What do you guys think of the following article that was in today's NY Times? If he leaves, that would be huge blow to the firm. He's the single reason why UBS is where it is today.
Kenneth D. Moelis, the president of UBSâ€s investment bank in New York, is threatening to leave the firm, according to people briefed on the matter.
Credited with turning UBS from a small Swiss bank into a Wall Street powerhouse over the last five years, Mr. Moelis has told colleagues and friends that he has begun looking for opportunities outside the bank, these people said.
He has floated the idea of starting his own advisory firm or private equity shop, or possibly joining another bank, but it remains possible that Mr. Moelis could stay at the firm and may be angling for more authority, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak about personnel matters.
Rohini Pragasam, a UBS spokeswoman, said that Mr. Moelis is still with the firm and declined to elaborate.
Speculation about Mr. Moelisâ€s departure has spread throughout the firm and across Wall Street in recent days. On Wednesday, a protÃgà of Mr. Moelis, Jeffrey McDermott, who is one of three global co-heads of investment banking, said that he would leave on June 30 after six years at the firm. In an internal memo, UBS said that Mr. McDermott, who is based in New York, was leaving “to pursue outside entrepreneurial opportunities.â€
The loss of Mr. Moelis would be a stunning blow for UBS, which ranked first in advising initial public offerings globally and seventh in advising on global mergers and acquisitions last year, according to the research firm Thomson Financial. Around Wall Street, Mr. Moelis is known for his long list of big-name clients and for a long history in investment banking, including high-profile stints at Drexel Burnham Lambert, which he left in 1990 after the firm filed for bankruptcy, and Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, where he ran the Los Angeles office.
But Mr. Moelis has had frequent confrontations with UBSâ€s managers in Switzerland, who he believes have not used the firmâ€s balance sheet aggressively enough, especially as the private equity market has grown. He has been embarrassed when he committed loans to clients, only to be told by his Swiss bosses that he could not make the transaction.
Both Mr. Moelis and Mr. McDermott joined UBS in 2001 as part of a sweeping transformation of the firm by John P. Costas, then the chief executive of the investment bank and now the head of UBSâ€s hedge fund, Dillon Read Capital Management. Once he arrived at UBS, Mr. Moelis hired 70 investment bankers during his first three months, pulling in talent from competitors like Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse.
Among them was Mr. McDermott, who was then a managing director and co-head of investment banking for the industrial large-capitalization group at Salomon Smith Barney. In 2004, Mr. McDermott moved to London from New York as co-head of European investment banking at the behest of Mr. Moelis and Mr. Costas.
Charged with helping UBS regain market share in the region, Mr. McDermott fired bankers and instituted a computerized control system to keep track of bankers†deals.
Though his methods alienated some bankers who left the firm, Mr. McDermott helped UBS increase investment banking revenue about 40 percent in 2005.
Mr. McDermott was made co-head of global investment banking in November 2005, along with J. Richard Leamann III and Alex Wilmot-Sitwell. Both Mr. Leamann, who is in New York, and Mr. Wilmot-Sitwell, based in London, will remain at UBS.
it's definitely going to happen. It's just a matter of time unless something dramatic happens and UBS meets Moelis' demands.
I'm curious to know where Moelis will go.
And - will the rest of the superstar team at UBS LA leave with him (Nav, etc.)?
"Other big hitters that are close to Moelis, such as Navid Mahmoodzadegan, head of the media group, and Jeff Raich, the head of M&A, could be flight risks should their Rabbi depart."
what makes you say it is definite? are you basing this solely on the article or is there other information available?
The poster's topic says based on "friends @ UBS."
"People inside the company say investment bank President Ken Moelis is preparing to leave. As they describe it, his departure is more a matter of when than if."
If he leaves, I doubt its to another firm. More likely to start up his own gig.
Big blow to UBS though.
its certainly a big blow to UBS. wonder if UBS LA office is in a bit of an uproar over this?
UBS LA still a worthwhile office to go to if the superstars leave? Who will bring in the deals?
i have the same question... anyone?
but wont be as great as an option it is today. I highly doubt that all superstars will leave at once or at all. I can see many top students choosing other banks over it, but UBS LA won't go away completely off the radar screen.
The fact that they are all generalists might still be attractive, no?
damn if this happens, UBS-LA won't have shit.. i know Moelis' kids go here, and I wonder if they've been gettin a bunch unsolicited questions about this from job hungry kids
Honestly i see two potential ways this thing plays out:
Ken is using this as a ploy to get more leverage and attempts to get UBS to be a bit more liberal with the balance sheet - and he stays.
Ken leaves, starts a boutique and the entire big hitting LA office goes with him (similar to back when all those guys left CS)
Either way, this isn't new news; ken's been unhappy with the tightness of the bank for a long time especially regarding lending.
UBS LA is toast
better start looking for a new summer internship
I honestly beleive that if Ken leaves there wont be enough of a presence to have a decent UBS LA office as Navid, Raich, Spain, Wadlers etc will all go.
Meaning, there won't be a LA office for UBS at all or it will be like 25 bankers.
Who do you think replaces Moelis as president of investment banking?
If UBS LA drops off there goes a huge chunk of UBS' IBD revenue.
CS is also worried about Boutros and Brady if/when Quattrone forms his new shop...
Seriously, when i was a summer there LA accounted for like 25-30% of advisory revenues.
I interviewed with a group of UBS NY also covered in LA and they started talking up the group by bringing up a deal I knew was run out of LA/Moelis. I asked as subtly as I could if the deal was being done in NY or LA, they grudgingly admitted it was an LA deal...
then I'm sure many more of UBS' high-profile deals will be executed out of NYC.
The bigger question is how many high profile deals is UBS really going to do without Ken.
Univision, Harrah's, Hilton, Adelphia, Petco, Albertsons etc. were all Ken / LA deals. Without Ken Moelis, UBS doesn't get these deals.
and Caremark/CVS weren't. I know there were few major energy deals as well, but dont know exact details. But that's only 2 compared to your 6.
Ya well, Ken doesn't do every single deal at UBS, but the point is him and his LA lieutenants do a ton of work for UBS, a lot of it high profile.
this ust goes to show the danger of working for boutiques, or boutique-like offices such as UBS LA - one person leaves and everything goes to shit. That's why GS has been so successful - they count on group name, more so than individuals
made about GS. They don't have one star banker, just bunch of great bankers thats more about the firm.
McDermott said that he thought UBS had successfully penetrated the U.S. market and now it was "steady-as-she goes."
How true do you think that statement holds true if Moelis leaves? McDermott said he would not have left if the market was heading toward a bad spell, because of the responsibilities to people he works with.
Think he knew Moelis would leave and still believes UBS in America is "steady-as-she goes?"
I agree with teh boutique comment, but MS has done a good job with promoting bankers. UBS just doesn't have a deep bench.
It's funny that boutiques always talk about having no conflicts, however, a firm that does 50 deals with 10 counting for the majority of its revenues is, I beleive, more likely to give advise to get the deal done vs. a global bank that has a lot of clients and is more interested in that long term relationship.
I know thats not exactly on topic but an interesting thing to think about.
Moelis' Troops Begin to Leave UBS (Originally Posted: 03/21/2007)
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2007/03/21/out-they-go-moeliss-troops-at-ubs…
interesting...
uh oh
For UBS' sake, I hope they start handing out checks left and right.
Maybe this board will stop wacking off to UBS LA
Maybe. Or maybe there will be a new LA based boutique to do it to.
Anyways, let's see what happens with Raich and Spain.
I find it interesting that this article highlights a departure in NY, when many predicted only LA would experience a diaspora.
and other key MD's will leave the firm. UBS will then poach away bankers from other banks by giving them guaranteed contracts. It happens all the time in banking.
Ya exactly. This is pretty normal. Those FIG Bankers have been rumoured to leave since Martin did.
I think only the LA guys can be truly linked back to Moelis for the most part. Those are his real lieutenants that he arguably made the careers of.
Ya I'd say even longer. Rumours are that ken is going to start a Blackstone west type of model. He's not leaving UBS at all for a bit longer then atleast a year or year and a half to raise capital etc to start up the new place.
On the other side, I remember ex - DLJ LA summers pre sale to CSFB say that it was one of the most opportune times of their life when Ken left CS. You could have the option to have an inside track on Ken's boutique. You could evne still have teh same PE etc opportunities.
Who the hell knows -- generally there are plenty of scenarios, and I think in most of them the current analysts entering, in or summering will be fine.
Just because Ken leaves doesnt lower your GPA, change your background, or skill level acquired at the analyst level. I'd argue its the culture taht makes stellar bankers / analyst programs. (CS LA is still good and has 0 heads of anything )
Well, I agree, but a top guy (if not the top guy) leaving will affect the dealwork (both quality and number of deals) that you get. So while the entering UBS LA analysts and summers are still highly qualified regardless of who leaves, a large part of PE/HF recruiting is the quality of dealwork you've done. I've heard of people in some groups (JPM's lev fin group comes to mind) who didn't get significant dealwork so although having a strong undergrad background and working for a bulge bracket firm, they had a lot of difficulty in securing a half-way decent PE/HF job.
I haven't worked at UBS LA obviously, so I have no idea how vital Moelis is as a single person to the sustainability of UBS LA as a whole (whether the office can survive without him). But as it usually goes, if he brings a bunch of top people with him from UBS LA, I doubt it'd put the entering analysts in a good position at all, since they have no actual banking work experience so they can't leave soon to join a boutique he starts, and if he were going to take analysts right after starting the firm AND he were necessarily going to take them from UBS LA, he would take a UBS LA current first or more likely second year. Anyway, it's unlikely he'd even take any analysts or associates right when he starts the firm. Perella Weinberg had like 2 analysts/associates I believe until they started actually recruiting for them this past Fall. Plus, both of the analysts came about through general interviews among current banking analysts - they were not "asked" by P or W to just join the firm. (I know this because I know a guy from JPM who interviewed for the position but did not get it.)
Not to paint a miserable picture or anything, but I wouldn't want to be working at UBS LA this next year.
I doubt this is even related to Moelis' departure. This had to have been in the works for awhile, as bankers don't just pack up and leave on a whim.
why is everyone so into LA? other than the great weather, that is
Jimbo, another Q would be why isn't anyone sick of NY yet?
seriously. i've lived in a bunch of places...except that i've got so many friends here, there are lots of cities i'd like to live in.
You can make friends anywhere :-)
Pack your bags, move.
i get the wanderlust...do you love travelling as much as I do, aad?
Yes. I do. Unfortunately, past few years haven't traveled much 'cuz I was so self-absorbed career wise. My promise to myself is to henceforth be more bohemian! It's liberating...
Let's quite our jobs and go to Morocco! Let's do it!
i try for a new country every year. may actually get 4 new ones this year.
Moelis does not source that many deals for UBS LA. This last year was probably one of the largest number of deals he has done in quite some time. Though I agree that if Moelis were to take a large number of the top brass with him, the firm would take a big hit, Moelis leaving by itself should have very little impact in terms of deal flow or prestige of the firm. Sure, it sucks for the incoming class that Moelis is leaving, but as westcoasting said, it should not matter for at least over a year. Current deal flow to UBS LA is so large that even if they lost 1/4 of their business they'd be outstripping most other banking offices in the country.
Btw, JPMorgan anything is not a good reference to compare against ubs la - the caliber is quite different, and so has the historical pe/hf opportunities. Looking at CS LA would probably be a better comparison, and they have done just fine. Both have retained a similar DLJ culture which will be strong within ubs even if many of the top people leave, and especially if only Moelis leaves.
is very strong b/c they are all comprised of ex-DLJ guys. These guys were the Goldman (if not better) of their days back in the 90's. Lot of the DLJ guys came from Drexel, which was king of high-yield in the 80's. Smart, aggressive mentality that has been quite successful over the years.
Ya Dav you make a good point. Ken did no sourcing work at UBS LA tho, and had passed of most of his clients to Raich / Navid. I agree that it would blow if Ken took more people with them but you are absolutely wrong if you think the office is going to be 'screwed' because he left. He's been an administrator for a long time and the real fear is he'll take talent with him.
Most people on this board don't realize that UBS LA still has 10 or so americas/global heads; they source a ton of deal flow and do far more deal flow / banker than 99% of offices / groups out there. UBS knows this and thats why they are sending Leaman etc. to go down and settle the troops there. People on this board love to hear hype; and the reality is there s a lot of talent in that office and they still do a great deal of big time deals. Ken leaving sucks - but this is still UBS LA - losing Ken doesn't suddenly make this some middle tier group.
I know - I'v worked at UBS LA, and don't anymore. I have plenty of freinds that do or have worked there. It's not an ideal situation but again CS LA did fine and they have 0 global heads or political influence inside CS ( UBS LA still has the head of M&A, and top producing banker in Navid Mahmoodzadegan, head of media). Look there are guys that came out of UBS LA that did pure selll sides that placed great.... you forget that almost all of PE is ex - DLJ. Leon Black, All the guys at LGP, Jim Momtazee at KKR, Tony Hamilton at Blackstone are all DLJ products and a lot of them worked at DBL in LA.
In fact recruiters never used to come out to LA but the offiices still placed the lights out through internal referrals. Only recently have SG and CPI started to come out to LA because they know that those kids are going to get jobs anyways. I agree with Dav in a regular situation but - this is definetely not a panic YET. Could be if 2-3 of the MDs in that office leave.
Right now there's plenty of work to go around and maybe with Ken leaving the analysts can work 110 hours a week instead of the reported 120+ hr drubbing that I got as a summer analyst. Another thing to think about is the reason the two LA banks are so heavily recruited is because the analysts model from scratch, do so as first years etc. The skill set is key. Guys at Blackstone don't do shit in terms of high profile deals and place the lights out. Outside of EOP where Blackstone was like 1 of 5000 banks on the buyside; their largest deal was the albertsons sell side which UBS LA was on the buyside for. After that Blackstone specializes in crap like fairness opinions, private company transactions and exclusive sales. Hardly the soundings of deal flow that result in 1 KKR, 1 Blackstone and 3 or 4 top funds type of placement.
Look I'm not going to comment on this any further. Guarantee you if you are a 2007 analyst entering UBS LA - don't let anyone on this board tell you anything but you are going to be at a stellar shop and will have a ton of doors open to you. The office places significant importance on intern development; worst case scenario and what Dav says happens (although Ken makes it clear several times that he s going to have a fully functional boutique or nothing) you won't find a shortage of banks looking for tier 1 analysts with top GPAs, top schools and proven records through the interviewing and summer levels.
Snap
And so it begins..
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2007/05/02/moeliss-raid-of-ubs-for-new-firm-begins/
sucks for any new analysts showing up at UBS LA in August...
It's doubtful Moelis will have a boutique set up by August. Access to funds, getting together his men, passing his non-compete, etc. are all going to take plenty of time. If Nav does in fact leave, that'll probably a few months after Moelis as well.
Moelis Advisors is advising Hilton in the HIlton/Blackstone acquisition. I am staring at in the Daily Deal right now.
Looks like Moelis is definitely leaving UBS (Originally Posted: 03/19/2007)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/business/19ubs.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=ajC02um7KqT0&refer=…
Could be bad news for UBS if he takes some hitters with him. Definitely very very bad news for the LA office either way. Focus will inevitably shift to NY if the LA leadership leaves.
Wow...
This is a huge deal. I wonder how the incoming analyst class feels about this?
I think that's a great point. The incoming analysts are in good shape until some of the other hitters start to leave. It takes time to set up a boutique - if Navid and Raich etc are around till next bonus season the incoming class will have a ton of options including the same PE opps and potentially an exit to Ken's boutique.
IF its a mass exodus, then who knows. I'm sure those guys had a ton of options after the summer and ken leaving doesn't make them less attractive candidates in case they want to transfer after a year. I'd assume they are definetely nervous tho as to how the situation is going to shake out.
Some articles have also mentioned that he might go to another bank if he doesn't start up a boutique. If that's the case DB, JPM, and Citi are in best shape to get him since they are more leninent in using their balance sheet for sponsor deals.
I think the other hitters will definitely leave if he starts up a boutique though. If he goes to another bank, then it's a different situation.
I don't think he ll go to another bank. He's about 48 years old and its a good time to start up a boutique and prove himself like a slew of other hitters on wall street.
Also, he's pretty deeply routed in LA - starting up with another bank is going to be a similar role starting a boutique.
If he does tho, going back to Prescott's question, it's the ideal situation for the incoming class. UBS LA has a few VPs who had the option to jump ship when CS bought DLJ (as incoming analysts to DLJ LA)- I'd assume good incoming analysts would be given the same opportunities.
what do you think?
C'mon why would a Moelis departure affect analysts... :-)
but it won't affect new analysts coming in July. Longer-term effects could occur next year, but this year's summer analysts can bolt ship if they choose to for full-time.
I don't think it will affect UBS NYC since most deals sourced their were from NYC MD's.
hence exit ops perhaps? i dont know. hope not.
does anybody know when his resignation goes into effect? will he be staying until june 30th like McDermott, or will he be packed out by the end of the month?
Erosion of prestige and exit ops? Why do you guys worry so much about that?!?
At 21, most of you are simply too young to even know what you want, truly. You might last 3 months in the business or 3 years... you don't know how your interests might change. Why fret over such things? It's all BS.
-Get the best job you can -Expect to sweat your ass off -Don't disregard political capital -Keep an open mind for the future
Should really only affect LA office, but will hurt league tables nonetheless.
Yeah, but if you had offers from other banks, surely now you would consider them more carefully.
Agreed, without a doubt. One of UBS' biggest selling points was that it was the "new and upcoming" bank in America with a lot of momentum, heading in the right direction, etc. Hopefully they can maintain the steam they've built over the past few years.
Still, it's going to take at least a couple of years for Moelis to set up shop and start bringing in deals (just look at PWP, they have only had one deal, MBNA, since Perella left MS two years ago, and it took over a year to formally found the firm), assuming he does in fact choose to start his own boutique. Plus, I always heard that the best thing about UBS LA were the outings to Ken's house.
And aadpepsi, I hope you are being sarcastic about prestige and exit ops not mattering for analysts...
You all are way to young for any of this to make a difference in the medium/long run - work very hard, make sure people like you, learn a ton and gain differentiated skills, and good things will happen irrespective of where you work. The opposite holds true as well.
Yeah, I guess you shouldn't worry about going to H/Y/P/S, and should really go to SUNY Binghamton or Chico St., because really, at age 17, name/prestige really won't matter for anything in the long run, right?
You should worry about getting skills and being good at what you do. To turn your example around, an engineer at Cornell gets more respect than an engineer at Yale.
Name and prestige are occassionally correlated to skills development. The analyst at Goldman or Lazard should, on average, get exposure to better deals than their counterpart at Jefferies or Houlihan Lokey. That said, I just interviewed a 3d year analyst from one of those places, who spent a couple years grinding out $500mm LBOs, and his skill set in terms of managing diligence, deal structuring, contract issues and overall transaction judgment, was far better than the ten guys others from GS, MS, JPM etc. who we met (and trust me, this is a coveted job). Guess who got the job?
My point is to go where you will learn and develop. If you can work for a tier A guy at any firm and have that mentorship or know you will really get real exposure (not just resume padding) to tier A deals, that is more important than name/prestige.
I guarantee you that the kid you mention still considered exit ops. To say you shouldn't worry about opportunities at age 21/22 is slightly misleading, IMO. As an analyst, you will, on average, have about a year before you start looking at other options to pursue once your 2 yrs are up.
And if you look at a number of my other posts, I have always illustrated a very high regard for kids coming out of HLHZ restructuring or ADG, as the number of deals those kids go through almost always trumps their BB counterparts. Thus, I consider these names to be prestigious, and would generally encourage kids to consider working there.
This relates to my view that, at least in my experience, many of the best and the brightest I know have gone to UBS LA. Now that the guy who basically built the office will be leaving (and probably taking a few other senior guys with him), the long-term prospects of that office are in question. Why? Due to the fact that it will not have as many rainmakers as it currently does (who can act as good mentors), which will lead to less deal flow (if Navid leaves as well, UBS LA can say goodbye to their Media/Entertainment clients), which will in turn lead to a worse analyst experience (no deal flow + no BSDs to act as mentor = worse experience). Thus, the same opportunity to acquire a skill set in line with that which analysts at UBS LA have traditionally gotten may not exist.
Whether or not the scenario I laid out above will happen is debatable, but I still definitely think that it is something to consider. To say that erosion of prestige and exit ops don't matter (and that as analysts we should not discuss them) goes against the purpose of this board, which is to provide (hopefully helpful) information.
Prescott, I believe you fully understand what we're saying, yet feigning stubbornless just to be contrarian.
Ok, so it's clear you personally regard prestige as the "IT" factor for success and to work directly under the likes of Moelis and Navid as the career deal maker.
Something to consider is that the mentoring/coaching you will receive as an analyst will not come as much from the likes of a Moelis/Navid as it would the associates and VPs. At the analyst level, you'd be lucky to even get valuable face time with a Moelis/Navid.
Previous generations of Moelis/Navids have left UBS, CS, MS, ML etc. and all the banks recover from super star departures.
Remember, there are also "next generation" Moelis/Navids at each bank...
Is a Moelis departure intriguing? Sure. Does it affect your life. Nope.
For someone considering UBS LA (the outfit, not the bank in general), this news will definately affect his/her decision.
"Is a Moelis departure intriguing? Sure. Does it affect your life. Nope."
exactly. Moelis probably doesn't know/care who you are.
Wow. Well, it shouldn't. That'd be a shame...
To get a really good experience as a junior baner, you need two things: 1) deals. both quantity and diversity, with a healthy degree of complexity built in; 2) the right mentors who aren't MDs, but directors, VPs, associates, etc. who can teach you. Both of these are dependent on quality of senior bankers, and that should be a critical driving factor. Senior bankers bring in the deals, and they attract the quality mid-level guys. I've been in situations where there is a ton of deal flow, and situations there there is very little, and the latter is bad. When you look for a group to work in, start with the quality of senior level talent.
ML, MS, JPM, LEH etc. can all survive the loss of superstar bankers. UBS, I'm not so sure. And its not just Moelis, its Blair Effron, its McDermott, etc. The bench isn't so strong and outside of health care and to a lesser extent media, deal flow is likely to suffer. That's not a good thing.
Prescott, my only point (and it seems like you agree), is that brand name is not so important and its all fungible to some extent. Working with the best bankers and getting great deal experience is critical.
True, but if I'm not mistaken, won't this only affect the deal flow of the Los Angeles office of UBS? Deal flow through NYC, Chicago, Houston won't be affected because Ken Moelis did not source those deals.
Alright...
Let's hear from someone/anyone who intends to SERIOUSLY reconsider a UBS offer (summer analyst, analyst, associate) on account of the Moelis factor.
Consequatur consequatur quis quis possimus quisquam. Fugit rerum nesciunt qui alias impedit in. Nesciunt natus dolores est est minus iste. Alias voluptatem rerum numquam aliquam id.
Aut voluptas aperiam nobis quidem nesciunt. Nihil quod sint rerum id. Qui reiciendis ratione vitae nostrum quod mollitia eaque. Nobis suscipit atque sunt deleniti hic inventore assumenda. Fugiat commodi suscipit amet.
Possimus aut nihil in quod provident et. Recusandae enim nisi optio corrupti. Deleniti eum aut et nemo vero qui.
Rerum est nobis eos perferendis. Fugit expedita qui quaerat libero.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Quaerat sunt ex rem et eligendi et. Asperiores asperiores voluptates ut ducimus quia et qui culpa. Ad accusantium deserunt alias dicta numquam eligendi quia. Praesentium et voluptas quam fuga eligendi.
Sed porro consequatur quos neque quis provident maiores. Eos ut autem nulla doloribus.
Sint qui tenetur nobis laborum. Dicta voluptates doloremque id odio magni ut optio quae. Aut eos et cumque numquam.
Hic maiores quis sequi reprehenderit voluptate quod. Aut sint qui consequatur inventore quo sed voluptas. Id facere minus voluptates adipisci veniam animi necessitatibus. Aut distinctio enim sequi blanditiis velit est vel.
Reiciendis qui neque reiciendis minima temporibus temporibus voluptas qui. Labore rerum assumenda fuga quo consequatur delectus voluptates. Mollitia nobis nihil labore harum quia.
Quos quam dolorem animi fugiat non corrupti earum et. Sequi eligendi ea est aliquid cum quos et. Ea architecto animi iure quas quo voluptas amet voluptatum. Quia quia et odio in nostrum dolores ut. Tenetur optio aut commodi nam et.
Deleniti blanditiis nam error aliquid odit laborum doloribus. Dolor quisquam sunt aperiam atque. Ducimus veniam adipisci explicabo sed quidem eius debitis. Velit qui soluta qui. Dolorum molestiae dolores ex officia autem dolorem. Qui rerum non veritatis adipisci soluta nihil quis.