Speaker 1: Ray Dalio, the founder and CIO mentor Bridgewater Associates, has
Speaker 1: been a friend and partner for the Grantich Economic Form
Speaker 1: since its beginning. And there's so much about his stuff
Speaker 1: that he writes about that's fascinating. He's got something called
Speaker 1: five big forces that are driving the new world order.
Speaker 1: They include things like how well countries, internal orders work,
Speaker 1: how they work with each other. You can look these up.
Speaker 1: But number one on these five big forces is how
Speaker 1: well the debt, money and economic system works. So we'll
Speaker 1: find out how well it's working, and and you know,
Speaker 1: answer the question, do the principles for investing change in
Speaker 1: times of high rates and low certainty? So we have
Speaker 1: Ray Dalio. I think we have him on video there
Speaker 1: he is ready to go and to interview him as
Speaker 1: Bloomberg TV anchor and correspondent Sonali Bossik. So welcome them
Speaker 1: both to the program. Sonali.
Speaker 2: Great to be here and great to be here with you. Ray.
Speaker 3: Albeit virtually and of course Rain needs very little introduction,
Speaker 3: but he has been investing for more than a half century,
Speaker 3: the author of multiple books, including The Changing World Order
Speaker 3: and his Own Principles, and of course founded Bridgewater Associates,
Speaker 3: which had become the largest hedge fund firm in the world.
Speaker 3: But going back to those five forces that you believe
Speaker 3: are shaping the global economy, perhaps you could just get
Speaker 3: us started here on what underpins those five forces and
Speaker 3: how you're thinking about them today.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you for a good question, lem letting me
Speaker 4: lay it out. But also I'm sorry I couldn't be
Speaker 4: there because Greenwich is my home. And you know, as
Speaker 4: was mentioned, you know from the beginning, I was lucky
Speaker 4: enough to be part of this conference, and I take
Speaker 4: a great deal of joy when I see everybody there,
Speaker 4: many people I know, So anyway, I apologize. I'm in Singapore.
Speaker 4: I have a family office in Singapore, I have a
Speaker 4: family office in Abu Dhabi, and I have a family
Speaker 4: office in Greenwich, Connecticut. And so, as you know, I'm
Speaker 4: a macro, global macro investor, global macro and through it
Speaker 4: is that many times we look at things that surprise
Speaker 4: us because they didn't happen in our lifetimes before, but
Speaker 4: they happened many times in history. And so I'm not
Speaker 4: a book writer, I don't intend to. I'm a very
Speaker 4: practical guy who's got a bet on global macro. And
Speaker 4: what I found was that by studying history, I could
Speaker 4: make better bets today. And so whenever anything happened that
Speaker 4: I didn't recognize, so I went into history. By studying,
Speaker 4: studying Great Depression, we were regularly which was that happened?
Speaker 4: Like quantitative easing. So anyway, the fi five things that
Speaker 4: I saw and studying this five hundred years of history,
Speaker 4: it's five and and so on, is that these it
Speaker 4: would repeat. It would happen over over again almost once
Speaker 4: a lifetime on average. GIBOUTI the years every eighty give
Speaker 4: or take twenty five or thirty five years. Of course
Speaker 4: there's fat ease is mot but interest rates makes credit
Speaker 4: more available. People have more buying power. That produces debt.
Speaker 4: Then the debt has to be paid back, and so
Speaker 4: the economic goes up and down. We're used to the
Speaker 4: debt cycles. Okay, So and how does that work? And
Speaker 4: what does it mean when we have the highest and
Speaker 4: an enormous amount of debt and that you are increasing
Speaker 4: that debt at a fast pace? What does that mean
Speaker 4: or does it mean nothing? So of course it has
Speaker 4: a big effect on the economy. So that's number one.
Speaker 4: Number two is when I studied history, and I was
Speaker 4: prompted by what's happening now is internal order and disorder,
Speaker 4: particularly conflict. What I saw thought now was that there's
Speaker 4: populism of the left and populism of the right, and
Speaker 4: ear record incilable different. This is the amount of since
Speaker 4: nineteen hundred. The great studied history I saw of time,
Speaker 4: and number three is of course the world global great
Speaker 4: power conflict, conflict internationally where there's no longer just a
Speaker 4: single dominant power power and so the rise of allah
Speaker 4: light and access power. Or number three. What I then
Speaker 4: studied and saw was number four is that having killed
Speaker 4: more people and toppled more orders, was acts of nature droughts, floods,
Speaker 4: and pandemics, and climate change is certainly a big, big issue.
Speaker 4: At pandemics, of course we sperience one, but also climate change.
Speaker 4: It costs eight trillion dollars a year is the estimated
Speaker 4: cost of climate change, and we're seeing it happen around us,
Speaker 4: and uh, that's our eight percent of world. GD five
Speaker 4: throughout history is man's inventiveness and technology particularly and so
Speaker 4: if you see that over time, everything.
Speaker 3: Now ray the connections a bit glitchy, talk about.
Speaker 2: Way we lost you. So if you could hear us
Speaker 2: hang tight over there.
Speaker 3: I think the folks at the Grant and Jack Adamic
Speaker 3: Forum are working out the connection issues to get you back.
Speaker 2: But for those of you who.
Speaker 3: Don't know, so the five forces in repeat our debt,
Speaker 3: money in the interest rate regime, internal order and disorder,
Speaker 3: the great power, conflicts in the world, acts of nature
Speaker 3: and technology.
Speaker 2: Should we get ready back.
Speaker 3: We'll be talking through each of them, considering during the
Speaker 3: Fed's interest rate cut, considering the US election cycle, and
Speaker 3: the tensions between the US and China, and of course
Speaker 3: we weren't going to speak about it in the course
Speaker 3: of this discussion, but acts of nature given what we're
Speaker 3: seeing in Florida and a hurricane a second one about
Speaker 3: to hit the US South as well, from what I
Speaker 3: checked this morning, barreling into Florida as a Category four hurricane,
Speaker 3: so particularly relevant relevant today as we head into the
Speaker 3: elections cycle.
Speaker 2: Have we gotten back?
Speaker 4: I'm back? It's magic, okay, fingers. So I just closing
Speaker 4: that thing. Everything we will talk about and people we'll
Speaker 4: talk about are those five forces, and they tend to
Speaker 4: resolve in a cycle like there's a big debt cycle,
Speaker 4: there's a big geopolitical cycle, and so on, and they're interrelated,
Speaker 4: So over to you whatever you want to talk, excuse me.
Speaker 3: So we could start at the top there, because of
Speaker 3: course we started the federal reserves cutting cycle. Many in
Speaker 3: the market were shocked by that fifty basis point rate cut.
Speaker 3: I know that you earlier had told Bloomberg twenty five
Speaker 3: or fifty.
Speaker 2: It's really the direction of travel.
Speaker 3: What do you currently make of the current path of
Speaker 3: the federal reserves interest rate policy, especially with all the
Speaker 3: uncertainty that is ahead.
Speaker 4: I'll start with bond yields, because treasury bond yields are
Speaker 4: the backbone of not only are all the credit markets,
Speaker 4: but all the other markets, because they all trade as
Speaker 4: rich premiums and so unrelative to that. When I look
Speaker 4: at normal sets of circumstances, if we would assume put
Speaker 4: aside the supply demand considerations, and you said, okay, there's
Speaker 4: going to be inflation, and what is the real yield
Speaker 4: that you should have? The inflation rate that you'd probably pick,
Speaker 4: and there's nothing precise about it in terms of the future.
Speaker 4: You might say two and a half percent, you know,
Speaker 4: give or take a half a percent. But let's say
Speaker 4: that plus two percent or one and a half percent
Speaker 4: gets you about where we are now in bond yields.
Speaker 4: Then there's the supply demand. But basically, if you were
Speaker 4: to just say where do bond yields belong? Treasury bond yields,
Speaker 4: they're not way out of line. They're not like it
Speaker 4: used to be when they were very negative in real
Speaker 4: terms or very positive in real terms, and so you
Speaker 4: take that that level. But that's the if this but
Speaker 4: we have an unusual supply demand situation in that the
Speaker 4: supply is going to come at a lot, and there's
Speaker 4: globally is there's a big issue with the digesting of
Speaker 4: that supply. For two reasons. Besides being so large and
Speaker 4: the fact that it constitutes such a high percentage of
Speaker 4: institutional investors portfolios or central banks portfolios, they feel overweighted.
Speaker 4: There are also political and geopolitical and uncertainty factors that
Speaker 4: enter into it. Foreign countries worry about holding bonds because
Speaker 4: it could be sanctioned. Let's say China doesn't want to
Speaker 4: feel the same way about holding treasury bonds. Others don't
Speaker 4: feel the same, and so there are those risks. So
Speaker 4: there's a supply risk, there's a demand risk, and whenever
Speaker 4: we have the demand, the supply and demand. One man's
Speaker 4: debts another man's assets. Whenever you have a lot of debt,
Speaker 4: that balancing act becomes very different difficult because you have
Speaker 4: to keep interest rates high enough that the creditor gets
Speaker 4: in adequate return without having them so high that the
Speaker 4: debtor gets squeezed. So we're in that position if I
Speaker 4: look at then other markets and risk premiums. So first
Speaker 4: of all, I don't think you're going to get significant
Speaker 4: cuts in rates. I think the economy buy and large
Speaker 4: right now itself is in relatively good balance. So if
Speaker 4: you look at where growth is, where inflation is, and
Speaker 4: so on right now, and you have a political year,
Speaker 4: I think the markets are getting ahead of themselves with
Speaker 4: expecting that, and I think the risks are more on
Speaker 4: the upside than the downside. If I take then the
Speaker 4: marketplace as let's say equity markets, equity markets are relatively
Speaker 4: attractive against bomb markets, but you can't deal with them
Speaker 4: in general because there's a very limited portion of them.
Speaker 4: We all know the concentration in particularly certain types of
Speaker 4: tech and AI type of related stocks. And if you
Speaker 4: look at markets as a whole around the world, about
Speaker 4: half of the markets are not above where they were
Speaker 4: in twenty twelve, so and so you have a very
Speaker 4: concentrated market and that segment is getting more expensive. So
Speaker 4: for those reasons, I think that we're about at equilibrium
Speaker 4: while we have this essentially ticking time bomb with the
Speaker 4: debt situation. And then so then I bring it into
Speaker 4: the second factor, which is politics. So yeah, so when
Speaker 4: I look at the that issue, I think there's a
Speaker 4: very big difference between the candidates. The first question in politics, Well,
Speaker 4: maybe you don't want me to go there, but I
Speaker 4: think politics you're dealing with capitalism versus eight. You're dealing
Speaker 4: with left and right and varying degrees of left and right.
Speaker 4: That's going to have implications for tax policy, which you'll
Speaker 4: have implications economic policy, which we'll have implications on markets.
Speaker 4: But I'm going I'm answering your question too long, so
Speaker 4: I'm going to stop.
Speaker 3: And well, you were actually going exactly where I had
Speaker 3: wanted to go, which is how you're thinking through the
Speaker 3: US election. We'll get back to debt and deficit in
Speaker 3: a moment. But recently, the Committee for Responsible Federal Budgets
Speaker 3: just as Week said Vice President Harris would add three
Speaker 3: point five trillion dollars to the projected debt through the
Speaker 3: fiscal year of twenty thirty five. That same number for
Speaker 3: President Trump would add seven point five trillion to.
Speaker 2: The projected debt load.
Speaker 3: Curious as to what you think of those projections and
Speaker 3: the total economic impact of either candidate.
Speaker 4: First of all, the debt will not be dealt with,
Speaker 4: So how do you deal with it. You acquire a debt,
Speaker 4: you're holding a debt asset. You expect to get paid back.
Speaker 4: That means that they are going to be interest payments
Speaker 4: and principal payments, and they are going to increase as
Speaker 4: a percentage of the revenue. They're going to create a
Speaker 4: squeeze for the government. This is a certainty. So when
Speaker 4: you take a look at those they're all high, so
Speaker 4: they're all going to be material. Then you look at
Speaker 4: the differences in economic policies. Trump's economic policies are more
Speaker 4: classically capitalists in a in a way in which it's
Speaker 4: nationalist protectionists, lower regulations, more lower taxes for corporations, less
Speaker 4: wealth taxes or related to those taxes, less targeting for
Speaker 4: that population, so it's more capitalist. The ability to He
Speaker 4: makes a very good point on the ability to raise
Speaker 4: tariffs and what that means it used to be in
Speaker 4: the old days, tariffs were the main source of revenue.
Speaker 4: And I've calculated that roughly speaking, if he went through
Speaker 4: with his protectionist increases and tariffs he could, he would
Speaker 4: raise about eight hundred billion dollars a year, which is
Speaker 4: a significant amount of money. For example, by comparison, the
Speaker 4: proposed wealth tax and other taxes would be about one
Speaker 4: hundred twenty five billion, And that would be to then
Speaker 4: become very protectionist. And in terms of the taxes that
Speaker 4: when for the markets, I think about the markets, when
Speaker 4: you raise taxes, then the prices go down because everybody's
Speaker 4: looking for the after tax returns, and so the tax
Speaker 4: policy would be more favorable. And what his idea is
Speaker 4: is to be much more protectionist, much more nationalists, much
Speaker 4: more anti regulations. And so for the marketplace, that would
Speaker 4: be better than the Harris bills. There's much more than
Speaker 4: marketplaces that enter into the consideration of which candidates. So
Speaker 4: I'm not commenting on the candidates. I'm commenting more on
Speaker 4: which would which would be better or worse for the
Speaker 4: mar So either would be meaning I think that we're
Speaker 4: going to have a problem with bonds. I talked about
Speaker 4: this before the supply of the bonds, the need to
Speaker 4: monetize those bonds because they're not going to be paid
Speaker 4: back in hard dollars. Those are the things that I
Speaker 4: would be particularly concerned. And then there's capital flows. What
Speaker 4: also matters to the world that is holding our bonds
Speaker 4: is how we are Are we operating effectively? And so
Speaker 4: there's two questions on the political First question is do
Speaker 4: you have an orderly transfer of power? It seems inconceivable
Speaker 4: that we're asking and that I would ask that question,
Speaker 4: But there is some question of whether you would have
Speaker 4: the acceptance of a loss and an ord orterly transfer
Speaker 4: of power. And if you, let's say you do have
Speaker 4: an orderly transfer of power and we operate on those
Speaker 4: elements of voting, I think you have irreconcilable differences. They're
Speaker 4: not just budget and economic differences, but the situation in
Speaker 4: Washington has become such that they are also social differences,
Speaker 4: big social differences that have to do with all sorts
Speaker 4: of issues how the cities are run, and you know,
Speaker 4: and can a should a ten year old child decide
Speaker 4: on their sexuality? There are I mean, there are issues
Speaker 4: like this abortion, other things become almost irreconcilable differences. So
Speaker 4: we're starting to see movements not starting, it's been a while,
Speaker 4: and they could accelerate to the States. So I think
Speaker 4: you could see very big differences in the States, and
Speaker 4: you could see situations where we're questioning the rulings of
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court or the central government dealing with it.
Speaker 4: In terms of the politics, I do think both sides
Speaker 4: it's a win at all costs, and compromises perceived as
Speaker 4: a weakness, and so I think that we're going to
Speaker 4: find out in very short order these policies. I don't
Speaker 4: think the policies have been as clear and or as
Speaker 4: well known. That may not be as clear and well known,
Speaker 4: particularly for Kamala Harris because we haven't seen her Pepper policy.
Speaker 3: Hey, I want to go back to something that you
Speaker 3: had mentioned just a few minutes ago about the terror
Speaker 3: policies as proposed by former President Trump in this campaign season.
Speaker 2: What do you make of the critique?
Speaker 3: And I bring this up because I'm very certain that
Speaker 3: in this room, the relationship between the US and China
Speaker 3: is a pretty critical interest to the folks in this room.
Speaker 2: What do you make of the critique that those policies could.
Speaker 3: Be more inflationary.
Speaker 4: They would they would be more inflationary, as we've seen
Speaker 4: them in history. I'm not going to use the word,
Speaker 4: but we've seen them in history. And what they do
Speaker 4: is they bring in tax revenue. They bring in a
Speaker 4: significant amount of tax revenue. And the argument would be
Speaker 4: that there would be less regulation and more productivity. And
Speaker 4: then what they usually do is put in one way,
Speaker 4: try to control inflation in a controlling way. At the
Speaker 4: end of the day, what matters most, I think is productivity. Productivity.
Speaker 4: One person's productivity equals one person income, and for the
Speaker 4: country as a whole, we need productivity. And I believe,
Speaker 4: as was said earlier, that we need broad based productivity.
Speaker 4: And I don't see a plan for broad based productivity,
Speaker 4: but I think that both I think either of those
Speaker 4: policies are going to end up being more inflationary than
Speaker 4: is expected.
Speaker 3: So more on China here, because you did see overnight
Speaker 3: a set of stimulus measures that seem to disappoint investors
Speaker 3: after very recently a lot of promise entering the Chinese
Speaker 3: market after a different set of stimulus measures. From your
Speaker 3: experience as someone who has spent a lot of time
Speaker 3: working with multinational companies in China. What is the risk
Speaker 3: at this juncture, and how quickly and how drastically does
Speaker 3: the Chinese government need to intervene.
Speaker 4: I started to go to China in nineteen eighty four
Speaker 4: when they didn't have any more money. I went because
Speaker 4: of curiosity, and then I like the people, and I
Speaker 4: was in a situation where I could help them set
Speaker 4: up their first stock market and advice policy. And so
Speaker 4: for forty years I've had a very intimate relationship and
Speaker 4: very close and learned economic policies. And I can go
Speaker 4: through a long story. That's an interesting story. But what
Speaker 4: we are seeing now I would put in the context
Speaker 4: of the following. You know, how do I I'm a
Speaker 4: market player. They have a situation in which they have
Speaker 4: a lot of debt and operating in provinces in which
Speaker 4: those provinces used to raise their money by selling ill
Speaker 4: estate and also borrowing money that they can't do anymore,
Speaker 4: and so they have to provide money for those provinces,
Speaker 4: which they will do in the process of doing. But
Speaker 4: at the same time, those provinces own loans, so there
Speaker 4: needs to be I've been through these many times, four
Speaker 4: times in the United States, many times globally, there need
Speaker 4: to be two things. There need to be a debt restructuring,
Speaker 4: which will happen along those lines, and there needs to
Speaker 4: be a monetary policy in which interest rates are lower
Speaker 4: than the nominal growth rate, and there's real interest rates are lower,
Speaker 4: and that there's a disincent to hug money that right
Speaker 4: now there's almost a pushing on a string because they're
Speaker 4: holding that. And what classically the bottoms like our two
Speaker 4: thousand and eight bottom or any of those major bottoms
Speaker 4: take place when the assets get very cheap and then
Speaker 4: you have a reflation policy and they're going to do it.
Speaker 4: I would say that don't don't watch day by day.
Speaker 4: You know, today's up, today's down. And of course people
Speaker 4: nuance that there's something big going on, that they had
Speaker 4: a debt crisis and they also had a capitalist crisis.
Speaker 4: Is they are they reflect favorable to capitalism as we
Speaker 4: knew it before. I do not believe they are in
Speaker 4: the same way, so that there are structural changes that
Speaker 4: are taking place that have to do with the government's
Speaker 4: desire to retain complete control. So and that affects the economy.
Speaker 4: So in any case, I think what you're going to
Speaker 4: see in China is I'd have a I'd be long
Speaker 4: the action they're going to follow through. There will be bounces.
Speaker 4: I think you should think the risks are five percent
Speaker 4: below the bows, and I think you have to pick
Speaker 4: the right companies. We've done very, very well in China.
Speaker 4: But the question is, really I think you're for most
Speaker 4: of your listeners, what percentage of your portfolio should you
Speaker 4: have in any place? And I believe the most important
Speaker 4: thing in your portfolio is if you can have fifteen
Speaker 4: good uncorrelated return streams ten to fifteen. That means that
Speaker 4: as a default, that you start to think, I don't
Speaker 4: want more than something like seven and a half percent
Speaker 4: of my risk in any one place, seven maybe ten
Speaker 4: percent in any one place, And so I think that
Speaker 4: becomes the issue of diversification. I think that some of
Speaker 4: the places that are the good places. There are three
Speaker 4: things that I look at, generally speaking for the good
Speaker 4: places internationally. First is their finances. Does the country as
Speaker 4: a whole and the government or earn more money than
Speaker 4: it spends. Does it have a country as at home
Speaker 4: mostly does it have a good income statement in balance
Speaker 4: sheet and financial stability? Second is how does it operate internally?
Speaker 4: Is it efficient? Are they operating well? And number three,
Speaker 4: are are they at risk of an international war? We
Speaker 4: have to pay attention to this international war because as
Speaker 4: we get to that third influence, we have a different world.
Speaker 4: Now there's a much greater risk. Just like there's a
Speaker 4: much greater risk of an internal conflict of the sort
Speaker 4: that we haven't seen, there's a much greater risk of
Speaker 4: an external conflict of the sort that we haven't seen.
Speaker 4: So we need diversification and we want to be in
Speaker 4: places I think where those risks are less. So that's
Speaker 4: mine take on Chu.
Speaker 3: I will also go back to something you said before,
Speaker 3: because I think it is important to get your view
Speaker 3: on this. You mentioned that the federal service already nearing equilibrium.
Speaker 3: There's a whole wave of investors that are still banking
Speaker 3: on a large wave of interest rate cuts heading into
Speaker 3: next year. Do you believe that that won't be accomplished?
Speaker 3: How much more room do they really have?
Speaker 4: I think that they can come to a positively sloped
Speaker 4: yield curve by you know, taking you know, so, I
Speaker 4: think that they can cut rates a bit, but they
Speaker 4: can't cut rates a lot, and they have to worry
Speaker 4: about the bond market and and that's if we don't
Speaker 4: have a supplied demand problem. If we have a supply
Speaker 4: demand problem where the demand's not there, then the central
Speaker 4: bank is going to be faced with either trying to
Speaker 4: hold rates down and they might even do some.
Speaker 3: Hughe again, So another thing you had mentioned was uncertainly
Speaker 3: around the US election.
Speaker 4: But I want to make an important point about this.
Speaker 4: In these cycles where there's a lot of debt and
Speaker 4: you're growing it, one man's debts are a lot another
Speaker 4: man's assets, what that means is that you're increasing the
Speaker 4: supply at a fast rate, and inevitably, like in Japan,
Speaker 4: the value of the bonds have decreased because interest rates
Speaker 4: were kept below inflation rates and below nominal growth rates
Speaker 4: in order to reflate, and the government bought those bonds
Speaker 4: relative to US bonds over the last fifteen years because
Speaker 4: of their debt, have decreased by about ninety percent ninety
Speaker 4: percent in value relative to holding a US Treasury bond,
Speaker 4: and Treasury bonds have not been a great investment. So
Speaker 4: that issue of debt, I do not believe that those
Speaker 4: bonds will end up being that bonds will end up
Speaker 4: being a good investment. I do not want to. You know,
Speaker 4: I have a certain basic amount of diversification, so I
Speaker 4: have some little bit of bonds, but I would say
Speaker 4: I think we have an interest rate risk in that
Speaker 4: bond market.
Speaker 3: So I was told they have one more question with you.
Speaker 3: So I'm going to go back to an age old
Speaker 3: critique to see where you are now. In that critique,
Speaker 3: you know, a lot of people with the geopolitical risk.
Speaker 2: In the world has been flocking to safety through gold
Speaker 2: and through cash.
Speaker 3: And in twenty twenty two you reversed this idea that
Speaker 3: you thought cash was trash that was into the interest
Speaker 3: rate hiking cycle. Now that we're seeing a cutting cycle,
Speaker 3: is cash trash again?
Speaker 4: I said cash was trash when we had zero virtually
Speaker 4: zero interest rate and we had a negative one and
Speaker 4: a half percent interest rate real, so it was obviously trash.
Speaker 4: I said, cash is very attractive when we got to
Speaker 4: the five ish five and a half percent and the
Speaker 4: Yeld curve was significantly inverted. The lower that the rate
Speaker 4: goes in real and nominal terms, the less I'm going
Speaker 4: to like that rate. So as this is the thing
Speaker 4: to you know, pay attention to. When interest rates go down,
Speaker 4: the prices of things go up and people think it's
Speaker 4: a better investment rather than it's a worse investment because
Speaker 4: its yield is going to be less. So when I
Speaker 4: look at the rate structure, I think that they can't
Speaker 4: lower it too much otherwise they're going to have the
Speaker 4: same sort of problem that they had when they had
Speaker 4: it too low because you get a zero. As you
Speaker 4: get closer to you know, a one or one and
Speaker 4: a half percent or a zero real yield, you're going
Speaker 4: to have all that problem. It's going to be encouraged
Speaker 4: to borrow and so on. So right now cash is
Speaker 4: is you know, so so it's not trash, but it's
Speaker 4: not you know, after tax returns on that are not
Speaker 4: very attractive. Equity by and large, as a whole is better,
Speaker 4: but there is such a concentration of the type of
Speaker 4: equities you buy.
Speaker 2: Right we have to leave it there.
Speaker 3: It's so nice to have time with you from Singapore.
Speaker 3: I hope to talk to you again soon and thank
Speaker 3: you all for having us