Speaker 1: Welcome to Trillions. I'm Joel Weber and I'm Marik Belchers.
Speaker 1: Eric Carolina Wilson's a reporter with Bloomberg News. She's on
Speaker 1: the show a lot. She did some great et F reporting,
Speaker 1: and she came with an idea for a podcast episode recently,
Speaker 1: which was q q Q, which just turned twenty and
Speaker 1: we're like, that's a really good idea. Yeah, it made
Speaker 1: us think of one of these in the field type
Speaker 1: episodes that Rachel Evans has done a couple of times,
Speaker 1: where you take the mic out and you just see
Speaker 1: what happens. And I thought, you know, the cues is
Speaker 1: a monster ETF. Most people focused on Spy, which I
Speaker 1: believe turned twenty five recently. That was a whole deal,
Speaker 1: but the cues is right up there. I mean I
Speaker 1: put it on the mount rushmore of E t F
Speaker 1: s and what is it? The cues is the NASTAC
Speaker 1: one hundred. So this is this is remember the nineties
Speaker 1: and the tech This is when the Nastac was a
Speaker 1: big deal. All these stocks were on there. But the
Speaker 1: cues has changed since then, although again it's still I
Speaker 1: think widely used for tech play growth, play um and
Speaker 1: it trades ton like multiple billions of dollars every day.
Speaker 1: It's a total stud but it's probably got some things
Speaker 1: about it that most people just don't know about or
Speaker 1: take for granted. One being that it used to be
Speaker 1: very big on tech and it's become less so over time.
Speaker 1: So we gave currently on a microphone and center out
Speaker 1: to the field, and here's what we meant this week
Speaker 1: on trying the cues at twenty. This is probably the
Speaker 1: most awkward thing I'm gonna have you just asking them
Speaker 1: to say the alphabet and stop when they get a QUE.
Speaker 1: So that's gracious. A B, C, D, E, F G,
Speaker 1: H I, J K, element O P Q. Over the
Speaker 1: course of history, the letter Q has taken on many
Speaker 1: different meanings. Perhaps the most obvious Q is the seventeenth
Speaker 1: letter of the modern English alphabet. Some say the form
Speaker 1: of the letter could have been bay on the island, needle,
Speaker 1: a not, or even a monkey with its tail hanging down.
Speaker 1: Others have suggested that the origin is even more ancient,
Speaker 1: maybe having been born from Egyptian hieroglyphics. But for the
Speaker 1: trillion dollar exchange traded fund industry, the letter Q takes
Speaker 1: on its own unique meaning. You see the Investo q
Speaker 1: Q Trust Series one e TF, known by its ticker
Speaker 1: q q Q, is without a doubt, one of the
Speaker 1: most recognizable tickers around and a bye word for technology investing.
Speaker 1: Weighing in at just over seventy two billion dollars, q
Speaker 1: q Q is the world's sixth largest e t F
Speaker 1: in terms of assets. It's also the second most traded
Speaker 1: ticker among the universe of more than t f s,
Speaker 1: and not too long ago, it's celebrated its twentieth birthday.
Speaker 1: So I dived deeper into q q q's history and
Speaker 1: learned how an e t F that was poster child
Speaker 1: for the dot com boom is no longer really a
Speaker 1: tech ETF, and how this mammoth of a fund is
Speaker 1: a window into how presumably passive vehicles are actually living,
Speaker 1: breathing organisms that are actively changing and evolving with markets.
Speaker 1: To talk about the origin of q q Q, commonly
Speaker 1: known as the Queues, I'll have to take you back
Speaker 1: to the man who created its underlying index, the NASDAC one.
Speaker 1: Meet John Jacobs. He was running strategic planning at NASDAC
Speaker 1: and one of the things he realized was that the
Speaker 1: brand perception among retail investors was very low about the NASDAK,
Speaker 1: so we set about trying to figure out how to
Speaker 1: change their perception, raising awareness and as it can change
Speaker 1: their perception. One of the ideas we came up with
Speaker 1: and the strategic planning team that I was running in
Speaker 1: Nasdaq was um let's come up with a NASDAC branded
Speaker 1: financial product. And when we looked around there was something
Speaker 1: that had been lost a few years early, or the Spider,
Speaker 1: which was the first g t F on the on
Speaker 1: the sp so we started following the footsteps to create
Speaker 1: this one. So the original exercise that became q q
Speaker 1: Q was more of a branding exercise, much more than
Speaker 1: trying to build an index business. But along with branding
Speaker 1: power came a unique nuance with q q q's revenue model.
Speaker 1: The first e t f s that came out like
Speaker 1: the ques, were unit investment trusts. For the expense ratio,
Speaker 1: there's a chunk that went to the trustee, someone to
Speaker 1: the adaman, and some money went to marketing. But there's
Speaker 1: essentially no way to make money if you are the
Speaker 1: product sponsor. This made it difficult to sell q q
Speaker 1: Q over to Power Shares Capital Management, which was bought
Speaker 1: by Investco in late two thousand and six, the current
Speaker 1: home of q q Q. To learn about that hesitancy,
Speaker 1: I spoke to Bruce Bond, who helped start power Shares
Speaker 1: back in two thousand two the q q Q. It
Speaker 1: was very difficult to talk invest Goo into actually acquiring
Speaker 1: the q Q at the time, and the reason it
Speaker 1: was allowing me to buy at power Shares was that UM.
Speaker 1: You know, the the q q Q was not doesn't
Speaker 1: generate any revenue for the firm that owns it. What
Speaker 1: it does have those it had a ten basis point
Speaker 1: marketing fee that allows you to market the fund. And
Speaker 1: so what we did was when we acquired it, we
Speaker 1: struck a new agreement with NASAC for the licensing of
Speaker 1: the index from Nastac. We we acquired the fund and
Speaker 1: UM and use the remaining marketing fee to market what
Speaker 1: We changed the name of the fund from the nastac
Speaker 1: ONKU to the Power Shares k K and which gave
Speaker 1: power Shares a tremendous amount of visibility and marketing and
Speaker 1: advertising power and a built in resource to be able
Speaker 1: to elevate the name of power Shares in the industry.
Speaker 1: Since you were some of those marketing dollars were going,
Speaker 1: I headed over to the Chicago area and Investco's headquarters
Speaker 1: in Downers Grove, Illinois. That's how I ended up at
Speaker 1: the Lincoln Park suit. His name is sounds like a name. Yes,
Speaker 1: her name is Molika and her name is is something
Speaker 1: that and the ques do seem to be infused in
Speaker 1: the Chicago culture. The fund sponsors the Zoo's annual Light
Speaker 1: Show Spectacular, the current headlining performance at the Lyric Opera
Speaker 1: of Chicago, golf tournaments, tennis tournaments. They've even sponsored the
Speaker 1: first race of the NASCAR Exfinity Series season, a three
Speaker 1: hundred mile long annual race held at the Daytona International
Speaker 1: Speedway called the Power Shares q q Q three hundreds.
Speaker 1: The letter Q even makes a special appearance in the
Speaker 1: name of Investco's current q q Q strategist. Listen to this.
Speaker 1: So I am John Frank. I enjoyed Investco in April,
Speaker 1: and I am the q q Q strategist. So you
Speaker 1: missed your middle initial there though I did. It's actually
Speaker 1: it's actually John Q Frank, which when I was interviewing
Speaker 1: for the role to become the QKQ strategist, I think
Speaker 1: my manager really enjoyed that. I think maybe that got
Speaker 1: you the job. Honestly, yeah, I think I wouldn't. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't disagree. While q q Q was a poster child
Speaker 1: for technology investing when it launched, the funds holdings have
Speaker 1: evolved significantly over time. How much tech there actually is
Speaker 1: in q q Q is one question that John has
Speaker 1: to tackle a lot. And the idea that the cues
Speaker 1: are pure tech play is almost like a widely believed myth.
Speaker 1: So a lot of my role is about spelling those
Speaker 1: myths or trying to maybe gravitate people to what maybe
Speaker 1: more truth is than what they think. And the idea
Speaker 1: that six Q is in technology, I think it is
Speaker 1: is quite a surprise for people. Now. Some of that
Speaker 1: is due to the gifts classification change, but that's still
Speaker 1: only a part of the story. There's a consumer, discretionary,
Speaker 1: consumer staples, healthcare, so there's a lot of things besides
Speaker 1: technology in there. And I just going through the second
Speaker 1: allocation over time. Now, in the height of the tech bubble,
Speaker 1: there was a greater allocation technology, call it close to
Speaker 1: pushing almost not quite, and again today we're closer to
Speaker 1: just about four percent technology. It's it's definitely change over time,
Speaker 1: but it's not a percent technology. And I asked John,
Speaker 1: here are the queues one of the largest e t
Speaker 1: f s a presumably passive trading vehicle, even though it's
Speaker 1: been the go to strategy for technology investing and still
Speaker 1: is today. The makeup of the fund has changed so
Speaker 1: much over time. Can we really say that q q
Speaker 1: Q is truly passive? The debate ten years ago was
Speaker 1: active for passive and I think today it's much more
Speaker 1: complicated than that because as a as a fund that
Speaker 1: uses market KIP, market capitalization is one of its primary
Speaker 1: determinants of what the weight is in the portfolio. In reality,
Speaker 1: it could be quite active compared to the market portfolio.
Speaker 1: Someone might consider at all World Equity portfolio or the
Speaker 1: SPF A hundred to be the market. Q q Q
Speaker 1: as a quote unquote passive product is actually quite different
Speaker 1: than the market portfolio. And I think that has to
Speaker 1: do with what's not in the portfolio is what what's
Speaker 1: in the portfolio. So you see overweight certain names that
Speaker 1: the portfolio holds but also doesn't hurt hold certain sectors.
Speaker 1: There's no financials, there's not a lot of energy, not
Speaker 1: a lot of utilities. So the end of the day,
Speaker 1: you have a portfolio that we can behave quite differently
Speaker 1: than the standard equity markets, and it's still passive and
Speaker 1: how it's managed, but in reality the exposures you're getting
Speaker 1: are not or anything but passive. Another myth that John
Speaker 1: has to dispel surrounding the queues is whether or not
Speaker 1: the market is ramping up to hit a tech bubble
Speaker 1: two point oh, especially as the likes of Apple, Microsoft,
Speaker 1: and Google have seen prices skyrocket. And to John, the
Speaker 1: concerns makes sense, but he thinks it helps to look
Speaker 1: at q q Q today and compare it to the
Speaker 1: fund back then. So he compares today's market to the
Speaker 1: actual tech bubble. Let's call it March two thousand. The
Speaker 1: evaluations are completely different. And one of the things we
Speaker 1: looked at was just look at the five largest companies
Speaker 1: in QQQ at that time compared to the five largest
Speaker 1: companies today. So one of the things we did was,
Speaker 1: instead of getting pe ratio for the whole fund, if
Speaker 1: we just look at those five largest companies in the
Speaker 1: height of the tech bubble, so call it Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, Oracle, IBM.
Speaker 1: As a group, they actually traded at about close to
Speaker 1: eighty times their market cap over net income a proxy
Speaker 1: for a P ratio, where today we look at app, Apple, Amazon, Alphabet,
Speaker 1: Microsoft on Facebook and go back to the end of September,
Speaker 1: which was really the height of this year, and that
Speaker 1: group was trading at thirty eight and a half times.
Speaker 1: So those stocks could have gone up a pent in
Speaker 1: one day and still would have been trading cheaper from
Speaker 1: a perspective of mac market captain net income and the
Speaker 1: tech bubble. So it's not to say that they are
Speaker 1: it's screaming value, but they're not anywhere near the tech bubble.
Speaker 1: So the idea that we're anywhere near the tech bubble
Speaker 1: hysteria heights is far off. We could get there, but
Speaker 1: we need a couple hundred percent days or weeks to
Speaker 1: get to that type of level. But for some investors,
Speaker 1: the recent run up in technology stocks does bring about
Speaker 1: deja vu, even if the bubble hasn't quite reached its
Speaker 1: popping point. Someone you heard from earlier, NAZDAC founder John Jacobs,
Speaker 1: says he knows what to look out for. He recalls
Speaker 1: one morning when his mother called him about a trade
Speaker 1: she wanted to execute on the fund. Her son Johnny started. Look,
Speaker 1: my mom in her seventies became a day trader in
Speaker 1: the queues. So I'm sitting in my office in d C.
Speaker 1: And my phone lights up and I had this new
Speaker 1: feature caller. I d again, it's that a long time
Speaker 1: ago two thousand and that was my parents home number
Speaker 1: and my mom, I said, Mom, I was just getting
Speaker 1: ready to call you. You know, seventy two year old
Speaker 1: one brokerage account. I said, Mom, I was just getting
Speaker 1: ready to call you about something. And she goes, never
Speaker 1: mind that now, Johnny, I want to let you know
Speaker 1: what I did this morning. I caught up swab and
Speaker 1: it put her pre market open limit order in on
Speaker 1: the cues. Because I think it's gonna pop at the
Speaker 1: open I want to flip it. I'm like, oh my god,
Speaker 1: I should have known it was the boom. I should
Speaker 1: have known it was the bus right then. So here
Speaker 1: my mom is seven two years old. She become a
Speaker 1: day trader on margin the pre market in the queues
Speaker 1: because it's gonna pop, but she wants to flip it again.
Speaker 1: This is like the same thing when this hueshine boys
Speaker 1: giving you stock tips, or you know, the kid in
Speaker 1: the corners telling you about cryptocurrencies. I can recognize the
Speaker 1: bubble Caroly and Happy Birthday cues. Welcome back to the show.
Speaker 1: I guess thank you. Uh. First of all, I just
Speaker 1: gotta say I love the background on the letter Q.
Speaker 1: I first I didn't know all that. What is it?
Speaker 1: The monkey dangling from a tree hanging down. Yeah, it's amazing.
Speaker 1: But here's the thing I wanted to know, which is
Speaker 1: why did he have threeques? So originally, actually John Jacobs,
Speaker 1: who you heard from at the beginning and at the
Speaker 1: end of the podcast, he wanted a single character ticker.
Speaker 1: He just wanted it to be Q. There was the
Speaker 1: sort of unspoken rule that they couldn't do that, so
Speaker 1: he was like, you know what. He even printed out
Speaker 1: like fifty perspectuses with just Q and then fifty perspectuses
Speaker 1: with Q q Q, and they ended up going with
Speaker 1: the triple q's. But then, um, it actually went to
Speaker 1: four ques at one point, so it was q q
Speaker 1: q Q and then it went back to three ques.
Speaker 1: And it's funny people say that you can tell when
Speaker 1: they invested in the queues depending on how they refer
Speaker 1: to it. So if they refer to it as the
Speaker 1: cubes or the quad cues UM. That's because it was
Speaker 1: when it was the four letter ticker. A lot of
Speaker 1: people just call it the cues or q q q Y.
Speaker 1: If you see some of these old heads at the
Speaker 1: E T F conferences, they will drop a cube's diamonds, cubes, vipers.
Speaker 1: It's it's evolved a lot since then, but that's how
Speaker 1: you kind of know. And they may also put the
Speaker 1: before ticker like the E E M. That's that's sort
Speaker 1: of how you know, the sort of old school folks,
Speaker 1: uh that maybe we're in industry in the nineties, before
Speaker 1: we started recording, we were joking around about personifying some
Speaker 1: et F s and for me, a challenge with this
Speaker 1: podcast and with this project was like, Okay, I'm going
Speaker 1: to take this fund that's a mammoth in the industry.
Speaker 1: Everyone knows about it, sixties six billion and a U
Speaker 1: m about um second most traded after Spy, so everyone
Speaker 1: knows about it. How am I going to surprise people
Speaker 1: about this? Like? How am I going to go out
Speaker 1: and report on this and find things that people don't
Speaker 1: know but you did, which was the surprise is that
Speaker 1: it doesn't have as much tech as people think exactly. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that that was a huge surprise, and and the way
Speaker 1: to go about it was that I had to treat
Speaker 1: it like a person. I was like, I'm going to
Speaker 1: go out and like just report of this, like biographical
Speaker 1: feature on this, hold on, hold on. So personifying e
Speaker 1: t S is when you cross the line into where
Speaker 1: I live, which is scary. You don't want to start
Speaker 1: looking at them as people. I just just giving you
Speaker 1: a fair warning sort of more like a ghost, I
Speaker 1: would say, which is even creepier probably, But okay, So
Speaker 1: if it's not in tech, what is it in now? Basically,
Speaker 1: so you have to remember that now is like one
Speaker 1: hundred is just tracking the one hundred largest non financial companies.
Speaker 1: So that's and that's really the only thing that's been
Speaker 1: completely consistent with the funds since the beginning of time.
Speaker 1: It's it's just not tracking any financials. But yeah, it
Speaker 1: was about at the height of the tech bubble. It's
Speaker 1: now around that was dropped in there, right the gigs
Speaker 1: what is that? The gigs re classification was something that
Speaker 1: happened that basically reclassified some of the just traditionally known
Speaker 1: tech names as being in the communication services like Facebook
Speaker 1: exactly like some of those mat myths, but but still,
Speaker 1: I mean the cues really are a poster child for
Speaker 1: tech investing. They still are. Yeah, And when I was
Speaker 1: in data, we grappled with whether to call the cues
Speaker 1: a sector tech or not. That's a big difference because
Speaker 1: then you look at tech flows, if the cues are
Speaker 1: in there or not, it changes the whole number by
Speaker 1: a lot. And uh, ultimately, I do we do have
Speaker 1: them in tech for now because we do feel like
Speaker 1: what are people using them for? And I think most
Speaker 1: people still connotatively are using them for tech. But you
Speaker 1: could debate this for a while because right now I
Speaker 1: think it's tech so shockingly low tech to be in
Speaker 1: the tech sector. Um, some of these decisions are tough
Speaker 1: when you're making the taxonomy in data and so who's
Speaker 1: been kind of noticed that as an opportunity because if
Speaker 1: it's like a tech fund that everyone associates with, the
Speaker 1: tech fund that doesn't have that much tech in it,
Speaker 1: that seems like a market opportunity for somebody else to
Speaker 1: come along and say, hey, I'm actually tech. And there
Speaker 1: are there are a lot of funds that have just
Speaker 1: pure tech exposure to them. But you have to remember
Speaker 1: sort of the liquidity that comes with the Cues, the
Speaker 1: branding power that it has a familiarity that people have.
Speaker 1: But again, like the largest it's still pretty fang heavy
Speaker 1: and fang driven, so people will turn to it for
Speaker 1: for exposure to those names. And we had Dan Draper
Speaker 1: on E T f i Q, which is on every
Speaker 1: Wednesday at one pm just um and this is last
Speaker 1: week actually, and we asked him about the Cues you
Speaker 1: were on with them actually um, and what he said
Speaker 1: something very interesting because he was trying to sort of
Speaker 1: give another reason why you'd use this fund besides just
Speaker 1: quick tech exposure. And he said that there's a lot
Speaker 1: of growth in this index and that the R and
Speaker 1: D as a whole spent on the companies and the
Speaker 1: Cues was double that of the companies in the SMP
Speaker 1: five hundred. That's a powerful statement and I think that
Speaker 1: leads to the the growthy aspect of the cues and ran. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. That's also something that John Frank who is
Speaker 1: the current strategist of the Cues, which also when I
Speaker 1: want to interview him, I was like, how easy is
Speaker 1: this man's job? Like he this dude sits there and
Speaker 1: he manages the cues, which is a super well oiled,
Speaker 1: like huge, self like running machine. But actually he gets
Speaker 1: a ton of questions. It's like it's a lot of work.
Speaker 1: I mean, the research that this guy knows about this
Speaker 1: fund is incredible. R and D is something he totally
Speaker 1: talked about. He said. One of the things he does
Speaker 1: is he compares the NASTAC a hundred one hundred two
Speaker 1: other indexes whole look at the NASTAC one hundreds higher
Speaker 1: R and D spend relatives. So if we look at
Speaker 1: R and D spending as a percentage of sales for
Speaker 1: these companies, you're right, Eric, nine percent of sales went
Speaker 1: to R and D for the NASTACK a hundred constituents.
Speaker 1: That's more than twice of that for any other comparable index.
Speaker 1: And that's a big deal in this because everybody is
Speaker 1: talking about there's some controversy over buy backs, and some
Speaker 1: people are looking for companies that do more, you know,
Speaker 1: spending on R and D and that kind of thing
Speaker 1: and not just buying back shares. So that's a pretty
Speaker 1: good selling point, especially for those who are a little,
Speaker 1: uh not uneasy about buy backs being the source of return.
Speaker 1: That's actually really intericing um. And you know when a
Speaker 1: product is a smash hit. Just like the movie business,
Speaker 1: it spawns sequels and copycats. Right, So their cues, I like,
Speaker 1: for one, I'll think of as q q q E,
Speaker 1: which is the equal way to cuse because the cues
Speaker 1: does have a lot of allocation to a couple of
Speaker 1: companies I think Apple might be, So there's equal way
Speaker 1: to cuse. What are some other examples where they try
Speaker 1: to steal some of the cues? Um, you know audience
Speaker 1: with dropping a queue in the ticker to make people think, oh,
Speaker 1: this is like kind of a tech quli play on
Speaker 1: this other area. So e m q q is one
Speaker 1: that's emerging markets tech Um, there's t q q q
Speaker 1: I believe, which is a leveraged version of the que.
Speaker 1: So they do sort of try and piggyback off of
Speaker 1: this brand because it's such a monster. It's sort of
Speaker 1: like what other sticks can we come up with here? Exactly?
Speaker 1: It's like like the comic book Avengers, you know, all
Speaker 1: these spinoffs and so just taking a bigger step back,
Speaker 1: you traveled out to Chicago, right or in the suburbs
Speaker 1: of Chicago, just talk about being out there at an
Speaker 1: e t F is shu or what does an E. T. F.
Speaker 1: Fishuer's office look like and what's going on over there?
Speaker 1: So it's massive. It's in Downers Grove, Illinois, which is
Speaker 1: pretty a little ways way outside of downtown Chicago, but
Speaker 1: it's a huge, huge office oranges everywhere you can see it.
Speaker 1: In Dan Draper's office, he has even just like the
Speaker 1: front of a NASCAR car hood that's orange and I
Speaker 1: think it has the Cues on it because the Cues
Speaker 1: sponsored a NASA car race for a while. But it's
Speaker 1: sort of I mean, when when you go in you
Speaker 1: do a profile, either on a person or on a
Speaker 1: fund like this, you have to find like it's footprints everywhere, right,
Speaker 1: and so it is sort of scattered throughout and I
Speaker 1: had to sort of track it and follow it throughout Chicago.
Speaker 1: So I also went to the zoo, as you know,
Speaker 1: and you heard I spent a lot of time. They're
Speaker 1: trying to capture lion sounds and lion roars because they
Speaker 1: also have some um sort of marketing partnerships with the
Speaker 1: zoo there. But but it has made its way into
Speaker 1: all these different little aspects of the community and sort
Speaker 1: of social life in Chicago, and I think they also
Speaker 1: do uh tennis tournament because one time we did an
Speaker 1: event with power Shares where Bloomberg presented power Shares and
Speaker 1: at the end of the event they gave away they
Speaker 1: uh tennis rackets signed by I think Jim Courier, remember him.
Speaker 1: I think he won two majors. That's to make sure
Speaker 1: you stayed at the end of the event, of course,
Speaker 1: and I thought that was pretty high end. I was
Speaker 1: really excited. I was not allowed to enter it because
Speaker 1: I was a presenter. Tennis, Yeah, tennis, golf. Um, let's
Speaker 1: wait for the Super Bowl partnership. By the way, this
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with the t s. But you
Speaker 1: gotta lie in to roar. I mean, did you do that?
Speaker 1: I've been at the zoo many times. Those lions just
Speaker 1: lay there, usually far off behind a log and you
Speaker 1: can't see them, and the kids like lion linon Lion
Speaker 1: line line and it's like it's kind of underwhelming, and
Speaker 1: you saw them roar. How that work out? I just
Speaker 1: yelled out cues. No, I spent a lot of time
Speaker 1: at the zoo that day. Actually, it's have to say
Speaker 1: their patients is the key. I can't believe that it's free.
Speaker 1: You just really there are people that jog through there,
Speaker 1: you walk through there, it's it's absolutely beautiful. Um and
Speaker 1: the Lions they put on a nice performance for me,
Speaker 1: they really did. Speaking of performances, how's it done since inception?
Speaker 1: So it came out March's interesting, yeah, right before the
Speaker 1: bullber so Um. This is including that it's up three
Speaker 1: hundred thirty six percent since inception. The SMP five hundred
Speaker 1: since that same exact point is only up two So
Speaker 1: it's got our performance by about hundred nine percent since then.
Speaker 1: But here's what's wild. Since the financial crisis, so we'll
Speaker 1: start the beginning of two thousand nine, the CUES has
Speaker 1: literally doubled the SMP. It's up six percent versus three
Speaker 1: for the SMP. That's big time, especially for a diversified
Speaker 1: sort of larger index. But it also speaks to what
Speaker 1: tech has done in that same period. It's just crushed
Speaker 1: it absolutely, that's I mean, this is part of the
Speaker 1: reason it's so beloved. People made a lot of money
Speaker 1: on it. Carolyne, thanks again for joining us and joining
Speaker 1: on behalf of me and the Queues. You're welcome. Thanks
Speaker 1: thanks for listening to the trillance. Until next time, you
Speaker 1: can find us on the Bloomberg Terminal, Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you'd like to listen.
Speaker 1: We'd love to hear from you. We're on Twitter, I'm
Speaker 1: at Joel Webber Show, He's at Eric Paul Tunas, and
Speaker 1: you can find Carolyna Wilson at carol E. Wilson. Trillions
Speaker 1: is produced by Magnus and Rickson. Francesca Levy is the
Speaker 1: head of Bloomberg podcast. Bye