. And it gives AXS the rationale behind SPACs. One of the reasons why SPAC were promoted in the US is because they want to give the opportunity to the retail investor to have access to those great stories before IPO. Right. So if you invest in a as a retail investor, if you invest in a SPAC, you buy your units at $10 per unit. That SPAC will then merge with the next Amazon, the next Google or the next great tech story of the next 20 30 years. And you're the 

Alec: [00:21:40] investor or the next Nikola or, you know. 

Enrique Klix: [00:21:44] Correct. Correct. But absolutely. But at least when you invest in a SPAC, you have the option to redeem and get 100 percent of your capital back. Right. And there's no IPO that offers you that that situation. So that's why I say it's very fair, very flexible and very transparent. In the last two years, I think by last year, 199 companies went public through our merger with a SPAC in the US. So it's a very well tested and tried mechanism. Is it a good idea for Australia? Probably. But if we end up having SPACs here in Australia or New Zealand, the decision for our company to go public shouldn't be influenced by that. The decision is due. The first question is, do you want to go public? Yes, no. And if you want to go public, then you need to choose the right stock exchange. And that depends on where your customers are. Your suppliers are. What kind of profile do want to have? Who are your peers? Are your comparables. So even if SPACs were allowed here in Australia, I think the logical thing to do for many tech companies is to go public on on Nasdaq. I think 

Bryce: [00:22:59] I read that in 2020, something like 50 per cent of the newly publicly listed companies were through SPAC, 

Enrique Klix: [00:23:07] something like that. Yeah, but based on

Bryce: [00:23:09] volume crazy numbers based 

Enrique Klix: [00:23:10] on Dollars. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Yeah, because as I said, it's very fast. You avoid the leaving money on the table problem. And if you are running like there's no tomorrow running your tech company, hiring people, developing software, trying to get new clients, you don't want to be distracted by the IPO process. The merger with the SPAC simplifies that. And so it's it's a product. It's a great part, but not for everyone. And I think we're going to see I think the SPACs are here to stay. 

Alec: [00:23:43] You mentioned there that we've gone from about two hundred twenty SPACs to five hundred and eighty something SPACs. I guess something that people often worry about is, is that too many SPACs chasing too few of deals? So I'd love to get your thoughts on that, but you've kind of avoided that problem because you're focussing here on Australia and New Zealand, and there's not too many people looking at our little corner of the world. There are, I think we had a look. I think there's two other SPACs founded by. Entrepreneurs looking at this part of the world. So how do you think about competing with those? Those are the two for the right deal here in Australia. 

Enrique Klix: [00:24:22] The big substitute, not so much the competition, but the substitute is the opportunity for some private companies to go public on Nasdaq or NZ X, right? So that is that is the first hurdle we need to jump. Then when it comes to inverted commas competing with those bags, almost every every SPAC out there has the opportunity to merge with with our company in Australia, right? There are no legal limitations. The SPAC from the Catch a group, but groves, they are based. The headquarters are in Malaysia and Singapore. They have a very strong presence in Southeast Asia. They only mention Australia in their prospectus. Our point of differentiation is that we are the only SPAC with boots on the ground. Yeah, right? We are the only SPAC in with Australian investors in the sponsor capital. We are the only spark with an Australian team. Four of our directors are based in in Australia. One is based in San Francisco. And we're doing this for a living. The other SPAC that you're referring to, I think Matt is is an advisor to the SPAC. So it's I think that's just a small difference there. Yeah, yeah. You know, 

Alec: [00:25:38] feels like he got a pretty clear playing field here. Is that how it feels to us? [00:25:42][3.9]

Enrique Klix: [00:25:44] We'll see. We'll see. We're not relaxed. I think we need to be very sharp on our toes. Don't take anything for granted. It is competitive. But but we are very optimistic but very, very optimistic, especially because of the calibre of companies who are coming across. Very optimistic. [00:26:06][21.9]

Bryce: [00:26:07] So you've painted a pretty great picture or rosy picture of why SPACs are a great vehicle. So let's have a chat about investing in them as a retail investor. Yeah. You know, we've seen over the last year or so, a couple of years, a lot of hype around then we've seen celebrities get into the SPAC game. Shaquille O'Neal, Serena Williams. 

Alec: [00:26:27] Yeah, like ex-politicians, politician and stuff 

Bryce: [00:26:30] romps in on the gay 

Alec: [00:26:32] people you wouldn't expect to be. 

Bryce: [00:26:34] I know. And then you've seen some pretty big name investors, Chamath pumping up his SPACs. Bill Ackman a lot of hype. A lot of money away 

Alec: [00:26:43] from Warren Buffett to do a SPAC. 

Enrique Klix: [00:26:45] Maybe some some relatives of him are involved in this package. Yes. Oh, really? Yeah, there you go. 

Bryce: [00:26:51] There you go. Not surprised. So so that then begs the question what are some key considerations that we should be thinking about as a retail investor when looking at these SPACs that are being listed? And how do we choose one from the other? Should we be looking at the team behind the SPAC deal? Talk us through that sort of process and what we should be thinking about. 

Enrique Klix: [00:27:11] Probably the best question so far. Fantastic. I would say, first of all, when you invest in in a SPAC at the moment of the SPAC going public, look at the team and look at the experience of that team in that particular hunting ground that they define, usually SPACs to find other. OK, I'm going to look for a target in this industry or this geography or a combination of both, right? So what is the relevant experience of the of the sponsor of the of the board members of the CIO in that particular area of expertise that defined us? We're going to be hunting here. That's number one. The second point is when a SPAC announces a merger with a private company and then the analysis or the key things to to look at are no different to any other investment. What are the terms of the deal? Right. So if the SPAC is validating stupid multiples, then redeem your shares. Simple as that. Don't be part of a bad decision. The SPAC is not responsible for running the company it merges with. Right. So SPACs are very friendly towards the management team of the targets, the founders. They stay in charge and run the companies. The SPACs, as I said before, they provide a vehicle to go public faster and more efficiently. But they don't run the company. If you think that the implicit multiples of the proposed merger are very high, then don't touch it. As simple as that, independently of what industry, technology or high profile personalities involved in in the last few months, we are seeing that redemption levels are high or higher than in the past. And we're seeing that some deals are being pulled out. You know, people pull the pin on some deals, and that's a lagging indicator of deals that were announced six months ago at valuations that are no longer the right ones. It's logical to to expect that people say, look, I don't want to be part of that deal, so I redeem my shares. I don't want to keep my cash in that great company, but at the wrong valuation or be, I think I have better uses for my cash at the end of the day. One of the key differences between going public as a private company, going public through a merger with a SPAC called the traditional IPO is that when you go public through a merger with a SPAC, you can show projections of your business when you go public, the traditional IPO, you cannot disclose projections, right? When you go through a merger with the SEC, you can because there are two companies merging and the the shareholders of the SPAC need to understand why this pack is merging with a private company. When you do a 

Alec: [00:30:02] traditional IPO in your prospectus, you publish forecasts 

Enrique Klix: [00:30:06] and not in the US. 

Bryce: [00:30:07] All right. Really? He is going blind. 

Enrique Klix: [00:30:10] No, you present historical numbers. Yeah. But you don't have a forecast of five or six years like you like you do in in when you merge with a SPAC took off. And that's surprising. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So you have access to projections. The management team of the private companies responsible for delivering on the back of those projections, the SPAC was smart or stupid at validating certain multiples of four for a particular transaction. The other the other different thing about SPACs versus traditional IPOs is that in when you merged with a SPAC, you can put an Aaron out team, plays for the founders or the managers of the private company that you cannot have with the traditional IPO, right? It's know good, good carrot for the managers of the private company to do well. And you know everyone wins, right? Because usually the incentives are associated with reaching a certain share price, et cetera. 

Alec: [00:31:09] Why would a manager like, let's say, it's a founder led company they still have control? Why would they agree to an earn out and going through a SPAC, rather than not having to deal with hitting KPIs and just do a traditional IPO? 

Enrique Klix: [00:31:23] Well, mainly for the reasons we mentioned, the super busy running the business said, I want to get distracted. They don't want to have egg on their face if the share price pops on day one and they say, Why the hell did you? Did you validate the price of coal at 20 dollars and with the same information, the same company? The next day it was trading at 30. So someone mispriced your business? Yeah. And with the earnout, you have the opportunity as a manager, you have the opportunity to have skin in the game and monetise the results of your great efforts. 

Alec: [00:32:00] I feel as retail investors, when the SPAC announces the company they're going to merge with, correct analysis becomes a little bit easier. You look at the company, do I like the company? You also think about what's the likelihood of the merger going through is the a deal risk in the same way that you would looking at a merger of two public companies or two companies in general, that if you take a step back and you think about the SPAC when it's freshly launched and you have no idea who they're going to merge with. You mentioned the key thing to look at is the sponsors of the SPAC. Who's managing it? You know, in the case of your SPAC, you and your team, we would look at your experience, would listen to this podcast, hopefully multiple times. Absolutely. Are there any other things that retail investors should be thinking about? And in particular, are there any red flags that you notice of SPACs that maybe retail investors should be steering clear of? 

Enrique Klix: [00:32:57] Well, first of all, if you think that the team behind the sponsor doesn't have what it takes to to be a good hunter for great opportunities, then don't invest, right second. And one thing that wasn't mentioned before is that when a SPAC announces a merger with a with a target, they generally disclose which other comparables and at what trading multiples they're trading. So one thing to look at and you asked me specifically are any red flags. Usually when a SPAC in my eyes. Right? When a SPAC announces a merger and they don't disclose comparables or the trading multiples of those comparables, usually they are overpaying or some people believe that they could be validating a very high valuation that will not be supported by great financial performance after completing the merger. So I like the merger situations where you have very good comparability versus peers. And also, I like the situations when there is a pipe in place, ideally that the pipe will act as a backstop to potential redemptions. So. Those are the things I look at. Okay. And and if you see, I know now that's another very good thing to have. 

Bryce: [00:34:20] Well, Enrique, we have unfortunately run out of time. We've got the three final questions that we always finish with. But I think firstly, just a thank you. If people would like more information on what you're doing or integral one, what would be the best place to go? 

Enrique Klix: [00:34:38] Look, we replied to every email we get. 

Bryce: [00:34:41] Really, you are. Yeah, you're opening a can of worms. 

Enrique Klix: [00:34:44] Yeah. So the best way to contact us is by email the info@IntegralAcquisition.com, and our commitment is to reply to all emails. Yes, that's 

Bryce: [00:34:57] also our commitment. 

Enrique Klix: [00:34:59] Whether that pans out. Yes, that's one. Yeah. 

Alec: [00:35:04] Well, let's start with books. Do you have any any books that you consider must reads? 

Enrique Klix: [00:35:12] First of all, many of the books that were already mentioned in this podcast are fantastic, right? If you go to the Equity Mates website, you see them all. And in particular, I'm thinking out good to great from Jim Collins or thinking fast and slow or factfulness or shoe dog does have books that I really recommend. But I want to make a small contribution by mentioning three new books. One is valuation by Tom Copeland. Anyone who is interested in how to value businesses, how to look at cash flows, how to look at financial statements should read that book is very well written, is a classic, has been around for more than 20 years. Then a great book that I read about 12 years ago is mastering the Rockefeller Habits by Bernie Hamishe. Very easy to read to the point. Not super academic, very practical, with very good tips on how to implement the recommendations and on how to run a business around the three Rockefeller habits, which were cadence, data and priorities. I'm over simplifying the book, but it's a great book, very easy to read and very useful tool for people running businesses. And the last one is a short history of financial and foria. By Kenneth Galbraith, sensational Canadian economist who was an ambassador, a U.S. ambassador to India, heart of our economist. He wrote many books. One of them are on the 1929 crisis, but the one I'm think I'm talking about a short history of financial euphoria is is simply a must read. If you want to be involved in the markets, you need to read that book. Yes, absolutely recommended. 

Alec: [00:37:00] You will add all three of those books to our website. I think they're all new ones, so appreciate that we love understanding, well, what makes the best companies, what you know, what makes them tick and how they're created. So forget valuation or what they're trading at today, just purely based on what the company is. What's the best company you've ever come across? 

Enrique Klix: [00:37:23] Look, I'm very fortunate I work across a number of industries and geographies. I advise many clients again on across many industries and geographies, so I had exposure to tremendous businesses. But without a doubt, the best businesses I worked with or worked at, the ones that have a very strong culture, and I'm thinking about my first experience working for Salomon Brothers. Tremendous entrepreneurial culture. I can do attitude. The answer was always Yes. I really have a good memory of Salomon Brothers. McKinsey's have tremendous organisation. I had a great time. They're tremendous people, very strong culture. Again, a very good ethos, totally values driven. I think it's one of the best organisations people can can think of. And then I was advising a tremendous blockchain company about six years ago before the crypto craziness. They were all they still are leaders in their field. They're auditors of blockchain technology. They basically audit the code that people write sensational culture, very entrepreneurial, very transparent and numbers driven. So the doors to the businesses are the best ones I came across. 

Bryce: [00:38:39] What is that business? 

Enrique Klix: [00:38:40] Best practise is not to disclose the name of your clients, right? 

Alec: [00:38:46] So no, no, that's all the clues that people have. They can try and investigate it themselves. But Enrique, the final question we like to ask if you think back to your younger self, starting out as an analyst and getting started in financial markets, what advice would you have for your younger self? 

Enrique Klix: [00:39:10] Oof, I hope my kids are listening to this. Take more risk. Trust your guts and make sure you're surrounded by the right people. The most important decision people make is who you spend time with. So make make sure you are surrounded by the right people in every in every dimension of your life. But yeah, those three things. 

Bryce: [00:39:34] Love it. Take a risk. Trust your gut and surround yourself with the right people. Awesome way to finish, Enrique. As we said at the top, we haven't explored SPACs like this before. We've spoken about it loosely here and there, but to go into such detail has been really enjoyable. So thank you for sharing your experience and a reminder that if you are interested in having a look at what Enrique is doing, the ticker is INTE. This is not a sponsored episode. We were just really interested in understanding and hearing it from the industry itself. Well, we thank you very much. 

Enrique Klix: [00:40:20] Thank you for having me, guys. Good luck with what you're doing. Thank you very much.