WEBVTT - And the Winner Is... 0:00:06.120 --> 0:00:06.840 Welcome to trillions. 0:00:06.840 --> 0:00:09.319 I'm Joel Webber and I'm Eric Balchunis. 0:00:11.560 --> 0:00:14.840 Awards season Eric at ETF dot Com. I didn't know 0:00:14.880 --> 0:00:20.160 that this exists, but every year there are ETF industry awards. 0:00:20.440 --> 0:00:21.200 Yeah. 0:00:21.400 --> 0:00:24.480 ETF dot Com was once known as Index Universe. They're 0:00:24.560 --> 0:00:26.439 kind of the ogs of being on top of the 0:00:26.480 --> 0:00:30.120 ETF industry in my opinion, and ETF dot Com has 0:00:30.360 --> 0:00:33.839 ETF Awards and yours truly is a judge. 0:00:33.920 --> 0:00:35.680 I think I've been a judge for two or three years. 0:00:36.200 --> 0:00:39.640 So it's kind of fun getting to vote that. The 0:00:39.720 --> 0:00:42.479 nominees are all logical to me. Every now and then 0:00:42.520 --> 0:00:44.599 one squeezes in that's like the indie feel good hit 0:00:44.640 --> 0:00:47.120 of the year. Then there's some of the more standard ones. 0:00:47.159 --> 0:00:49.360 It's really a lot like the Oscars, to be honest 0:00:49.360 --> 0:00:51.800 with you, and usually there's a there's a surprise or two, 0:00:52.440 --> 0:00:55.960 there's a Lifetime Achievement Award, Best New ETF, Best Ticker. 0:00:57.000 --> 0:00:57.640 It's really fun. 0:00:57.680 --> 0:00:59.400 You know, most people when they hear that, they're like, 0:01:00.080 --> 0:01:02.760 come on, there's an ETF Awards show, and of course 0:01:02.800 --> 0:01:06.039 there is, yeah, but this industry just it just feels 0:01:06.120 --> 0:01:08.200 right for this industry for me, so I get it 0:01:08.319 --> 0:01:09.280 and I think it's fun. 0:01:09.600 --> 0:01:12.160 So we're gonna go through just a handful, a couple 0:01:12.200 --> 0:01:17.679 of handfuls of the recipients, the award winners and joining 0:01:17.760 --> 0:01:20.640 us from ETF dot com. We've got Kristin Myers who's 0:01:20.680 --> 0:01:23.880 the editor in chief, and Lucy Rooster, the financi reporter 0:01:25.200 --> 0:01:31.520 best time on Trillions. And the winner is Kristin Lucy 0:01:31.560 --> 0:01:32.319 Welcome to Trillions. 0:01:32.760 --> 0:01:34.920 Thanks so much for having us, Thank you for having us. 0:01:35.200 --> 0:01:38.480 Okay, how many years has this been happening? 0:01:39.440 --> 0:01:42.920 So the awards have been happening ten years running, but 0:01:43.040 --> 0:01:46.120 this is about the second or third awards, I would say, 0:01:46.120 --> 0:01:49.400 really since we kind of had this huge brand relaunch 0:01:49.440 --> 0:01:50.480 of ETF dot com. 0:01:50.520 --> 0:01:54.960 Okay, and there's there's a ton of categories, seventeen different categories. 0:01:55.120 --> 0:01:59.160 We're going to go over ten or so. I think 0:02:00.120 --> 0:02:02.080 how many finalists were there? 0:02:02.240 --> 0:02:08.120 Nominee nominees, So we got about seventeen hundred nominees if 0:02:08.200 --> 0:02:10.400 I remember it definitely was over fourteen hundred. 0:02:11.240 --> 0:02:12.720 Is it just people nominating themselves? 0:02:12.720 --> 0:02:15.560 Though you can nominate yourself, you can only nominate yourself once, 0:02:15.600 --> 0:02:18.520 So we do actually strip out the multiple nominations that 0:02:18.639 --> 0:02:22.200 do inevitably come up. And then we as the editorial team, 0:02:22.200 --> 0:02:26.240 whittled that down to eighty five finalists essentially, and then 0:02:26.280 --> 0:02:29.079 we kicked it over to Eric and six other judges 0:02:29.120 --> 0:02:31.799 who took that eighty five and brought that list down 0:02:31.840 --> 0:02:32.440 to seventeen. 0:02:32.520 --> 0:02:34.280 I had to have been pretty desperate for Eric to 0:02:34.360 --> 0:02:35.200 get invited back. 0:02:35.320 --> 0:02:38.119 I just voted for my friends. Yeah, I really try 0:02:38.160 --> 0:02:38.840 to be objective. 0:02:39.040 --> 0:02:41.239 And Bloomberg, by the way, was nominated for a couple 0:02:41.240 --> 0:02:44.560 of these categories. Well just one one. You abstained from 0:02:44.639 --> 0:02:48.720 that category. Yeah, and we got shut out. So giving away. 0:02:48.800 --> 0:02:50.600 Shutouts a little rough. I don't know how many of 0:02:50.600 --> 0:02:52.240 the six Voueah, we didn't get that. We didn't get 0:02:52.240 --> 0:02:52.560 that aword. 0:02:52.560 --> 0:02:55.400 Okay, all right, that was the disclaimer. Okay, we're going 0:02:55.440 --> 0:02:59.400 to start with best New Active ETF and we're going 0:02:59.480 --> 0:03:03.200 to go kind of like reverse to end with ETF 0:03:03.240 --> 0:03:06.200 of the Year. So best New Active ETF. I don't 0:03:06.280 --> 0:03:08.280 is that like the best Supporting actress or something? 0:03:08.280 --> 0:03:10.000 Maybe Eric, I'd say, so, Yeah, this is a this 0:03:10.080 --> 0:03:11.760 is a This is a big one because active is 0:03:11.760 --> 0:03:14.280 the big deal. The whole industry is just loving that 0:03:14.360 --> 0:03:16.679 active is getting popular. To me, this is one of 0:03:16.680 --> 0:03:18.320 the hotter categories, and who won. 0:03:18.200 --> 0:03:22.480 That, Lucy, Yeah, absolutely, the Best New Active ETF went 0:03:22.480 --> 0:03:27.839 to the AB Disruptors ETF ticker f w D And yeah, 0:03:27.840 --> 0:03:30.840 as we all know, AI was a huge story of 0:03:30.880 --> 0:03:33.360 the past year, so it made sense they won. But 0:03:33.400 --> 0:03:37.640 it was a competitive category. I mean, Panagram was nominated there, 0:03:38.240 --> 0:03:43.160 uh ETF ticker cls o Z the Fidelity Disruptive Technology 0:03:43.200 --> 0:03:48.240 ETF fd t X. Yeah, but the winner was the 0:03:48.280 --> 0:03:49.040 AB Disruptor. 0:03:49.120 --> 0:03:51.840 And you all don't know how close this was. 0:03:52.280 --> 0:03:54.840 We don't, and I should because people ask me this 0:03:54.920 --> 0:03:57.760 question and have asked this question quite a lot. We 0:03:57.840 --> 0:04:00.840 obviously know why we took the list down from more 0:04:00.880 --> 0:04:03.840 than one thousand down to eighty five, but when it 0:04:03.880 --> 0:04:07.400 comes to the final five noms in any of the categories, 0:04:07.440 --> 0:04:10.080 because we have about five in every single category, we 0:04:10.200 --> 0:04:13.000 actually don't know how the judges are actually voting. What 0:04:13.120 --> 0:04:17.240 makes one ETF or one fund really kind of clinch 0:04:17.320 --> 0:04:19.960 that top spot over another one. So Eric, I'm actually 0:04:19.960 --> 0:04:22.479 curious to know when you're looking at a category like 0:04:22.560 --> 0:04:26.440 best Active, Best New Active, what is something that kind 0:04:26.440 --> 0:04:28.000 of stands out to you above the others. 0:04:28.680 --> 0:04:32.400 I try to look for something that's either novel pushes 0:04:32.440 --> 0:04:35.240 the envelope in something like this because active is sort 0:04:35.240 --> 0:04:40.039 of a newer space, or if something punches a little 0:04:40.040 --> 0:04:43.040 above its weight, maybe it's more organic the flows rather 0:04:43.080 --> 0:04:45.200 than say just because they have a lot of distribution. 0:04:45.800 --> 0:04:48.520 So I tend to not vote for like the comic 0:04:48.560 --> 0:04:50.479 book movies. If you will, you know, I'm not going 0:04:50.520 --> 0:04:53.800 to vote for the Marvels or whatever for Best Picture. 0:04:53.839 --> 0:04:56.040 That's not my style. So I try to I do 0:04:56.120 --> 0:05:03.440 try to reward innovation and sort of indie breakthrough, and 0:05:03.480 --> 0:05:06.760 then every now and then something's just so powerful that 0:05:06.800 --> 0:05:09.800 you have to just be like, yeah, I can't deny that, 0:05:09.880 --> 0:05:11.080 even if it is the big guy. 0:05:11.320 --> 0:05:13.120 What did you think of this class of nominee in 0:05:13.120 --> 0:05:13.440 this one? 0:05:13.520 --> 0:05:15.479 I can't remember who I voted for, but I will 0:05:15.480 --> 0:05:18.920 say this ab disruptors and fidelity disruptives. I mean, Kathy 0:05:18.960 --> 0:05:20.960 Wood has to be loving this because these are really 0:05:21.400 --> 0:05:24.479 she really blazed that path, and she used to work 0:05:24.520 --> 0:05:27.480 at Alion Spurnstein. In fact, they wouldn't launch an ETF 0:05:27.520 --> 0:05:29.480 back when she was there, so she left to start 0:05:29.520 --> 0:05:32.640 her own shop. They finally launched one, I guess better 0:05:32.720 --> 0:05:35.200 late than ever, So I think she gets a win there, 0:05:35.279 --> 0:05:38.359 and then to me, the most interesting one probably is 0:05:38.360 --> 0:05:42.159 the clo clos are interesting. They have that bad reputation 0:05:42.240 --> 0:05:44.960 from the financial crisis, but they have a lot of 0:05:45.120 --> 0:05:48.520 really good attributes for a portfolio. They were one of 0:05:48.560 --> 0:05:50.440 the best fixed income performers last year. 0:05:50.880 --> 0:05:51.360 Lowvall. 0:05:52.320 --> 0:05:54.839 I'm just not sure how much advisors understand them, but 0:05:55.240 --> 0:05:59.520 that is a hot little area there, so I like 0:05:59.600 --> 0:06:01.320 that some like that gets in there. I like that 0:06:01.360 --> 0:06:03.120 it's not all of the big companies, which the other 0:06:03.160 --> 0:06:07.240 companies are real big. Panagram is like total indie. 0:06:07.279 --> 0:06:10.400 And Panagram actually pops up a couple of times, and 0:06:10.600 --> 0:06:13.080 the in the final NOAMS list. Actually, when it came 0:06:13.120 --> 0:06:15.359 to this year's awards, they did pretty well for an 0:06:15.400 --> 0:06:17.760 indie shop. They've made a really strong showing this year. 0:06:17.800 --> 0:06:21.200 Little Miss Sunshine hmm okay, well let's see if they 0:06:21.279 --> 0:06:23.240 uh Napoleon Diner few somewhere else. 0:06:24.360 --> 0:06:28.359 Best New US Equity ETF. Who is the winner in 0:06:28.400 --> 0:06:29.719 this category? Lucy? 0:06:29.920 --> 0:06:33.479 Yeah, So I announced this category and the Fidelity Disruptive 0:06:33.520 --> 0:06:38.839 Technology ETF take our FDTX one and that was actually 0:06:38.839 --> 0:06:41.640 converted from a mutual fund in twenty twenty three, so 0:06:41.720 --> 0:06:43.800 it was technically a new ETF. 0:06:43.960 --> 0:06:47.479 And that's kind of an interesting little asterisk there. I 0:06:47.480 --> 0:06:50.200 guess like it technically is a new ETF. Yes, and 0:06:50.240 --> 0:06:51.880 we've been talking about conversions forever. 0:06:51.960 --> 0:06:54.320 Yeah, it's more like it was born on third base. 0:06:54.880 --> 0:06:58.720 Yeah. Yeah, And you know it was interesting. I was 0:06:58.800 --> 0:07:02.040 up there announcing it and and there were some booze 0:07:02.040 --> 0:07:05.440 in the audience when we announced the winner of this ETF, 0:07:05.480 --> 0:07:07.320 which was definitely interesting. 0:07:08.240 --> 0:07:11.480 So a couple theories there. I know John Davey was there. 0:07:11.520 --> 0:07:13.200 Maybe it was him because the story was on this 0:07:13.240 --> 0:07:15.960 list John's New Yorker, you know, I could see him 0:07:16.320 --> 0:07:20.840 sort of maybe getting there, and Rex and Roundhill DMO 0:07:21.200 --> 0:07:24.200 was in that category two. But there's a story kind 0:07:24.200 --> 0:07:27.600 of circulating that Fibility is charging a new like a 0:07:27.640 --> 0:07:31.200 surcharge for ETF isshuers, sort of like a fee to 0:07:31.200 --> 0:07:33.880 be on its platform, and it has kind of irritated 0:07:33.880 --> 0:07:34.160 some of. 0:07:34.080 --> 0:07:35.040 The smaller issuers. 0:07:35.440 --> 0:07:40.520 So it's pretty possible that that was them expressing their displeasure. 0:07:40.840 --> 0:07:44.800 But I will say drama, I think, yeah, reward show. 0:07:44.920 --> 0:07:45.520 They need that. 0:07:45.600 --> 0:07:48.840 You know, Ricky Gervais was so good for the Golden Globes. 0:07:48.880 --> 0:07:51.520 He made stuff really kind of and then Will Smith 0:07:51.600 --> 0:07:54.440 punch slapping Chris Rock. You need these moments, I think 0:07:54.480 --> 0:07:57.880 at an award show. So I'm sure fatility didn't like it, 0:07:57.920 --> 0:08:00.920 but I think it's good for you to that level. 0:08:00.960 --> 0:08:02.520 But sure, yeah, drama. 0:08:03.440 --> 0:08:05.200 This is the I don't know the only amount of 0:08:05.240 --> 0:08:07.920 kind of drama you could expect from ETF, dot commo wars. Well, 0:08:08.040 --> 0:08:09.040 like the Oscar. 0:08:10.560 --> 0:08:13.840 You're going to there was you have to lower your 0:08:13.880 --> 0:08:16.440 whole entire standards for the financial industry. 0:08:16.880 --> 0:08:18.080 It is pretty juicy. 0:08:18.240 --> 0:08:29.000 Yeah, okay, okay, next one, Best New smart Beta or 0:08:29.080 --> 0:08:32.080 factor e t F Kristin who won this one? 0:08:32.280 --> 0:08:34.440 Yeah, So the winner of this category was Avantis all 0:08:34.480 --> 0:08:39.640 Equity Markets Value et F. That's ticker A v g V. Obviously, 0:08:39.679 --> 0:08:41.800 we were chatting about this a little bit earlier, and 0:08:41.920 --> 0:08:43.440 I mean, if we go back to just even that 0:08:43.520 --> 0:08:46.080 last category, there has been this push now into those 0:08:46.240 --> 0:08:49.760 active ETFs, right, and so this the best new smart 0:08:49.760 --> 0:08:52.400 Beta is essentially all about that kind of push because 0:08:52.960 --> 0:08:55.600 it's cheap way to get actively managed ETFs. 0:08:56.240 --> 0:08:59.840 Yeah, and Evantis Joel is sort of run by a 0:08:59.840 --> 0:09:04.800 guy who left DFA and it's kind of factory active obviously, 0:09:04.880 --> 0:09:09.080 but this is to me, Evantis is the tip of 0:09:09.120 --> 0:09:13.160 the spear of cheap Active. Active Now, like Avantis, most 0:09:13.160 --> 0:09:16.439 of their active ETFs are below twenty basis points. So 0:09:16.480 --> 0:09:19.000 if you're an advisor, you know they love cheap stuff, right, 0:09:19.360 --> 0:09:22.040 They're willing to buy Active, but they want it sort 0:09:22.080 --> 0:09:25.520 of priced to acknowledge that Beta is free. And so 0:09:25.600 --> 0:09:28.760 as Active goes through this painful process of like Beta 0:09:28.760 --> 0:09:31.400 adjusting their fees down lower, I think they're going to 0:09:31.440 --> 0:09:33.960 sell more and Avantas shows this, Capitol Group shows this, 0:09:34.040 --> 0:09:37.400 JP Morgan shows this. Avantis though, probably deserves even extra 0:09:37.440 --> 0:09:39.319 credit because the type of flows are taking in are 0:09:39.640 --> 0:09:42.520 enormous for a company that it doesn't have that brand 0:09:42.600 --> 0:09:45.480 name of those other guys, So I think deserved here. 0:09:45.800 --> 0:09:51.760 Was that like best animation maybe yeah, yeah, best the 0:09:51.760 --> 0:09:56.520 animated film? Okay, this one, I feel. 0:09:56.240 --> 0:09:57.680 Like like slightly above best editor. 0:09:57.880 --> 0:10:00.840 I'm curious how you're going to react to this next 0:10:01.000 --> 0:10:04.120 next one? Uh, Christian, let's stay with you. Best New 0:10:04.280 --> 0:10:06.080 E S G E t F. Who won this? 0:10:07.280 --> 0:10:09.640 All right? Best New E S G E t F. 0:10:09.760 --> 0:10:12.520 That award winner went to the X trackers M S 0:10:12.559 --> 0:10:15.440 C I U S A Climate Action Equity E t F. 0:10:15.520 --> 0:10:19.600 That ticker is U S c a really interesting category 0:10:20.120 --> 0:10:22.320 for this one. And Lucy, I know you have a 0:10:22.360 --> 0:10:24.240 couple of thoughts. She was talking about E s G, 0:10:25.120 --> 0:10:29.160 E t FS recently. Everyone loves to hate E s G. Well, 0:10:29.160 --> 0:10:31.600 they love to hate ESG period, and they really love 0:10:31.640 --> 0:10:32.240 to hate ESG. 0:10:34.600 --> 0:10:37.120 Yeah, Eric kicked it off. 0:10:37.520 --> 0:10:39.679 Yeah, he was critical people are growing. 0:10:40.960 --> 0:10:44.760 Well, it's interesting because this one, you know, has accumulated 0:10:45.360 --> 0:10:48.160 one point five billion in assets over a time period, 0:10:48.200 --> 0:10:52.360 where over all the category has been seeing that outflows closures. 0:10:54.280 --> 0:10:58.360 Eric, I hate. 0:10:58.440 --> 0:11:01.600 Because this was long and I Shares launched one climate 0:11:01.640 --> 0:11:06.520 action for this European institution who is currently in two 0:11:06.760 --> 0:11:09.200 who had seated and I shares in a X trackers 0:11:09.559 --> 0:11:13.480 one that was called ESG for whatever reason, and they're 0:11:13.520 --> 0:11:14.440 both sensitive about this. 0:11:15.160 --> 0:11:16.160 They didn't like ESG. 0:11:16.720 --> 0:11:19.959 So these two firms came out with climate action and 0:11:20.000 --> 0:11:22.480 the firm simply moved all their money out of the 0:11:22.679 --> 0:11:25.600 ESG ones into the climate action one. So my interpretation 0:11:25.800 --> 0:11:29.040 was that ESG, the term, is getting a lot of 0:11:29.040 --> 0:11:31.560 baggage and people would rather be in something they didn't 0:11:31.600 --> 0:11:33.640 have that in the name to avoid all the controversy. 0:11:34.000 --> 0:11:36.520 And so in a way this should win because it 0:11:36.720 --> 0:11:39.640 is indicative of what we call the rebranding of ESG. 0:11:39.760 --> 0:11:42.520 Yeah, so this is what I love about the ETF 0:11:42.559 --> 0:11:44.680 dot Com awards. Just I mean to kind of take 0:11:44.679 --> 0:11:47.320 a broader look for a really quick second, because so 0:11:47.320 --> 0:11:48.679 many of these awards, even though it was in the 0:11:48.720 --> 0:11:51.080 year twenty twenty four, we were looking at the performance 0:11:51.320 --> 0:11:53.640 and everything like that for the year twenty twenty three. 0:11:53.720 --> 0:11:56.000 So these awards are in a way a look back, 0:11:56.320 --> 0:11:58.760 but they're also a really nice way to also look forward. Right, 0:11:58.840 --> 0:12:01.000 you kind of can see that trends and where the 0:12:01.040 --> 0:12:03.800 market is going and how investors are thinking with these awards. 0:12:04.080 --> 0:12:07.559 But to Eric's point about how ESG kind of is 0:12:07.600 --> 0:12:10.160 almost like a scarlet letter for a lot of folks, 0:12:10.160 --> 0:12:13.000 and so there's but they are. It is ESG, though, 0:12:13.080 --> 0:12:15.440 I mean by its definition, if you think about what 0:12:15.720 --> 0:12:18.440 ESG really stands for, I mean that is essentially what 0:12:18.480 --> 0:12:18.840 it is. 0:12:19.200 --> 0:12:22.120 Interesting if you look at these nominees, I mean barely 0:12:22.640 --> 0:12:24.920 they don't even have ESG in the name of the funds, 0:12:24.920 --> 0:12:26.679 And I think it goes to what you're saying is, 0:12:26.720 --> 0:12:28.160 you know, I think a lot of firms are kind 0:12:28.160 --> 0:12:32.160 of putting the ESG label out's pasture because they're aware 0:12:32.360 --> 0:12:37.360 of the baggage that's coming along with it, but you know, 0:12:37.520 --> 0:12:41.720 it's how much are the actual strategies going to transform 0:12:41.800 --> 0:12:44.080 orre They kind of just dropping the label. 0:12:44.400 --> 0:12:46.520 It is interesting that none of the nominees in the 0:12:46.640 --> 0:12:48.800 SG had ESG in the name. Yeah, none of them 0:12:49.240 --> 0:12:51.000 and yourself, I may put that in a note That 0:12:51.080 --> 0:12:53.240 is really interesting and kind of proves our take, which 0:12:53.280 --> 0:12:55.800 was we thought and ESG is going to live on. 0:12:55.960 --> 0:12:58.160 I think it's going to be one two percent of assets. 0:12:58.280 --> 0:13:00.000 They're going to try all these different kinds of names. 0:13:01.160 --> 0:13:03.520 Smart Beta went through this when smart Beta was popular. 0:13:03.679 --> 0:13:06.160 Everybody hated the name smart. They're like, it's not always smart, 0:13:06.200 --> 0:13:07.839 and it was a whole thing, and then it kind 0:13:07.840 --> 0:13:10.000 of found it's like niche, and people moved on to 0:13:10.040 --> 0:13:12.720 the next hot thing. ESG, I think, is going into 0:13:12.720 --> 0:13:15.000 that space of just okay, it exists, we don't need 0:13:15.040 --> 0:13:17.679 to debate it much anymore. The one that didn't win 0:13:17.720 --> 0:13:20.880 this is the carbon neutral power futures. That's kind of 0:13:20.880 --> 0:13:24.679 an interesting one. It's like electricity futures droll, not exactly ESG, 0:13:24.800 --> 0:13:26.600 more of a play on the. 0:13:26.520 --> 0:13:29.160 Actual electricity market. Another I think I might have voted 0:13:29.160 --> 0:13:31.680 for that one and vets as well, and vets another one. 0:13:32.200 --> 0:13:36.320 Heat TOUCHSDOWNE Climate TRANSITIONINGTF. I'm gonna use that as a 0:13:36.320 --> 0:13:39.600 way to transition us into the new ETF Ticker of 0:13:39.600 --> 0:13:43.240 the year. Heat shows up not only in Best New ESG, 0:13:44.080 --> 0:13:47.440 it also was nominated for Best ETF Ticker of the Year. Kristen, 0:13:47.440 --> 0:13:47.880 did it win? 0:13:48.280 --> 0:13:51.240 No? Oh, it did not win. That one went to 0:13:51.280 --> 0:13:55.840 the theme cybersecurity ETF ticker spam spam. Oh, I know. 0:13:55.920 --> 0:13:56.400 So good. 0:13:56.720 --> 0:13:57.320 That is good. 0:13:57.760 --> 0:13:59.760 We just had one of the nominees on the music 0:13:59.760 --> 0:14:03.800 Guy Q a couple of weeks ago. Bucks is on there. 0:14:03.800 --> 0:14:08.920 That's a bond ETF spam for cybersecurity. That that one, obviously, 0:14:08.960 --> 0:14:11.560 And it's interesting, Joel, I've always told you my favorite 0:14:11.559 --> 0:14:19.160 ticker is hack, which is a cybersecurity ETF cybersecurity made perfect. 0:14:19.160 --> 0:14:21.800 It's custom made for cool tickers. I still like Hack 0:14:21.880 --> 0:14:23.680 better than spam by a little, but spam's good. 0:14:23.840 --> 0:14:26.640 I will say that my head, my head went to spam, 0:14:26.680 --> 0:14:29.320 not the type in your inbox, but spam in the can. 0:14:29.520 --> 0:14:32.200 I also, it's funny you say that. I also thought 0:14:32.200 --> 0:14:34.240 of that, and I've never eaten spam, so I don't 0:14:34.280 --> 0:14:35.360 know why. That's where my mind. 0:14:35.360 --> 0:14:37.880 Does it repel you at all? Because spam isn't exactly 0:14:37.920 --> 0:14:38.760 like something you want. 0:14:38.640 --> 0:14:40.960 To eat, you know, the thing you want to click on. 0:14:41.240 --> 0:14:45.280 I heard it's delicious though a lot of has a following. 0:14:45.640 --> 0:14:47.800 So I have a question if you guys had to 0:14:47.840 --> 0:14:50.360 make a ticker name, Oh what would the ticker? 0:14:50.640 --> 0:14:51.960 We asked the questions on the show. 0:14:53.920 --> 0:14:58.120 Well, I know yours easy? His ideas have everything in 0:14:58.160 --> 0:14:58.640 one shot? 0:14:58.760 --> 0:15:02.000 Call it easy? What does it hold everything? 0:15:02.160 --> 0:15:06.720 Yeah? I like that, Yeah, it may I have its downsides. 0:15:07.240 --> 0:15:09.680 Well, the problem is advisors don't want to do that. 0:15:09.720 --> 0:15:11.400 They want to hold multiple things that looks like they're 0:15:11.400 --> 0:15:11.920 doing something. 0:15:12.000 --> 0:15:14.840 Yeah. Easy, But I just think it's too good to 0:15:15.280 --> 0:15:18.240 just just make it easy for folks. I have kind 0:15:18.240 --> 0:15:21.520 of a new addendum after like what seven years of 0:15:21.560 --> 0:15:24.680 the the podcast, and this is very New York centric 0:15:24.720 --> 0:15:27.000 where in the I think the phone book inspired a 0:15:27.000 --> 0:15:30.600 certain type of business name, which was like a B 0:15:31.000 --> 0:15:34.680 C and then like mechanic right, Like. 0:15:34.720 --> 0:15:37.000 You know, it's really sad. This is going over Lucy's 0:15:37.040 --> 0:15:38.720 head because she's so young. 0:15:38.800 --> 0:15:41.320 She do you even know what a phone book is? 0:15:41.320 --> 0:15:42.240 You ever handled one? 0:15:42.400 --> 0:15:45.480 I'm aware of the concept, but I haven't. 0:15:47.360 --> 0:15:49.280 I haven't personally why would you do? 0:15:49.800 --> 0:15:51.880 Yeah wait, why would you that instead of just using 0:15:51.920 --> 0:15:53.800 your iPhone? I don't understand the concept, but. 0:15:53.880 --> 0:15:56.320 Aware of the concepts, I feel terrible. 0:15:56.400 --> 0:15:58.280 So so the only thing better than ABC. 0:15:58.600 --> 0:16:01.240 Have you ever been in a picture and gone through 0:16:01.240 --> 0:16:01.840 a phone book? 0:16:02.480 --> 0:16:04.240 What's a what's a phone phone? 0:16:04.280 --> 0:16:05.960 You know, the payphones phone books. 0:16:05.720 --> 0:16:08.080 Sitting there and they were chained. You know, it's crazy. 0:16:08.080 --> 0:16:11.160 They were chained to New York, chained inside. 0:16:11.320 --> 0:16:12.720 I mean those things people take pictures. 0:16:13.600 --> 0:16:15.640 Now, I just feel you ever made a collect call 0:16:15.680 --> 0:16:17.720 from a phone booth? That's a whole other level. 0:16:17.560 --> 0:16:22.160 Of yeah, yeah, yeah, no comment, Uh, definitely definitely when 0:16:23.640 --> 0:16:27.200 yeah okay, So anyways, uh yeah, that does that answer 0:16:27.200 --> 0:16:27.640 your question? 0:16:28.040 --> 0:16:28.280 Yeah? 0:16:28.400 --> 0:16:32.520 It does kind of multiple different ways. Okay, So this 0:16:32.600 --> 0:16:34.480 is little grum roll. I feel like this is we're 0:16:34.480 --> 0:16:38.440 getting to the second half. We're going to do etf 0:16:38.600 --> 0:16:41.360 Issuer of the Year, which I feel like this is 0:16:41.400 --> 0:16:44.120 like a big one best Studio I guess something like that. 0:16:44.280 --> 0:16:45.640 That's not even an award. 0:16:45.680 --> 0:16:48.560 I'd put up maybe best screenplay or writer. 0:16:48.720 --> 0:16:51.080 Okay, uh Lucy the winner is. 0:16:51.880 --> 0:16:54.960 Yeah, so for eat issue or the winner was Dimensional 0:16:55.080 --> 0:16:59.480 Fund Advisors, which you know, they're known for active management, 0:16:59.520 --> 0:17:02.280 which is, like we mentioned earlier, really been a huge 0:17:02.320 --> 0:17:05.600 theme of the past year, and you know they launched 0:17:05.640 --> 0:17:08.440 in twenty twenty, so they've really picked up steam. They 0:17:08.440 --> 0:17:11.280 have thirty eight funds and one hundred billion in assets, 0:17:11.320 --> 0:17:14.320 so you know, it was a competitive category. We saw 0:17:14.359 --> 0:17:18.160 on Vesco in there, van Neck, Franklin, Templeton, But yeah, 0:17:18.240 --> 0:17:21.240 Dimensional one, Kristin, were you surprised a little bit? 0:17:21.320 --> 0:17:23.359 So I actually really love this because it's a little 0:17:23.359 --> 0:17:25.000 bit like the Cinderella Story. I don't know if I 0:17:25.040 --> 0:17:27.200 would call dfa truly like you know, a sort of 0:17:27.520 --> 0:17:29.400 and when I say Cinderella story, I mean kind of 0:17:29.440 --> 0:17:32.679 like you know, March Madness type of Cinderella story. But 0:17:32.720 --> 0:17:34.960 I mean, really think about it. Again, they've only been 0:17:35.040 --> 0:17:39.080 working launching ETFs now for at the time three years, right, 0:17:39.160 --> 0:17:42.399 because this was again for categories that happened for twenty 0:17:42.440 --> 0:17:45.120 twenty three, and they're going up against Fidelity, They're going 0:17:45.200 --> 0:17:48.840 up against Invesco, They're going up against Vanac. These are 0:17:48.840 --> 0:17:51.359 obviously really huge institutions that have been doing this for 0:17:51.400 --> 0:17:54.960 such a long time. I love that kind of again, 0:17:54.960 --> 0:17:56.680 I don't know if I want to call them an underdog, 0:17:56.720 --> 0:17:58.359 but a little bit of an underdog really when you 0:17:58.440 --> 0:18:01.000 compare it to some of those bigger players. 0:18:00.760 --> 0:18:06.240 This was the biggest group in the world. I agree, 0:18:06.280 --> 0:18:07.480 a little underdogish. 0:18:08.040 --> 0:18:11.720 If if ARC kind of said that active can succeed, 0:18:12.800 --> 0:18:14.960 it's almost like DFA came and just like built a 0:18:14.960 --> 0:18:19.200 whole highway because a DFA has shown again that if 0:18:19.240 --> 0:18:22.720 you lower your fees enough, you can really sell almost anything. 0:18:22.840 --> 0:18:25.480 Because remember smart Beta was around for a while, but 0:18:25.520 --> 0:18:27.200 it wasn't until it got cheap that it started to 0:18:27.240 --> 0:18:31.680 see success. Same with the SG In fact, Vanguard their 0:18:32.080 --> 0:18:35.000 index funds charged sixty basis points when they first started. 0:18:35.000 --> 0:18:37.280 It wasn't until they crossed the twenty basis point line 0:18:37.400 --> 0:18:40.200 in like the late nineties two thousands that they took off. 0:18:40.520 --> 0:18:42.719 So the moral of the story is, whatever you have, 0:18:42.840 --> 0:18:44.840 if you can get that fee under twenty BIPs, you're 0:18:44.840 --> 0:18:47.239 going to start to move product. And DFA also has 0:18:47.280 --> 0:18:50.240 a really big brand name for advisors, so and DFA 0:18:50.400 --> 0:18:55.320 when they launched their ETFs, they almost unexclusivized because used 0:18:55.359 --> 0:18:58.560 to have to be like a member of the DFA network. 0:18:58.840 --> 0:19:01.399 But if the ETF anybody can buy it. So I 0:19:01.480 --> 0:19:04.200 agree with this winner. It feels right to me. But 0:19:04.320 --> 0:19:06.120 you're right, it's a tough category. 0:19:05.720 --> 0:19:07.560 That implies that there was a winner that you didn't 0:19:07.600 --> 0:19:10.760 agree with somewhere. Oh no comment, you. 0:19:10.760 --> 0:19:12.760 Just got im. It's going to be trying to be nice. 0:19:12.840 --> 0:19:17.040 Yeah, okay, all right, Lucy, sticking with you. The best 0:19:17.280 --> 0:19:19.280 thematic ETF of the year. 0:19:20.359 --> 0:19:26.000 The spraut Uranium Minors ETF ticker you are and and yeah, 0:19:26.000 --> 0:19:28.680 I mean they're one of the only funds. Yeah, they're 0:19:28.680 --> 0:19:31.200 one of the only funds offering exposure to uranium. And 0:19:32.800 --> 0:19:36.280 you know, the performance was, you know, double the return 0:19:36.320 --> 0:19:37.400 of the S and P five. 0:19:37.640 --> 0:19:40.239 Uranium absolutely took off in twenty twenty three. I think 0:19:40.240 --> 0:19:40.359