1
00:00:05,840 --> 00:00:07,720
Speaker 1: Welcome to trillions. I'm Joel Webber and I'm Eric bel

2
00:00:07,800 --> 00:00:13,120
Speaker 1: Tunis back in the booth. It sounds for real, way

3
00:00:13,200 --> 00:00:15,720
Speaker 1: better than my closet. It's the reads, it's it's great.

4
00:00:15,720 --> 00:00:18,200
Speaker 1: I love it. It's elevated. Yeah, it's good to see you.

5
00:00:18,200 --> 00:00:20,560
Speaker 1: You too. You brought us somebody today who we're gonna

6
00:00:20,560 --> 00:00:23,560
Speaker 1: hear from. Yeah, I grabbed him off of the AM track.

7
00:00:23,880 --> 00:00:25,640
Speaker 1: I was like, you look only a good guest. We're desperate,

8
00:00:25,640 --> 00:00:28,760
Speaker 1: we're getting lazy these days. Um No, this is Tim Edwards,

9
00:00:29,000 --> 00:00:31,680
Speaker 1: who is an et F industry veteran. His SMP now

10
00:00:31,840 --> 00:00:34,400
Speaker 1: and what he's bringing to us and where we're talking

11
00:00:34,400 --> 00:00:37,960
Speaker 1: to him today is the SPEVA Report. For nerds know

12
00:00:38,080 --> 00:00:40,199
Speaker 1: exactly what I just said, but if you don't, it's

13
00:00:40,240 --> 00:00:44,000
Speaker 1: the SMP Index versus Active Report. It's a scorecard that

14
00:00:44,040 --> 00:00:46,800
Speaker 1: says how will our active managers doing versus their benchmarks.

15
00:00:47,280 --> 00:00:50,560
Speaker 1: This report has been out Tim make correct fifteen years

16
00:00:50,880 --> 00:00:54,680
Speaker 1: and has been pretty instrumental in sort of driving the

17
00:00:54,760 --> 00:00:57,440
Speaker 1: narrative and thus the flows towards passive because the numbers

18
00:00:57,480 --> 00:01:00,280
Speaker 1: are pretty bad. Okay, so we're gonna hear from Tim

19
00:01:00,360 --> 00:01:09,559
Speaker 1: Edwards of SMP this timeand trillions the SPIVA Report. Tim

20
00:01:09,560 --> 00:01:12,800
Speaker 1: wakan a trillions. Hi, thanks very much for having me. Okay,

21
00:01:12,959 --> 00:01:16,360
Speaker 1: Tim Spiver. For those not familiar, what is this going

22
00:01:16,440 --> 00:01:20,319
Speaker 1: to reveal? Well, it was in fact first published twenty

23
00:01:20,520 --> 00:01:24,240
Speaker 1: years ago that Chack the good Time Flies. The concept

24
00:01:24,319 --> 00:01:28,319
Speaker 1: is is really really simple. Um. The idea is to

25
00:01:28,360 --> 00:01:33,280
Speaker 1: take a database of actively managed funds, assign each fund

26
00:01:33,440 --> 00:01:36,160
Speaker 1: correctly to a representative benchmark, so if it's a large

27
00:01:36,160 --> 00:01:40,399
Speaker 1: cap us equity fund, the sp and then on a

28
00:01:40,440 --> 00:01:44,319
Speaker 1: regular basis to report how many of those funds survived,

29
00:01:44,560 --> 00:01:46,880
Speaker 1: survived and beat the benchmark. And then there's a wealth

30
00:01:46,920 --> 00:01:51,880
Speaker 1: of additional data around the spread in performance average performance

31
00:01:52,160 --> 00:01:55,920
Speaker 1: across funds, both over the short term and over the

32
00:01:55,920 --> 00:01:57,720
Speaker 1: long term. So it's a report that gives you a

33
00:01:57,760 --> 00:02:02,919
Speaker 1: sense of where active management is doing really well different geographies,

34
00:02:02,960 --> 00:02:07,560
Speaker 1: different market segments. What the long term statistics tell us

35
00:02:07,600 --> 00:02:11,200
Speaker 1: about where indexing might work as an investment strategy. Okay,

36
00:02:11,240 --> 00:02:14,960
Speaker 1: so who's winning? Who's writing? Um? Well, we just today

37
00:02:15,480 --> 00:02:20,600
Speaker 1: published our latest edition of the spever U score cord Um.

38
00:02:20,639 --> 00:02:24,399
Speaker 1: It runs data up to the media point of two

39
00:02:25,080 --> 00:02:29,959
Speaker 1: and unusually perhaps um, it's really really close year to

40
00:02:30,080 --> 00:02:35,680
Speaker 1: date in two of actively managed US large cap funds

41
00:02:35,760 --> 00:02:38,600
Speaker 1: underperformed the SMP five dred So it's not it's not

42
00:02:38,639 --> 00:02:43,200
Speaker 1: exactly fifty fifty's before, but essentially it's it's a coin flip.

43
00:02:43,280 --> 00:02:46,080
Speaker 1: So in the short term I'd say that it's a

44
00:02:46,160 --> 00:02:50,520
Speaker 1: really close race for two. Over the long term, a

45
00:02:50,639 --> 00:02:54,560
Speaker 1: much higher proportion of actively managed funds have underperformed the

46
00:02:54,680 --> 00:02:58,400
Speaker 1: s Yeah, I mean fifty percent is a huge feed

47
00:02:58,440 --> 00:03:01,959
Speaker 1: for active there. When I think of active, especially in

48
00:03:02,000 --> 00:03:04,960
Speaker 1: the large cap space, I think of like a third

49
00:03:05,360 --> 00:03:09,119
Speaker 1: outperforming right this year half have So that's pretty good,

50
00:03:09,200 --> 00:03:11,280
Speaker 1: is it? Because of the violatility, I think, I think

51
00:03:11,320 --> 00:03:17,920
Speaker 1: there's a combination of factors. Um. So, there is traditionally

52
00:03:19,080 --> 00:03:22,280
Speaker 1: a conception that active managers tend to do better in

53
00:03:22,520 --> 00:03:26,280
Speaker 1: bear markets, and of course that's something that happened this year,

54
00:03:26,320 --> 00:03:28,200
Speaker 1: and in the first half of the year, the US

55
00:03:28,240 --> 00:03:31,560
Speaker 1: exty market turned from from boll to bear. Um the

56
00:03:31,720 --> 00:03:36,520
Speaker 1: data suggests a much more nuanced picture. Actually, a downturn

57
00:03:36,720 --> 00:03:39,360
Speaker 1: tends to make things a lot more noisy and a

58
00:03:39,400 --> 00:03:42,080
Speaker 1: bit more random. What we also saw this year, as

59
00:03:42,080 --> 00:03:46,400
Speaker 1: well as slightly higher volatility, was a massive increase in dispersion,

60
00:03:46,440 --> 00:03:49,000
Speaker 1: which is a measure of how differently stocks are performing.

61
00:03:49,560 --> 00:03:53,080
Speaker 1: This was most visible in the performance of of different sectors.

62
00:03:53,240 --> 00:03:55,880
Speaker 1: So energy doing fantastically well at the same time this

63
00:03:55,960 --> 00:03:59,160
Speaker 1: technology was doing rather badly. And what you had across

64
00:03:59,200 --> 00:04:02,640
Speaker 1: different styles, across different sectors, across different stocks was a

65
00:04:02,760 --> 00:04:06,280
Speaker 1: really big difference between if you like winners and losers.

66
00:04:06,920 --> 00:04:09,920
Speaker 1: What what that does? It doesn't make any sort of

67
00:04:09,960 --> 00:04:14,480
Speaker 1: strategy smarter, but it does really turn it into more

68
00:04:14,600 --> 00:04:17,839
Speaker 1: of a game of luck rather than skill. Um. The

69
00:04:17,920 --> 00:04:20,040
Speaker 1: last time we saw a dispersion as high as we've

70
00:04:20,080 --> 00:04:22,960
Speaker 1: seen it so far in twenty two was two thousand

71
00:04:22,960 --> 00:04:26,400
Speaker 1: and nine. Funnily enough, that's the last time that active

72
00:04:26,440 --> 00:04:29,280
Speaker 1: managers had such a good record. Yeah, I mean, um,

73
00:04:29,320 --> 00:04:31,800
Speaker 1: I remember going back in two thousand and eight and

74
00:04:31,839 --> 00:04:34,560
Speaker 1: looking at the twenty biggest active funds, and I found

75
00:04:34,880 --> 00:04:38,240
Speaker 1: two thirds of them underperformed the horrendous year. Like the

76
00:04:38,279 --> 00:04:42,520
Speaker 1: SMP was down, two thirds were down worse. And this

77
00:04:42,600 --> 00:04:44,920
Speaker 1: was part of our big theme that we've been saying

78
00:04:45,000 --> 00:04:46,880
Speaker 1: for I don't know a decade. At this point we're

79
00:04:46,920 --> 00:04:50,000
Speaker 1: pretty proven, right, is that a bear market is actually

80
00:04:50,040 --> 00:04:52,880
Speaker 1: not going to help active um. It's it made help

81
00:04:52,920 --> 00:04:55,159
Speaker 1: a couple of funds, but generally speaking, the same amount

82
00:04:55,120 --> 00:04:59,320
Speaker 1: will outperform and the same amount will underperform um And

83
00:04:59,440 --> 00:05:01,840
Speaker 1: the other thing I think just a bear market tends

84
00:05:01,880 --> 00:05:04,880
Speaker 1: to be when investors flee their funds and their assets

85
00:05:04,880 --> 00:05:08,080
Speaker 1: go down anyway, So it's just generally not they sort of.

86
00:05:08,640 --> 00:05:11,599
Speaker 1: I don't know the turnaround opportunity that I think people

87
00:05:11,640 --> 00:05:13,799
Speaker 1: think it is, although if they can keep up fifty

88
00:05:14,640 --> 00:05:16,520
Speaker 1: for the year or a couple of years, that I

89
00:05:16,560 --> 00:05:19,960
Speaker 1: guess they would go a little further with maybe changing

90
00:05:20,000 --> 00:05:22,440
Speaker 1: the narrative. Yeah, I think if if if they can

91
00:05:22,600 --> 00:05:24,800
Speaker 1: maintain that that rate over the long term, then it

92
00:05:24,839 --> 00:05:26,960
Speaker 1: does get to be more of a balanced picture. I mean,

93
00:05:27,760 --> 00:05:30,560
Speaker 1: you know, something to bear in mind is we don't

94
00:05:30,720 --> 00:05:34,240
Speaker 1: apply any due diligence, if you like, on when producing

95
00:05:34,240 --> 00:05:37,800
Speaker 1: our speed reports. We don't say how did the good funds? Do?

96
00:05:37,839 --> 00:05:40,080
Speaker 1: You know? How do the funds that I would judge

97
00:05:40,080 --> 00:05:43,400
Speaker 1: as being likely to outperform do? Instead? It's it's really

98
00:05:43,440 --> 00:05:47,880
Speaker 1: about measuring the universe. So you might think, as an investor, oh, well,

99
00:05:47,920 --> 00:05:49,880
Speaker 1: you know, overall half of the funds out performed, but

100
00:05:49,920 --> 00:05:52,720
Speaker 1: I might be able to identify it half. That's the problem.

101
00:05:52,760 --> 00:05:54,880
Speaker 1: This is the problem for active and why I don't

102
00:05:54,880 --> 00:05:57,960
Speaker 1: even know if it matters. Okay, fifty out perform, let's

103
00:05:58,000 --> 00:06:00,600
Speaker 1: just say they actually held that up for five years.

104
00:06:00,600 --> 00:06:03,440
Speaker 1: They won't, but let's just say they did. Most people,

105
00:06:03,480 --> 00:06:08,120
Speaker 1: I think, especially advisors, have just sort of resigned themselves

106
00:06:08,120 --> 00:06:11,080
Speaker 1: to going well. I I admit some will outperform, but

107
00:06:11,120 --> 00:06:12,919
Speaker 1: I don't know which one is ahead of time, and

108
00:06:12,960 --> 00:06:14,440
Speaker 1: I don't want to roll the dice on that. I'll

109
00:06:14,480 --> 00:06:17,000
Speaker 1: just go Vanguard and buy a three basis point beta fund.

110
00:06:17,360 --> 00:06:19,840
Speaker 1: And that's what the flow show. So I mean, can

111
00:06:19,920 --> 00:06:22,360
Speaker 1: active turn around at all? Is there? I mean? Is

112
00:06:22,400 --> 00:06:26,279
Speaker 1: it over? Um? Well, let me say two things about

113
00:06:26,279 --> 00:06:30,440
Speaker 1: that would say not. First of all, that's well no,

114
00:06:30,560 --> 00:06:33,040
Speaker 1: it's the persistence problem too, and they if they do

115
00:06:33,080 --> 00:06:35,159
Speaker 1: it one year, they usually or five year period, they

116
00:06:35,200 --> 00:06:36,919
Speaker 1: usually do not do it the next five year period.

117
00:06:37,320 --> 00:06:39,880
Speaker 1: And and advisors know this. This information is now out

118
00:06:39,880 --> 00:06:41,800
Speaker 1: there thanks to Spiva and the Internet and whatnot. And

119
00:06:41,920 --> 00:06:44,400
Speaker 1: obviously Vanguard and Bogel beat the drum on this for

120
00:06:44,440 --> 00:06:48,400
Speaker 1: many years. Um. I mean I'm not I'm I'm torn

121
00:06:48,400 --> 00:06:51,600
Speaker 1: on how these tim tim is the game over? Well,

122
00:06:51,880 --> 00:06:55,320
Speaker 1: first of all, let's just put some data around this conversation.

123
00:06:55,360 --> 00:06:59,480
Speaker 1: So we mentioned under performing year to day in two,

124
00:07:00,000 --> 00:07:02,520
Speaker 1: but the Spever reports to include longer term statistics. If

125
00:07:02,520 --> 00:07:04,640
Speaker 1: you look at three years, that number goes up to

126
00:07:05,760 --> 00:07:07,880
Speaker 1: under performing, If you go to ten years, that number

127
00:07:07,920 --> 00:07:11,720
Speaker 1: goes up to under performing, and if you go out

128
00:07:11,760 --> 00:07:14,640
Speaker 1: to twenty years since we've started producing these reports, it

129
00:07:14,760 --> 00:07:20,400
Speaker 1: is actively managed under performing UM so. So so that's

130
00:07:20,440 --> 00:07:22,560
Speaker 1: the challenge I think that Eric's getting at right that

131
00:07:22,640 --> 00:07:24,200
Speaker 1: the short term number is it's always be the long

132
00:07:24,280 --> 00:07:29,280
Speaker 1: term number UM. Then you have the issue with as

133
00:07:29,280 --> 00:07:33,239
Speaker 1: you say, persistence so UM. There are lots of different

134
00:07:33,240 --> 00:07:35,560
Speaker 1: ways that you could try and identify a manager who's

135
00:07:35,800 --> 00:07:38,800
Speaker 1: UM your well positioned to to beat the market. One

136
00:07:38,800 --> 00:07:42,040
Speaker 1: of the challenges is the data suggests that the most

137
00:07:42,040 --> 00:07:45,040
Speaker 1: obvious thing to look at, did this manager beat the market?

138
00:07:45,120 --> 00:07:48,920
Speaker 1: Historically UM tends to be a low information signal, So

139
00:07:48,960 --> 00:07:51,600
Speaker 1: that's something that we cover in our Persistence report, which

140
00:07:51,640 --> 00:07:55,480
Speaker 1: is a separate Spever report comes out similarly on a

141
00:07:55,520 --> 00:07:57,800
Speaker 1: semi annual schedule, and what we look at is did

142
00:07:57,840 --> 00:07:59,760
Speaker 1: the funds that used to beat the market or used

143
00:07:59,760 --> 00:08:03,480
Speaker 1: to be their pays continue to do so? And there

144
00:08:03,600 --> 00:08:06,080
Speaker 1: you find actually there's a there's a degree of reversion

145
00:08:06,120 --> 00:08:07,760
Speaker 1: to the mean. It's really interesting to think about the

146
00:08:07,760 --> 00:08:11,280
Speaker 1: mechanics as to what happens to successful managers. That means

147
00:08:11,360 --> 00:08:13,239
Speaker 1: that you know, they might be challenged in their future

148
00:08:13,240 --> 00:08:16,800
Speaker 1: out performance. What the data says is that it is

149
00:08:16,840 --> 00:08:20,280
Speaker 1: difficult to identify a fund that will win based on

150
00:08:20,360 --> 00:08:29,480
Speaker 1: those that have outperformed in the past. Morning Star has

151
00:08:29,480 --> 00:08:32,559
Speaker 1: this great report, uh like yours, but they put fee

152
00:08:32,559 --> 00:08:34,559
Speaker 1: buckets into it, and what they find is there's a

153
00:08:34,640 --> 00:08:38,280
Speaker 1: high correlation between the ones that do outperform um and

154
00:08:38,320 --> 00:08:41,480
Speaker 1: the and the ones that are cheapest. So the lowest

155
00:08:41,600 --> 00:08:46,400
Speaker 1: quartile fee has a much better our performance rate than

156
00:08:46,600 --> 00:08:49,920
Speaker 1: the highest quartile fee, which is almost like they all underperform.

157
00:08:50,040 --> 00:08:52,080
Speaker 1: Is that kind of a common thread with the let's

158
00:08:52,080 --> 00:08:54,000
Speaker 1: look at the tenure the ten percent or nine percent

159
00:08:54,040 --> 00:08:56,520
Speaker 1: that outperformed. Is low fee a common thread or is

160
00:08:56,520 --> 00:09:00,320
Speaker 1: there something else they haven't in common? So we um

161
00:09:00,920 --> 00:09:02,880
Speaker 1: I've seen in the morning Star report and I like it,

162
00:09:02,880 --> 00:09:05,480
Speaker 1: and it probably is. Now I should emphasize what we

163
00:09:05,559 --> 00:09:09,040
Speaker 1: do with SPEVER is to compare actively manage funds net

164
00:09:09,040 --> 00:09:12,520
Speaker 1: of fees to benchmarks, which by convention do not include

165
00:09:12,559 --> 00:09:14,199
Speaker 1: any trading costs. Right, So we're giving them a hard

166
00:09:14,200 --> 00:09:17,760
Speaker 1: benchmark to be um. Over the years, we've heard this,

167
00:09:17,840 --> 00:09:19,880
Speaker 1: you know, is it all about fees and so on,

168
00:09:19,920 --> 00:09:22,599
Speaker 1: And so we started producing a different report which was

169
00:09:22,640 --> 00:09:27,200
Speaker 1: published exactly a week ago, which looks at grosser fee

170
00:09:27,200 --> 00:09:30,679
Speaker 1: performance and also looks at the performance of institutional accounts.

171
00:09:30,720 --> 00:09:33,400
Speaker 1: That's called spever institutional. And what that does is is

172
00:09:33,440 --> 00:09:36,360
Speaker 1: answers first of all, the question of how much difference

173
00:09:36,400 --> 00:09:40,120
Speaker 1: do fees make UM and what difference would it make

174
00:09:40,160 --> 00:09:44,280
Speaker 1: if I had institutional resources devoted to selecting an outperforming

175
00:09:44,280 --> 00:09:47,440
Speaker 1: active manager, and to take a just abroad look at

176
00:09:47,440 --> 00:09:49,520
Speaker 1: the results, what you see is, first of all, fees

177
00:09:49,800 --> 00:09:54,520
Speaker 1: do matter. Second of all, actually the performance of those

178
00:09:55,200 --> 00:09:59,080
Speaker 1: institutionally managed accounts is slightly better than the performance of

179
00:09:59,280 --> 00:10:05,840
Speaker 1: mutual funds. However, most active funds underperform the benchmark, so

180
00:10:06,280 --> 00:10:10,479
Speaker 1: even even gross of film. You know why you know,

181
00:10:10,320 --> 00:10:12,920
Speaker 1: I again my study of Bogel and this book. I

182
00:10:13,000 --> 00:10:16,600
Speaker 1: he would describe the active managers as sitting in a circle,

183
00:10:17,440 --> 00:10:19,400
Speaker 1: and they're all trading with each other, like at a

184
00:10:19,440 --> 00:10:21,839
Speaker 1: poker table. And I think sometimes people think of the

185
00:10:21,880 --> 00:10:24,520
Speaker 1: stock market as something else, but it's really just a

186
00:10:24,520 --> 00:10:26,640
Speaker 1: bunch of people trading with each other. And for for

187
00:10:26,679 --> 00:10:28,960
Speaker 1: me to win, Joel has to lose, and then I

188
00:10:28,960 --> 00:10:31,400
Speaker 1: have to basically find losers, like four or five times

189
00:10:31,440 --> 00:10:34,040
Speaker 1: in a row to be that that person who have performs,

190
00:10:34,080 --> 00:10:36,520
Speaker 1: and the odds are tough. It's just very difficult to

191
00:10:36,559 --> 00:10:39,000
Speaker 1: sort of gamble your way into having more money than

192
00:10:39,040 --> 00:10:41,360
Speaker 1: everybody else. I guess a couple do it, but largely

193
00:10:41,760 --> 00:10:45,720
Speaker 1: that everybody's sort of netting out zero plus you added

194
00:10:45,760 --> 00:10:48,240
Speaker 1: the fees and then it's overall people. It's not quite

195
00:10:48,240 --> 00:10:51,440
Speaker 1: a zero some game. I think it's it's um. So

196
00:10:51,559 --> 00:10:54,200
Speaker 1: here's here's the thing. We could all invest in the

197
00:10:54,200 --> 00:10:56,480
Speaker 1: equity markets and we could all make money. It's not

198
00:10:56,640 --> 00:11:00,000
Speaker 1: zero sum. What really is zero sum is is outperformance

199
00:11:00,160 --> 00:11:03,880
Speaker 1: is being smarter than than than everyone else or than

200
00:11:04,040 --> 00:11:07,240
Speaker 1: well exactly. The capital markets will build money, right, if

201
00:11:07,280 --> 00:11:09,040
Speaker 1: you just put your money in there, it will grow.

202
00:11:09,120 --> 00:11:12,520
Speaker 1: It's more of the outperformance zero some the trading. But

203
00:11:12,559 --> 00:11:15,120
Speaker 1: I mean, here's one question I have in the in

204
00:11:15,160 --> 00:11:17,120
Speaker 1: the equity and we'll go to some other categories. I mean,

205
00:11:17,120 --> 00:11:19,360
Speaker 1: all the numbers are pretty bad here, but you know,

206
00:11:19,640 --> 00:11:22,719
Speaker 1: it seems to me that some of these funds were

207
00:11:22,800 --> 00:11:25,000
Speaker 1: like built in the seventies, eighties, and nineties, and they

208
00:11:25,000 --> 00:11:27,800
Speaker 1: have to be real close to the SMP, and it's

209
00:11:27,840 --> 00:11:30,000
Speaker 1: tough to beat the SMP when you're close to it,

210
00:11:30,160 --> 00:11:33,439
Speaker 1: whereas some funds now like an ARC, they go way

211
00:11:33,480 --> 00:11:35,560
Speaker 1: out there and they're either gonna like crush it or

212
00:11:35,600 --> 00:11:38,080
Speaker 1: get crushed, and seems to be investors sort of prefer

213
00:11:38,240 --> 00:11:41,120
Speaker 1: that because in the core they're moving to passive. Before

214
00:11:41,120 --> 00:11:42,840
Speaker 1: you answer that, though, I think it's important that we

215
00:11:42,880 --> 00:11:45,640
Speaker 1: talked about this universe of funds in general, right because

216
00:11:45,840 --> 00:11:48,480
Speaker 1: this is everything. It's e T s, mutual funds, everything

217
00:11:48,679 --> 00:11:51,959
Speaker 1: grouped up and evaluated as one. Yes, so ets are

218
00:11:51,960 --> 00:11:54,079
Speaker 1: included on a report, but it's it's basically and did

219
00:11:54,080 --> 00:11:55,680
Speaker 1: you break them out at all? Or is it all?

220
00:11:55,840 --> 00:11:58,240
Speaker 1: We didn't, although that that is something I've been thinking

221
00:11:58,280 --> 00:12:00,719
Speaker 1: about doing, and it is also something I mean, I

222
00:12:00,720 --> 00:12:03,320
Speaker 1: don't think we'll ever do a daily spever, but you

223
00:12:03,360 --> 00:12:05,360
Speaker 1: could with the actually can see you know how many

224
00:12:05,360 --> 00:12:08,640
Speaker 1: how many beat the market today? Anyway to the question, yes,

225
00:12:08,720 --> 00:12:10,960
Speaker 1: so there aren't different categories. We've been talking a lot

226
00:12:10,960 --> 00:12:14,560
Speaker 1: about the large cap category. The growth category is actually

227
00:12:14,679 --> 00:12:17,640
Speaker 1: quite interesting. So growth was one of those areas where

228
00:12:17,640 --> 00:12:20,600
Speaker 1: the record of active managers had been going pretty strong.

229
00:12:21,400 --> 00:12:23,760
Speaker 1: If we were here one year ago, you've been asking

230
00:12:23,760 --> 00:12:25,720
Speaker 1: me why is it that I think it was a

231
00:12:25,800 --> 00:12:28,840
Speaker 1: thirty percent of growth managers were out performing over three

232
00:12:28,920 --> 00:12:33,600
Speaker 1: years UM. That record has strongly reverted to the mean

233
00:12:33,640 --> 00:12:38,240
Speaker 1: with the downturn in growth. There's you mentioned Cathy Woods

234
00:12:38,320 --> 00:12:40,520
Speaker 1: Arc Fund, which which came in for a lot of

235
00:12:40,600 --> 00:12:44,120
Speaker 1: perhaps unfair criticism. She was not alone. If you look

236
00:12:44,200 --> 00:12:48,000
Speaker 1: over the three year period now at large cap growth,

237
00:12:48,120 --> 00:12:50,360
Speaker 1: it's it's come back completely other the other way, it's

238
00:12:51,480 --> 00:12:54,520
Speaker 1: under performing. And what you see is is that, yes,

239
00:12:54,679 --> 00:12:59,000
Speaker 1: there is this aspect to which investors more generally I think,

240
00:12:59,000 --> 00:13:02,040
Speaker 1: have come to their active managers and demanded They said, look,

241
00:13:02,040 --> 00:13:06,119
Speaker 1: I can get very low cost access to my benchmark.

242
00:13:06,600 --> 00:13:08,120
Speaker 1: What I need you to do is to focus on

243
00:13:08,160 --> 00:13:12,000
Speaker 1: your best ideas and to concentrate on your highest conviction picks.

244
00:13:12,040 --> 00:13:14,600
Speaker 1: And I think many men managers have done that. It

245
00:13:14,720 --> 00:13:17,320
Speaker 1: does make it then the end result a little more

246
00:13:18,000 --> 00:13:19,960
Speaker 1: more of a broad distribution. Right there are either gonna

247
00:13:19,960 --> 00:13:22,640
Speaker 1: win big or they're gonna lose big um. And it

248
00:13:22,679 --> 00:13:25,640
Speaker 1: does in some categories like like growth, I mean that

249
00:13:25,679 --> 00:13:28,000
Speaker 1: you can get quite strong extremes. I think there's evidence

250
00:13:28,520 --> 00:13:32,520
Speaker 1: in our data suggest that the growth segment was kind

251
00:13:32,520 --> 00:13:35,719
Speaker 1: of more growth than than our growth index in particularly

252
00:13:36,280 --> 00:13:41,640
Speaker 1: in the downturn in growth relatively that started back in September. Yeah,

253
00:13:41,679 --> 00:13:43,760
Speaker 1: I think the I think I'm getting at here is

254
00:13:43,800 --> 00:13:46,600
Speaker 1: if you were running a fund in the eighties and nineties,

255
00:13:46,600 --> 00:13:49,199
Speaker 1: before indexing was big, you were used in the course,

256
00:13:49,360 --> 00:13:51,679
Speaker 1: you were ben smart hugging largely because you couldn't get

257
00:13:51,720 --> 00:13:53,400
Speaker 1: too crazy you can go you couldn't go for Cathy

258
00:13:53,440 --> 00:13:56,760
Speaker 1: would because you're sort of delivering core exposure. And I

259
00:13:56,760 --> 00:13:58,400
Speaker 1: think that locks them in because there are a lot

260
00:13:58,440 --> 00:14:00,600
Speaker 1: of their existing clients are those people who alathem for that.

261
00:14:01,160 --> 00:14:03,520
Speaker 1: So I find that they're kind of in this sort

262
00:14:03,559 --> 00:14:08,560
Speaker 1: of unfortunate like conundrum about still serving core exposure, so

263
00:14:08,559 --> 00:14:11,400
Speaker 1: they can't go really active. But people weren't really active

264
00:14:11,440 --> 00:14:14,599
Speaker 1: now because they use indexing for their core. Yeah, I

265
00:14:14,640 --> 00:14:16,720
Speaker 1: think I think you might be right. I would say

266
00:14:16,960 --> 00:14:19,440
Speaker 1: I'm not an expert in anten eighties fund history, but

267
00:14:19,440 --> 00:14:22,760
Speaker 1: there were concentrated technology funds at the time. There were

268
00:14:22,840 --> 00:14:26,080
Speaker 1: you know, top twenty funds, just twenty great idea funds

269
00:14:26,400 --> 00:14:30,720
Speaker 1: at the time. Um, I think you're right that more broadly,

270
00:14:31,240 --> 00:14:34,800
Speaker 1: it used to be the case that managers could could

271
00:14:34,880 --> 00:14:37,640
Speaker 1: essentially sell beta as alpha, that that might be a

272
00:14:37,640 --> 00:14:40,680
Speaker 1: bit a bit unfair, but I think that's a lot

273
00:14:40,720 --> 00:14:44,360
Speaker 1: harder to do nowadays. I still think there's look, there's

274
00:14:44,400 --> 00:14:49,080
Speaker 1: there's still massive need for active managers in our markets,

275
00:14:49,520 --> 00:14:52,720
Speaker 1: and they do provide a valuable service in terms of

276
00:14:53,240 --> 00:14:58,560
Speaker 1: you know, price efficiency an allocation of capital. The challenge

277
00:14:58,880 --> 00:15:00,800
Speaker 1: I think is is your much do you need and

278
00:15:00,840 --> 00:15:04,600
Speaker 1: how much do you as as an individual investor need

279
00:15:04,680 --> 00:15:07,880
Speaker 1: to to allocate to a to an active manager when

280
00:15:08,000 --> 00:15:09,920
Speaker 1: actually a lot of what's driving and performance to be

281
00:15:09,960 --> 00:15:13,120
Speaker 1: yours allocation. So walk us through some other headlines here

282
00:15:13,240 --> 00:15:17,760
Speaker 1: we had an equities there, fixed income. Yeah, so, um so,

283
00:15:17,800 --> 00:15:20,640
Speaker 1: I'll pick to too. Highlights from from other categories. The

284
00:15:20,680 --> 00:15:26,000
Speaker 1: first is um so, international managers had a slightly better

285
00:15:26,400 --> 00:15:30,320
Speaker 1: record in the latest Speeded edition and although again it's

286
00:15:30,400 --> 00:15:34,840
Speaker 1: it's we're still not seeing categories generally where you get

287
00:15:34,840 --> 00:15:37,600
Speaker 1: a high proportion of active managers beating the index over

288
00:15:37,640 --> 00:15:41,880
Speaker 1: the long term. One area that we have commented upon

289
00:15:41,960 --> 00:15:44,800
Speaker 1: frequently as one where the active record is much better

290
00:15:45,280 --> 00:15:50,760
Speaker 1: international small caps. So compared to an international small cap benchmarks,

291
00:15:50,920 --> 00:15:55,800
Speaker 1: managers picking small international stocks have actually had a pretty

292
00:15:55,880 --> 00:16:00,560
Speaker 1: good record over the long term. Fixed income well fixed

293
00:16:00,560 --> 00:16:02,560
Speaker 1: income has been was it was a bit more of

294
00:16:02,560 --> 00:16:05,440
Speaker 1: a mix this year. One area where active funds seem

295
00:16:05,480 --> 00:16:08,560
Speaker 1: to be having a particularly tough time was in the

296
00:16:09,320 --> 00:16:12,600
Speaker 1: intermediate US US government, and I guess that's it's just

297
00:16:12,640 --> 00:16:14,600
Speaker 1: a downturn in US government and also one of the

298
00:16:14,600 --> 00:16:18,440
Speaker 1: typical strategies that managers use in fixed income going along

299
00:16:18,480 --> 00:16:22,440
Speaker 1: the duration was a painful one this year. One area

300
00:16:22,480 --> 00:16:27,040
Speaker 1: where we saw managers do actually pretty well was just

301
00:16:27,160 --> 00:16:31,160
Speaker 1: general investment grade funds UM, seeing an under performance rate

302
00:16:31,240 --> 00:16:35,120
Speaker 1: of seventeen percent there um. So there does appear to be,

303
00:16:35,280 --> 00:16:39,720
Speaker 1: at least in the short term, evidence for for strong

304
00:16:39,720 --> 00:16:42,040
Speaker 1: performance from active managers in the fixed income space. So

305
00:16:42,200 --> 00:16:44,040
Speaker 1: the fixed income has always been a little better than

306
00:16:44,040 --> 00:16:47,600
Speaker 1: equity in these Beaver reports, and some say, well, look,

307
00:16:47,760 --> 00:16:50,680
Speaker 1: if your benchmark is the AGG it doesn't hold high

308
00:16:50,720 --> 00:16:52,640
Speaker 1: yield international. A lot of these managers will buy high

309
00:16:52,680 --> 00:16:55,440
Speaker 1: yield international, jag up the credit risk. Um do you

310
00:16:55,480 --> 00:16:58,280
Speaker 1: account for that, because in the equity world, if you

311
00:16:58,360 --> 00:17:00,000
Speaker 1: do that, you sort of get put into a different

312
00:17:00,040 --> 00:17:02,440
Speaker 1: bucket that's called style drift. How do you account for that?

313
00:17:02,480 --> 00:17:05,840
Speaker 1: Because I do think sometimes fixed income. The bond managers. Actually,

314
00:17:05,880 --> 00:17:08,000
Speaker 1: I think I have it lucky. They've got this agg

315
00:17:08,040 --> 00:17:11,400
Speaker 1: benchmark which is waited by debt. It's whereas the smps

316
00:17:11,400 --> 00:17:13,560
Speaker 1: got like momentum baked into it. It's a harder index

317
00:17:13,600 --> 00:17:15,240
Speaker 1: to beat on the bond side. I just feel like

318
00:17:15,240 --> 00:17:18,560
Speaker 1: maybe the index is easier to beat in general. Yeah,

319
00:17:18,600 --> 00:17:21,119
Speaker 1: I mean, my my team took over the production of

320
00:17:21,160 --> 00:17:24,080
Speaker 1: these reports quite recently and I did a deep dive

321
00:17:24,160 --> 00:17:25,920
Speaker 1: into the fixed income segment. And let me, let me

322
00:17:25,960 --> 00:17:30,760
Speaker 1: tell you something. Fixed income benchmarking is hard. It's really hard. Um.

323
00:17:32,080 --> 00:17:36,800
Speaker 1: Telling how a fund in particular is generating its returns

324
00:17:38,040 --> 00:17:41,159
Speaker 1: is difficult. Because I can take an equity fund, I

325
00:17:41,200 --> 00:17:43,040
Speaker 1: could tell you you've show me its performance. I can

326
00:17:43,040 --> 00:17:44,840
Speaker 1: tell you whether it's investing in emerging markets or not

327
00:17:44,920 --> 00:17:47,320
Speaker 1: simply by you know how it's doing and how emerging

328
00:17:47,359 --> 00:17:50,359
Speaker 1: markets are doing. Whereas in fixed income, if you're taking

329
00:17:50,560 --> 00:17:52,840
Speaker 1: a little bit of extra credit risk, if you're taking

330
00:17:52,880 --> 00:17:55,800
Speaker 1: on a little bit more duration, if you're using tips,

331
00:17:56,280 --> 00:17:58,879
Speaker 1: what you'll see is in the short term you'll return

332
00:17:58,960 --> 00:18:01,000
Speaker 1: to be really really correlated is your benchmark. Over the

333
00:18:01,080 --> 00:18:03,760
Speaker 1: long term, there will be a drift. And this makes

334
00:18:04,119 --> 00:18:07,600
Speaker 1: benchmarking really really difficult. I think there is a good

335
00:18:07,600 --> 00:18:10,640
Speaker 1: point to be made there in terms of aggregate bond

336
00:18:10,680 --> 00:18:18,240
Speaker 1: indices not representing what is the typical active manager activity.

337
00:18:19,359 --> 00:18:22,199
Speaker 1: I do think there's an open question there, and I

338
00:18:22,200 --> 00:18:27,960
Speaker 1: would certainly say that it's it's it's still a challenge. However,

339
00:18:28,240 --> 00:18:31,000
Speaker 1: I still think the way we do speaver is the

340
00:18:31,080 --> 00:18:33,600
Speaker 1: right way to do it, in the sense that we

341
00:18:33,640 --> 00:18:37,280
Speaker 1: should be comparing what an active manager can do versus

342
00:18:37,359 --> 00:18:40,439
Speaker 1: what is the simple choice in terms of gating broad

343
00:18:40,560 --> 00:18:46,320
Speaker 1: market exposure. Yeah, there's an index called the Bloomberg Universal Index,

344
00:18:46,480 --> 00:18:48,160
Speaker 1: which is like the AGG, but it has a little

345
00:18:48,200 --> 00:18:52,359
Speaker 1: high yield international. When we put that against intermediate total

346
00:18:52,400 --> 00:18:56,199
Speaker 1: return managers, the beat rate guts cut in half. They

347
00:18:56,240 --> 00:19:00,560
Speaker 1: become more like active stock pickers UM. But that that

348
00:19:00,760 --> 00:19:04,119
Speaker 1: ticker for that universal is actually ETF growing pretty quickly.

349
00:19:04,480 --> 00:19:06,959
Speaker 1: So some of these it's I U s B. It's

350
00:19:07,000 --> 00:19:08,960
Speaker 1: one of the fastest growing and I could see why.

351
00:19:08,960 --> 00:19:11,360
Speaker 1: It's the AGG with a little extra something, and it's

352
00:19:11,400 --> 00:19:13,679
Speaker 1: sort of, in my opinion, probably the best replacement for

353
00:19:13,680 --> 00:19:17,080
Speaker 1: a bond manager versus say the AGG or be you

354
00:19:17,119 --> 00:19:19,080
Speaker 1: know a g G R B N d UM. What

355
00:19:19,200 --> 00:19:21,640
Speaker 1: one question I have is sometimes the speed reports come out,

356
00:19:22,520 --> 00:19:25,679
Speaker 1: someone will be like, especially on Twitter, Hey, this is

357
00:19:25,680 --> 00:19:28,320
Speaker 1: an index company. You know, of course they're going to

358
00:19:28,400 --> 00:19:31,000
Speaker 1: want to promote this. And you know what would you

359
00:19:31,000 --> 00:19:32,760
Speaker 1: say to somebody say, this is actually in your vested

360
00:19:32,840 --> 00:19:35,200
Speaker 1: interest to have all this these numbers be so bad?

361
00:19:35,240 --> 00:19:37,720
Speaker 1: I get it, it's true. But do you ever get

362
00:19:37,760 --> 00:19:40,440
Speaker 1: people saying that or do you get maybe active manager

363
00:19:40,480 --> 00:19:44,200
Speaker 1: hate mail? Um? So well, let me let me say,

364
00:19:44,200 --> 00:19:48,040
Speaker 1: first of all, if you are an outperforming active manager. Um,

365
00:19:48,080 --> 00:19:50,000
Speaker 1: if you're one of theft in the short term or

366
00:19:50,040 --> 00:19:51,760
Speaker 1: one of the ten percent in the long term in

367
00:19:51,880 --> 00:19:54,879
Speaker 1: U S equities, you should love the Spever report because

368
00:19:54,880 --> 00:19:58,919
Speaker 1: what it shows is how special you are. So I

369
00:19:58,920 --> 00:20:04,360
Speaker 1: don't get hate mail from from good active managers. Secondly, Um,

370
00:20:04,400 --> 00:20:07,840
Speaker 1: what we committed to do was to report this number

371
00:20:07,880 --> 00:20:11,560
Speaker 1: on a regular frequency, i e. Every six months, will

372
00:20:11,720 --> 00:20:14,200
Speaker 1: report it when the numbers in our favor, will report

373
00:20:14,200 --> 00:20:15,840
Speaker 1: it when the number isn't in our favor, and we'll

374
00:20:15,840 --> 00:20:20,200
Speaker 1: try and give people perspectives UH and insights into what's

375
00:20:20,320 --> 00:20:23,720
Speaker 1: driving those numbers. Now, you're right, the long term data

376
00:20:24,400 --> 00:20:28,040
Speaker 1: does carry an implication that perhaps in an index based

377
00:20:28,040 --> 00:20:33,199
Speaker 1: approach could be suitable. Um. But the important point is

378
00:20:33,200 --> 00:20:36,000
Speaker 1: that we commit to reporting those numbers whatever they are,

379
00:20:36,040 --> 00:20:45,600
Speaker 1: and then let the data speak for itself. I noticed

380
00:20:45,640 --> 00:20:48,200
Speaker 1: you guys asset weight a section of the report and

381
00:20:48,200 --> 00:20:51,000
Speaker 1: then you equal weight is were there differences in the

382
00:20:51,440 --> 00:20:54,480
Speaker 1: our performance when you do those two different methods, Yes,

383
00:20:54,840 --> 00:20:58,560
Speaker 1: there are. So the reason we do both. So speeder

384
00:20:58,680 --> 00:21:00,960
Speaker 1: is not a kind of weighted number. How many funds

385
00:21:01,000 --> 00:21:03,919
Speaker 1: were there in the universe, how many beating the market? Um?

386
00:21:04,040 --> 00:21:08,000
Speaker 1: And obviously well not maybe not obviously, but but in practice,

387
00:21:08,040 --> 00:21:11,280
Speaker 1: what what happens is that doesn't represent the invested assets.

388
00:21:11,480 --> 00:21:13,400
Speaker 1: So there's a lot more money in some big funds

389
00:21:13,440 --> 00:21:15,879
Speaker 1: than there are in many small funds. Um. So in

390
00:21:15,920 --> 00:21:19,320
Speaker 1: the report we do report the equal weighted average returned

391
00:21:19,359 --> 00:21:22,119
Speaker 1: from each category and the asset weighted returned from each category.

392
00:21:22,200 --> 00:21:24,119
Speaker 1: If the big funds are doing better than the asset

393
00:21:24,119 --> 00:21:26,920
Speaker 1: weighted performance should be better than the equal weight to performance.

394
00:21:27,600 --> 00:21:30,200
Speaker 1: Generally speaking, just sort of summarizing lots and lots of

395
00:21:30,280 --> 00:21:32,920
Speaker 1: data pointance and lots of years of reports, asset wasted

396
00:21:32,960 --> 00:21:39,040
Speaker 1: performance is better. Generally speaking, is that because money flow helps,

397
00:21:39,160 --> 00:21:41,560
Speaker 1: because you're buying the stocks that the flows are coming

398
00:21:41,560 --> 00:21:43,040
Speaker 1: in and therefore the stocks to go up when you

399
00:21:43,040 --> 00:21:45,840
Speaker 1: buy them, which is sort of like a nice upward spiral. NOA.

400
00:21:45,880 --> 00:21:48,159
Speaker 1: Is it more just the big managers are able to

401
00:21:48,200 --> 00:21:50,680
Speaker 1: get better execution costs, they can actually move the market

402
00:21:50,680 --> 00:21:52,800
Speaker 1: in their favor. I think. I think that's part of it.

403
00:21:52,840 --> 00:21:57,840
Speaker 1: I think also there are generally economies of scale or low.

404
00:21:57,920 --> 00:22:00,359
Speaker 1: When we talked about fees, generally low fees do matter.

405
00:22:01,160 --> 00:22:03,879
Speaker 1: Lower few funds do tend to attract more assets. And

406
00:22:03,880 --> 00:22:05,879
Speaker 1: I think also bear in mind we're talking about the

407
00:22:05,880 --> 00:22:09,080
Speaker 1: whole universe, so that the there's quite a long tale

408
00:22:09,080 --> 00:22:12,760
Speaker 1: here of potentially quite small funds with potentially quite high fees. Jim,

409
00:22:12,840 --> 00:22:15,600
Speaker 1: what was the single most surprising thing that jumped out

410
00:22:15,600 --> 00:22:17,840
Speaker 1: of you when you got your hands on this Dad report?

411
00:22:18,720 --> 00:22:22,159
Speaker 1: Uh So, I think the the the one that I

412
00:22:22,200 --> 00:22:24,800
Speaker 1: was most interested by was there was the reversion to

413
00:22:24,840 --> 00:22:27,080
Speaker 1: the meaning in growth managers. And the reason it was

414
00:22:27,119 --> 00:22:32,159
Speaker 1: surprising is more often what you see is is the

415
00:22:32,200 --> 00:22:36,080
Speaker 1: best thing for say the small cap US equity category

416
00:22:36,280 --> 00:22:38,359
Speaker 1: is for large caps to do really well, because your

417
00:22:38,359 --> 00:22:40,199
Speaker 1: small cap funds might have a few large caps and

418
00:22:40,240 --> 00:22:42,399
Speaker 1: that sort of so compared to their benchmark, which is

419
00:22:42,440 --> 00:22:45,560
Speaker 1: only small caps. See what I mean. The same happens

420
00:22:45,560 --> 00:22:48,359
Speaker 1: for growth and value. So what happened this year is

421
00:22:48,400 --> 00:22:52,600
Speaker 1: that growth did really badly. And my expectation was was

422
00:22:52,680 --> 00:22:54,960
Speaker 1: that that would be good for growth managers because they

423
00:22:55,119 --> 00:22:57,119
Speaker 1: can have a little you know, a little bit of

424
00:22:57,200 --> 00:22:59,639
Speaker 1: value as well if they want to UM and so

425
00:22:59,760 --> 00:23:02,360
Speaker 1: j really and growth doing really badly made me think

426
00:23:02,359 --> 00:23:05,040
Speaker 1: that growth managers would do relatively well. That did not happen.

427
00:23:05,840 --> 00:23:08,240
Speaker 1: And as as we said earlier, it's suggestive of the

428
00:23:08,240 --> 00:23:11,359
Speaker 1: fact that growth managers actually we're really doubling down on

429
00:23:11,600 --> 00:23:14,560
Speaker 1: the growthiest part of the market, as Eric was suggesting,

430
00:23:14,600 --> 00:23:17,040
Speaker 1: you know, maybe concentrating with bets and so that that

431
00:23:17,520 --> 00:23:19,960
Speaker 1: is something that seems to be corroborated by this day,

432
00:23:20,000 --> 00:23:23,440
Speaker 1: so which I found really interesting and surprising. We talk growth.

433
00:23:23,640 --> 00:23:26,000
Speaker 1: Value finally had its day, right, This is one of

434
00:23:26,000 --> 00:23:28,720
Speaker 1: the big stories of the last year. How did value

435
00:23:28,720 --> 00:23:32,159
Speaker 1: managers do versus their benchmark value managers? UM It was

436
00:23:33,840 --> 00:23:37,600
Speaker 1: not quite a coin flip, but pretty close of value

437
00:23:37,600 --> 00:23:41,119
Speaker 1: managers A performed. Feels like they've been waiting for this moment,

438
00:23:41,240 --> 00:23:46,800
Speaker 1: just like it's like the moment came and it's like, oh, well,

439
00:23:46,840 --> 00:23:49,560
Speaker 1: I will say value e t fs have taken in

440
00:23:49,640 --> 00:23:51,720
Speaker 1: a ton of money, like there's a real you can

441
00:23:51,720 --> 00:23:54,280
Speaker 1: tell people are like ready for a regime change. And

442
00:23:55,080 --> 00:23:58,000
Speaker 1: I'm guessing their numbers were better than growth because they

443
00:23:58,400 --> 00:24:02,879
Speaker 1: probably were diligently buying actual value stocks that were below value,

444
00:24:03,440 --> 00:24:05,359
Speaker 1: whereas growth might have been, you know, sort of like

445
00:24:05,440 --> 00:24:08,359
Speaker 1: leaning into more growthy stocks and got caught on the

446
00:24:08,359 --> 00:24:10,600
Speaker 1: wrong side for the half of year. Maybe they'll flip back,

447
00:24:10,640 --> 00:24:13,679
Speaker 1: but that makes sense to me in a way. Okay,

448
00:24:13,800 --> 00:24:15,800
Speaker 1: damn question that we ask everyone at the end of

449
00:24:15,800 --> 00:24:19,639
Speaker 1: trillion's favorite et F ticker, what's yours? Well, as a

450
00:24:19,680 --> 00:24:26,080
Speaker 1: representative of an index company, also have to kindly I'll

451
00:24:26,119 --> 00:24:28,720
Speaker 1: answer that if you work at SMP, it has to

452
00:24:28,760 --> 00:24:31,240
Speaker 1: be spy. I mean, I mean, it would be weird

453
00:24:31,280 --> 00:24:33,440
Speaker 1: if it wasn't. He could have no comment, but okay,

454
00:24:33,440 --> 00:24:35,880
Speaker 1: that's We'll just say a pretty strong contender. We'll say

455
00:24:35,880 --> 00:24:37,879
Speaker 1: it's spy. Tim Edwards, thanks for joining us in Trillions.

456
00:24:38,280 --> 00:24:47,000
Speaker 1: You thanks for listening to Trillions until next time. You

457
00:24:47,040 --> 00:24:50,119
Speaker 1: can find us on the Bloomberg terminal, Bloomberg dot com,

458
00:24:50,200 --> 00:24:54,080
Speaker 1: Apple podcast, Spotify, or wherever else you'd like to listen.

459
00:24:54,680 --> 00:24:57,359
Speaker 1: We'd love to hear from you more on Twitter. I'm

460
00:24:57,400 --> 00:25:02,440
Speaker 1: at Joel Webber Show. He's at Air Caltunist. This episode

461
00:25:02,480 --> 00:25:07,639
Speaker 1: of Trayance was produced by Magnus Hendricksen. Bye. M hm

462
00:25:09,160 --> 00:25:11,240
Speaker 1: m m hm hmm