Speaker 1: Welcome to trillions. I'm Joel Webber and I'm Eric. Eric.
Speaker 1: We've got a guest. This is when that you brought in?
Speaker 1: Who is he? Gary Stringer? Um? When I wrote the
Speaker 1: E t F book, correct, you've heard about it? Yeah,
Speaker 1: we I plug it all the time on the show.
Speaker 1: But I was basically writing a book on e t
Speaker 1: F s and most of the big investors I interviewed
Speaker 1: only use s P y H y G. You know, pensions,
Speaker 1: endowments and a lot of retails stick to those. But
Speaker 1: there's a group of investors that goes deep in the toolbox.
Speaker 1: To me there they remind me of you ever go
Speaker 1: to the video store, and of course like the old
Speaker 1: day where you get a little token and give it
Speaker 1: for any millennials listening just google it, may watch a
Speaker 1: YouTube video. It was a fascinating place. But there'd be
Speaker 1: a shelf that'd be like um staff picks, and you'd
Speaker 1: go in there like if you're done all the new releases,
Speaker 1: you couldn't find anything. Sometimes the staff pick would have
Speaker 1: a gem in there. A lot of them were good, right,
Speaker 1: and maybe movies you might not have heard of foreign film.
Speaker 1: This is what E t F strategists are to e
Speaker 1: t F s. They go deep in the toolbox. All
Speaker 1: they do is pick e t fs, trade ETFs and
Speaker 1: so they're kind of aficionados and they'll go and they'll
Speaker 1: spend the whole spectrum. So when I did my book,
Speaker 1: when I got into the section on each as a
Speaker 1: class and each category, I had a lot of quotes
Speaker 1: that I would use from E t F strategist because
Speaker 1: you could throw out any ticker at them and then
Speaker 1: have an opinion on it. Yeah it does this, but
Speaker 1: it's a little expensive, blah blah blah. They have an
Speaker 1: instant review for you. So they were really valuable as
Speaker 1: I was going through each as a class and category
Speaker 1: to like put a quote in there from one of
Speaker 1: the users, I think it really enhanced the reading experience hopefully.
Speaker 1: And Gary was one of the best interviews I had. So,
Speaker 1: how what are we going to talk to him about? Well,
Speaker 1: he has over a hundred million in assets, so he
Speaker 1: has to file a thirteen F so at Stringer Asset Management,
Speaker 1: that's he's the president and CEO of So we went
Speaker 1: through his thirteen F and just we've we're gonna pick
Speaker 1: some ETFs out that he has and just find out
Speaker 1: why is why does he own them? So I think
Speaker 1: for for this episode, it's just a um for any
Speaker 1: investor out there to sort of go into the mind
Speaker 1: of a master user find out why they picked them,
Speaker 1: both the macro reason and the product reason. This time,
Speaker 1: I'm trillions E t F picks with a master E
Speaker 1: t F picker, Gary, Welcome Trillions. How did you get
Speaker 1: into E t F? We were managing assets at a
Speaker 1: regional broker dealer and found that the biggest way to
Speaker 1: for us to add value was to get the general
Speaker 1: calls as good as we could, for example, countries, sectors.
Speaker 1: How do we want to be tilted? And what we
Speaker 1: found over time is a very efficient way to do
Speaker 1: that is via E t S versus other investment types.
Speaker 1: And how long have you been managing what was a
Speaker 1: hundred million actually were over seven thirty million. Now I'm
Speaker 1: just saying they're over That's not nothing. How did you
Speaker 1: get into this? Via managing money within the regional broker dealer?
Speaker 1: Our firm was eventually purchased and gave us an opportunity
Speaker 1: to go out independent as an independent organization, So we
Speaker 1: took our tool box, our research, our team with us
Speaker 1: and started as an independent esset management firm, but it
Speaker 1: all started with managing money within a regional broker dealer
Speaker 1: for individuals and families. Now, just to be clear, though,
Speaker 1: when we interview advisors there tend to be buy and
Speaker 1: hold a couple of Vanguard ETFs, You're a whole different situation.
Speaker 1: You're you're trying to outperform and do better than a
Speaker 1: buying whole portfolio. Right, So in a way, you're an
Speaker 1: E T F picker in the way people know a
Speaker 1: stock picker, right, very similar or a top down work
Speaker 1: we do earlier goal is to try to achieve better
Speaker 1: risk adjusted results. So to help people do better. You know,
Speaker 1: you all seen the studies that suggest that individuals capture
Speaker 1: only a fraction in the market opportunity. We believe a
Speaker 1: lot of that has to do with behavior finance and risk.
Speaker 1: Markets are scary. When market volatile, people panic. So if
Speaker 1: we can develop a strategy that can help people get
Speaker 1: from here to there with a smoother ride, that risk
Speaker 1: managed component is super important to us. It's all based
Speaker 1: on behavioral finance, and we can do that with ets
Speaker 1: through risk manage strategies. We end up with a result
Speaker 1: that's at least better than the market with twenty less risk.
Speaker 1: And if you look at that seven million plus that
Speaker 1: you guys are managing, what portion of that is in ETFs?
Speaker 1: All of it? All of it? Like I said, man,
Speaker 1: they're all in Wow. Okay, So break it down, like
Speaker 1: what how does that? How does that portfolio look like?
Speaker 1: We run a series of five strategies from global equity
Speaker 1: all the way down to an income portfolio. The same
Speaker 1: themes are pac Investors can kind of pick and choose
Speaker 1: which one they want to be in, and you can allocate,
Speaker 1: so if you want something and something else exactly right. Yes,
Speaker 1: So I thought we would just go through and throw
Speaker 1: e T F s at him and find out why
Speaker 1: he owns them. Do it? Okay? And so you guys
Speaker 1: pulled the thirteen F which thirteen F is this? Gary
Speaker 1: had a couple you want to talk about. We go
Speaker 1: through those, and then I asked my team for ones
Speaker 1: in his thirteen F that intrigued them and we'll throw
Speaker 1: those and this is Q four Q three Okay, So
Speaker 1: throw throw one out at him. All right, let's we're
Speaker 1: gonna start basic. And honestly, I'm surprised at this one
Speaker 1: is a basic pick that an institution would use, which
Speaker 1: is XLV. It's the spider healthcare sector e t f UM.
Speaker 1: I would expect it something a little more obscure from you, Gary,
Speaker 1: why XLV, Well, why healthcare? But why this one, which
Speaker 1: is the popular, big liquid one. Yeah. So it's interesting
Speaker 1: you say that because our previous healthcare plays have been
Speaker 1: more defined, more specific things like medical devices, for example.
Speaker 1: But we did very well in medical devices over a
Speaker 1: short period of time, and it just got to be expensive.
Speaker 1: A lot of good news priced in, and at the
Speaker 1: same time, we saw a lot of political risk coming in.
Speaker 1: As you approach an election year, both sides of the
Speaker 1: aisle like to beat up on big pharma and all
Speaker 1: of these healthcare companies um and so we tend to
Speaker 1: shy away from from it coming into this. But we
Speaker 1: think so much of the risk is already priced in.
Speaker 1: In fact, the broad healthcare sector has been lagging or
Speaker 1: the price performance, yet it is the top sector in
Speaker 1: the SMB five hundred for revenue growth over last twelve months,
Speaker 1: so it's it's literally the best performing sector from a
Speaker 1: fundamental basis and one of the worst sectors from a
Speaker 1: performance basis. So we picked up the broad one because
Speaker 1: it does have uh still exposure to some of the
Speaker 1: areas that we continue to like, but it also has
Speaker 1: a nice exposure to things like pharmaceuticals, which is one
Speaker 1: of the biggest parts of the broad space. We don't
Speaker 1: want to do a pure play pharma because there is
Speaker 1: risk associated that with that, especially coming into an election year,
Speaker 1: so we went broad based. We went from being very
Speaker 1: precise to something more broad to be able to capture
Speaker 1: the broader valuation opportunity. And so how often will you
Speaker 1: just be in something like XLV versus you know, three
Speaker 1: or four other healthcare picks, So it really depends with
Speaker 1: the markets giving us. At this point, we felt like
Speaker 1: it was made more sense to be a little bit broader.
Speaker 1: But usually when we're doing something like that, we will
Speaker 1: get more specific. One of the raps on healthcare tastes
Speaker 1: back in the day was that they're too farma heavy.
Speaker 1: It looks like at one point they were fifty I
Speaker 1: think XLV looks like it's but you like that it's
Speaker 1: that at that into pharmat that's part of the that's
Speaker 1: a feature. Okay, that's exactly right, that's part of our thesis.
Speaker 1: We wanted to pick up more farm exposure, but we
Speaker 1: didn't want to pick up all the farm and we
Speaker 1: didn't want to be just pharma. And have you done
Speaker 1: that before? And like, what other ETFs have you used
Speaker 1: in the to concentrate a healthcare butt. So the last
Speaker 1: one we used was I HI, which is medical to vices. Uh.
Speaker 1: Previously actually a couple of years ago, we use the
Speaker 1: pure pharma. This I h I is unbelievable. I think
Speaker 1: it's like doubling the SMP. It's just medical devices. And
Speaker 1: you were telling me he was on E T F
Speaker 1: i Q a couple of months ago. His reasoning for
Speaker 1: this was fascinating. Why I H I instead of another
Speaker 1: sliver or slice of the healthcare space, like say biotech,
Speaker 1: which is where most people go if they want to
Speaker 1: jacked up version of healthcare. Yeah, biotech though, is a
Speaker 1: real way You're you're either gonna crush it or get crushed. Right,
Speaker 1: that's really ah, that's really the way that's gonna go
Speaker 1: in And for us that that kind of play doesn't
Speaker 1: make a lot of sense, especially for our client base.
Speaker 1: But when you think about medical devices, we have the
Speaker 1: world's wealthiest country with an aging population, uh, and so
Speaker 1: people are going to do things like get artificial hips
Speaker 1: and knees done right and all the equipment that goes
Speaker 1: along with it, really regardless of what the economy is
Speaker 1: doing right. And so it's a great fundamentals and it's
Speaker 1: much less politically sensitive than say pharma. You know, you
Speaker 1: don't hear about politicians stumping about the price artificial hips
Speaker 1: and knees. What you're gonna need? Isn't that cool? Yes?
Speaker 1: I like that? Um, And you know, the Vanguard Healthcare
Speaker 1: owns three and sixty healthcare stocks. The spider one that
Speaker 1: you have is sixty one. You want the concentration, though,
Speaker 1: you don't want it spread out because the Vanguard we
Speaker 1: call cheap and deep, but maybe that would be better
Speaker 1: long term, whereas x LV better for more pop. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that was really our thesis because again we wanted to
Speaker 1: pick up the pharmacide but not not too much. It's
Speaker 1: sort of like not too hot, not too cold. It
Speaker 1: was just a nice fit for us for what we
Speaker 1: were looking for. And some of those things be so
Speaker 1: spread out. So what is the turnover like for you guys?
Speaker 1: I mean, you have this one bet now you've transitioned
Speaker 1: to something else based on sort of the outlook and
Speaker 1: the political environment, but like how often what's the turn like?
Speaker 1: So on average, in our global equity portfolio, for example,
Speaker 1: you're gonna have more turnover there than in our balance strategies.
Speaker 1: Uh since ince option over a decade ago, it's average
Speaker 1: about eighty five percent a year. What tends to happen
Speaker 1: is and so on average we end up trading about
Speaker 1: once a month or so, but that doesn't mean we
Speaker 1: trade to a month. What tends to happen is the
Speaker 1: market will give us an opportunity, will position for that opportunity,
Speaker 1: and then things will work itself out, and then it
Speaker 1: sounded reposition all right, Ready for the next one, which
Speaker 1: is sort of the opposite situation. Q Tech q T
Speaker 1: e C, which is the first trust and as that
Speaker 1: one hundred, So it's like the cues, except that equal
Speaker 1: weights them, and so every one of the hundred stocks
Speaker 1: gets a one percent waiting. But a couple of things here.
Speaker 1: First of all, most the cues is kind of like
Speaker 1: the ipso facto FANG E T F because it's very
Speaker 1: heavily weighted in those names. This unfangs it a little bit.
Speaker 1: Is that was that your goal here was to unfanged
Speaker 1: the cues or what are you going after here? Because
Speaker 1: part of the NASTAC also has non tech in in
Speaker 1: as well, you wanted that exposure, Well, what we wanted
Speaker 1: in this one and this is UH specifically more tech
Speaker 1: tech oriented. We liked the technology sector, but kind of
Speaker 1: similar to where we talked about why we picked XLB
Speaker 1: with its broad exposure heavy on pharma q tech because
Speaker 1: it's equally weighted gets you more semiconductor exposure. So it's
Speaker 1: something like what percent semis. We didn't want to go
Speaker 1: on semis because that's volatile, right, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: risks there. It's it's you're gonna win or lose, similar
Speaker 1: to biotech. But of the technology sector, UH, semi conductors
Speaker 1: we think is though they rallied pretty strongly last year,
Speaker 1: they got crushed so badly or so hard that the
Speaker 1: valuations still look attractive. In fact, when we think the SMP,
Speaker 1: when we bought this, we thought the SMP was roughly
Speaker 1: ten percent overvalued. Semi conductors were still ten percent under
Speaker 1: their historical average, so just to get back to average
Speaker 1: ahead to come up ten percent from there. But again
Speaker 1: we didn't want to go so heavy in this in
Speaker 1: the semiconductors that we it's either a flippical point we're
Speaker 1: gonna get We're gonna crush it, or get crushed. We
Speaker 1: want to do it more broad based, but with semi
Speaker 1: conductor emphasis. So one theme that I'm kind of noticing
Speaker 1: here is that you actually are you kind of using
Speaker 1: e t f s with built in hedges almost where
Speaker 1: it's like you get a concentration, but not all of
Speaker 1: the concentration that you would get maybe with a different ticker. Well,
Speaker 1: that's correct, and so there's a theme that that, Um,
Speaker 1: I think it's warm. Buffett one said we'd rather be
Speaker 1: generally right than precisely wrong. Um, so we try to
Speaker 1: play off a Buffet quote. It's good a quote he
Speaker 1: has on the wall. Are there other ones that you
Speaker 1: guys are using right now that sort of are part
Speaker 1: of that same trend? Now you have a dividend one
Speaker 1: which a lot of people are into divid ets. They
Speaker 1: don't get a lot of coverage because they're kind of boring,
Speaker 1: but they're huge. Yeah, so d grow d g R. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's the I shares Core dividend growth ETF only charges
Speaker 1: eight basis points, so very cheap ten billion dollars. Why
Speaker 1: do you like this? One well because is boring. Actually,
Speaker 1: it's one of our themes that we're playing in this environment. Um.
Speaker 1: It happens to be our macro view from the top
Speaker 1: down in our bottom up work suggests that we're just
Speaker 1: gonna be grinding it out with respect to a capital
Speaker 1: appreciation of the markets with the markets moving higher, not
Speaker 1: a whole lot of pop. We don't think left in
Speaker 1: the markets, um. And we want a little bit of
Speaker 1: quality tilt in case we get a shock. And so
Speaker 1: this is an inexpensive way to get high quality companies
Speaker 1: that consistently grow the difference. So it's not a high
Speaker 1: dividend e t F. It's about consistent dividend growth. So
Speaker 1: you have a very high quality companies that can go
Speaker 1: ahead and continue to appreciate, but do a really good
Speaker 1: job of protecting in volatile markets. And what are the
Speaker 1: holdings like in there? It looks at the SMP. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's basically and this is a great point because divid
Speaker 1: and dtfs all sound the same, but the growers are
Speaker 1: you're gonna have Microsoft's apples, Johnson and Johnson looks very
Speaker 1: much like the SMP. In fact, the yield is only
Speaker 1: two point two per cent so and the SMP is
Speaker 1: one point seven, so you're not getting much yield. You
Speaker 1: get that stability. Now the the high dividend, they'll go
Speaker 1: after the high yielders, but you end up in utilities
Speaker 1: and staples and overweight, but your yield will will go up,
Speaker 1: so you sort of pick your poison. Sounds like you're
Speaker 1: actually want the side benefit of the quality names in
Speaker 1: here in the low ball. That's exactly right. And if
Speaker 1: you went for the high dividend, to your point, you
Speaker 1: might end up with a lot of utilities, which we
Speaker 1: think are pretty expensive in here. It's a defensive play um,
Speaker 1: but they're a little bit rich. Or with some of
Speaker 1: the high yielding stuff, you end up with junk companies
Speaker 1: who just haven't yet cut their dividend. So you've gotta
Speaker 1: be careful about that. And were there ones that bier
Speaker 1: beware that you would keep an eye on in that category,
Speaker 1: there are a couple out there. Basically, anything that has
Speaker 1: a yield that's too good to be true we tend
Speaker 1: to stay away from because those things it's just a
Speaker 1: matter of time before reckoning comes. Alright. Next one in
Speaker 1: the list is BAB Now, I gotta be honest, I
Speaker 1: thought this was the Build America Bond ETF, which there's
Speaker 1: a couple of them. Remember that when Obama came up
Speaker 1: with those UM, there there were three t F but
Speaker 1: it's called the Investo Taxable Municipal Bond e tf UM.
Speaker 1: So you tell me did this did this switch over
Speaker 1: to become a more traditional muni from the Build America
Speaker 1: bond one did? They had to broaden their scope because
Speaker 1: there are only so many Build America bonds out there,
Speaker 1: so they brought their scope to be more taxable munis,
Speaker 1: which isn't so muni bonds are traditionally not taxible, right,
Speaker 1: but then you have the taxable side, which offers higher yield,
Speaker 1: so it out yields the like treasury. But it's still
Speaker 1: very high quality. That's why we like it. It's got
Speaker 1: some duration to it's some interest rate sensitivity to it,
Speaker 1: so it's a really good equity market hedge UM, but
Speaker 1: it's not as expensive, meaning it has a higher yield,
Speaker 1: high quality yield than treasuries do. Yeah, if I'm looking
Speaker 1: at the holdings here, I do see, uh, there are
Speaker 1: some Build America bonds in here, so it's definitely still
Speaker 1: still with those, and that's the thing we build America bonds, right,
Speaker 1: every now and then this little corner of the media
Speaker 1: market will really shine. Um. And it is the duration though, right,
Speaker 1: So what's the duration on an e t F like this?
Speaker 1: Meaning how much interest rate risk are you taking? Yeah,
Speaker 1: so it's about ten years, so it's not super long.
Speaker 1: Like you can stretch out even longer if you wanted to.
Speaker 1: But we're not afraid of taking interest rate risk in
Speaker 1: this environment. We don't think interest rates moved significtyly higher
Speaker 1: from here, um, But we also don't think you're gonna
Speaker 1: compensated if we're going way out in the curve. So,
Speaker 1: for example, the broad market is about a duration of
Speaker 1: six years, right, So this has more duration sensitivity to
Speaker 1: it than the broad market, but it's not super long.
Speaker 1: So when you look at the MUNI space, I tend
Speaker 1: to think people going in for the tax exempt the
Speaker 1: tax equivalent yield. The only thing I know about it
Speaker 1: is like, that's why you do it. But you're not
Speaker 1: buying this for that, correct, You're just you think the
Speaker 1: return is there. We think the return is the vast
Speaker 1: majority of our assets are tax sheltered in i A.
Speaker 1: Rollovers and those kinds of things. The tax tax equivalent
Speaker 1: yield isn't all that important to us, but the yield is,
Speaker 1: and the high quality is, and it, like I've mentioned it,
Speaker 1: out yields the duration treasury. So we're getting very high
Speaker 1: quality fixed income um with a higher yield, largely because
Speaker 1: it's not the most liquid space in the world, right
Speaker 1: but still, uh, we'll take that. So will that be
Speaker 1: when an example of something that you probably hold on
Speaker 1: too longer and has a little bit less churn or
Speaker 1: or or are you actually actively trading that throughout the
Speaker 1: course of the year. That is something that we tend
Speaker 1: to hold onto a little bit longer. Now, if we
Speaker 1: if our viewpoint changed and we became concerned, and I
Speaker 1: hope this happens, I hope that the global economy accelerates
Speaker 1: and we're thinking, all right, long term intertrat is gonna
Speaker 1: be higher because of accelerating economy. That would be great,
Speaker 1: and we would back off of this. That's not our
Speaker 1: core thesis. So for now, it's a tactical position for
Speaker 1: us and most of our our allocations. And how often
Speaker 1: are you reformulating your thesis? Is that part of your
Speaker 1: monthly rebalancing. Well, we rereformulate in real time. It turns
Speaker 1: out the markets in the economy don't work by a calendar.
Speaker 1: We do have funny how that happens. Yeah, we do
Speaker 1: have formal weekly and monthly conversations where the reports ge published,
Speaker 1: the data gets published, and we review all the data.
Speaker 1: But we can make changes at any time. So another
Speaker 1: thing I'm noticing is that you seem to be more
Speaker 1: US centric than maybe international. How do you think about that?
Speaker 1: We are more US centric, especially these days. UM. A
Speaker 1: couple of years ago, we were more excited about the
Speaker 1: foreign markets. We thought there was a good opportunity there
Speaker 1: from a valuation basis. And in seventeen, for example, the
Speaker 1: Eurozone was growing at about two percent GDP growth, which
Speaker 1: is roughly double what we think their long term potential is.
Speaker 1: Now they're struggling for any growth at all, right, and
Speaker 1: so we think the US grows at about two percent
Speaker 1: and the Eurozone struggles to grow at one. Japan similarly. UM. So,
Speaker 1: though there's a valuation opportunity over there, potentially, it's hard
Speaker 1: to get excited about anything that unlocked that opportunity set.
Speaker 1: So we would rather be in the US where we
Speaker 1: get higher quality um and more stable outcomes. We think
Speaker 1: there is an internationally TF I'd like to ask you
Speaker 1: about in your portfolio DWM, which you don't see a lot.
Speaker 1: You assume people have E E F A or I
Speaker 1: F A or something like that. This is the Wisdom
Speaker 1: Tree International Equity Fund and it looks like it's dividend weighted, correct,
Speaker 1: Probably is it screen on dividends too? And why that
Speaker 1: you want international with a little less edge? Well, so
Speaker 1: the actually neither that either. So let's think about when
Speaker 1: we're when we're investing overseas. Different countries have uh different
Speaker 1: accounting methodologies, right, so a dollar of earnings in one
Speaker 1: country might be different than a dollar earnings in another country,
Speaker 1: but nothing speaks to earning stability, like can you make
Speaker 1: a consistent dividend? And so that is a core holding
Speaker 1: for us in our international exposure. It starts with that
Speaker 1: very consistent dividends. The dividend is about making sure you
Speaker 1: lock into companies that produce earnings exactly right. Wow, it's
Speaker 1: cool stuff, right, I mean, he's blowing my mind. I
Speaker 1: actually out of right field. Question Jedi is the right metaphor?
Speaker 1: How many ETFs are there in the in the universe?
Speaker 1: How many of those do you think you've dabbled in
Speaker 1: or looked at at least oh jeez, yeah, well it's
Speaker 1: a lot. So but what we do is we try
Speaker 1: to approach the theme first and then try to find
Speaker 1: an ETF that fits that theme. So over the years
Speaker 1: we've touched a lot of them. But like a lot
Speaker 1: of things with any growing industry or innovation, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff that comes out most but frankly isn't
Speaker 1: gonna work. Most of it's not great, so you end
Speaker 1: up with a few things that are really doable. But
Speaker 1: that theme thing, I mean, it's such a prevalent part
Speaker 1: of the E t F landscape now because I mean,
Speaker 1: we talked about thematics all the time. They're they're great
Speaker 1: talking points. So it's like you must just be like
Speaker 1: swimming through cream as you like formulate feces and ideas,
Speaker 1: and then it's just like, well, which flavor do we want?
Speaker 1: It's like Basking and Robbins, And over the years it's
Speaker 1: been good that there's been so much new product coming out, right,
Speaker 1: so that gives us. If there's tenu ets that come out,
Speaker 1: maybe one or two are actually really legit for us.
Speaker 1: But the more that come out is the more opportunity
Speaker 1: for us to capture some ideas. Okay, so actually I'm
Speaker 1: just noticing that there's a couple of shares in here.
Speaker 1: How do you bring something like a black rock offering
Speaker 1: into the portfolio when a lot of these other ones
Speaker 1: are from maybe smaller issuers. Again, it gets back to
Speaker 1: the theme what are we trying to capture? And then
Speaker 1: who's got the right products? You even think about it
Speaker 1: from that end, it's sort of like, what's the product? Right?
Speaker 1: You will use smaller shores if need be, Yes, you
Speaker 1: have an index i Q product or you did M
Speaker 1: and A correct that's pretty smaller shore, but they're not tiny. Okay,
Speaker 1: let me let me look again. Okay, Uh, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: go to flex share stocks in f R. What's that
Speaker 1: You've got almost five percent in that? It's global infrastructure.
Speaker 1: So the idea being here, So we talked about how
Speaker 1: we're not real excited about an acceleration in global economic
Speaker 1: growth when we talk about like Europe and things like that. Um,
Speaker 1: this is an e t F that and specifically focus
Speaker 1: on infrastructure but not capital or not economically sensitive. So
Speaker 1: it's not like the caterpillars of the world. But these
Speaker 1: are things like global utilities companies, national railroads, cell phone towers,
Speaker 1: these types of things that if the economy, they're gonna
Speaker 1: going to continue to generate consistent earning. Was gonna say,
Speaker 1: sounds like your health care strategy, which is like it's
Speaker 1: like the hips, the artificial hips of America. That's right,
Speaker 1: that's right. Canadian Railroad is gonna do just fine. Japan
Speaker 1: Railroad is gonna do just fine in almost regardless of
Speaker 1: the economic So if the economy accelerates globally, these companies
Speaker 1: will lag, the prices will lag. But if we're talking
Speaker 1: about a choppy or even a difficult environment, these guys
Speaker 1: hold up really well. Two of your biggest holdings are
Speaker 1: the I shares m t u M, which is momentum,
Speaker 1: and the us m V, which is the minimum altility.
Speaker 1: When you go out and you you know, mingle with quants,
Speaker 1: you know, you quickly realize that the I shares will
Speaker 1: put a little beta into there because their sector constrained,
Speaker 1: they don't move that much different than the SMP. But
Speaker 1: then hardcore quants will say, we you're not really capturing
Speaker 1: any kind of factor here. Maybe a little it's like
Speaker 1: diet quant but you like do you like that beta
Speaker 1: in there. Is that why you pick them or is
Speaker 1: it more about the liquidity or the cost. So there's
Speaker 1: a couple of things to that. So, especially if we're
Speaker 1: talking about M t U M, which is very different
Speaker 1: from US M V M t U M is a
Speaker 1: momentum strategy, right. One of the challenges with momentum strategies
Speaker 1: is when you have a momentum crash, that's awful violent
Speaker 1: these strategies, if they're unconstrained, completely unconstrained, you end up
Speaker 1: loading up in whatever single single factor or two or
Speaker 1: driving the market at that time. So you might be
Speaker 1: six technology or real heavy and biotech, and that looks
Speaker 1: great for a couple of quarters, and if that turns
Speaker 1: against you, it blows up right. And so we liked
Speaker 1: M t U M because it takes those momentum names
Speaker 1: but inversely waits them relative to volatility, so it ends
Speaker 1: up with a smoother ride over time. You're still capturing
Speaker 1: that momentum factor, but it's as much smoother ride than
Speaker 1: some of the other things that are completely unconstrained. Understood,
Speaker 1: and then what about rebalancing, because momentum mtum sometimes will
Speaker 1: notice that it rebalances a little oddly around a uh,
Speaker 1: something that changed in the market. Um, I think over
Speaker 1: the long runs trying to capture it. But how important
Speaker 1: is the rebalancing frequency? I think most are quarterly, but
Speaker 1: some are semi annually, some are annually. How important is
Speaker 1: that for you? When you select one it sounds like
Speaker 1: you maybe even do monthly. Well. For us, it depends
Speaker 1: on the strategy that we're trying to capture, right, So
Speaker 1: we're always looking at our portfolios and what's coming out,
Speaker 1: and then you have the ets rebalance and some of
Speaker 1: them it's not as important if they're more sort of
Speaker 1: like like some of the dividend ordinany ones we we
Speaker 1: talked about that are just kind of or d g
Speaker 1: r oh where you're just trying to capture a good
Speaker 1: dividate grower. That thing doesn't need to be rebounced all
Speaker 1: that often, but you have something like momentum that needs
Speaker 1: to be rebound more frequently, so that m TM gets
Speaker 1: rebalanced twice a year. And then they have these ad
Speaker 1: hoc rebalances, and that is very important to us, because, um,
Speaker 1: you like the ad hoc rebalances. Well, we think it's
Speaker 1: important to acknowledge that the market's changing and that the
Speaker 1: et F has a change with it when you're looking
Speaker 1: at a momentum thing. But it's also important for look
Speaker 1: at a portfolio construction that we have to read then
Speaker 1: dig under the hood again to look at our our
Speaker 1: allocations overall and how that rebalancing affects our positioning, because
Speaker 1: you don't want to end up with your thesis exactly,
Speaker 1: and you don't want to end up with an unintended
Speaker 1: bet somewhere. I mean, it's hard enough to be successful investor,
Speaker 1: and then when you have unintended bets because you weren't
Speaker 1: paying attention to rebalancing of one of your bigger holdings,
Speaker 1: that's problematic. Yeah, So what about like a like a
Speaker 1: smart beta offering? Like how much of that do you
Speaker 1: have in your portfolio right now? We do a fair
Speaker 1: amount in the smart beta world. So it depends on
Speaker 1: how you define it. But some people will say momentum
Speaker 1: is a smart beta et F. We also have multi
Speaker 1: factor stuff UM and us m V and those those
Speaker 1: types of things. And if you have VTV, which is
Speaker 1: the Vanguard value, right, which would I don't know barely
Speaker 1: be smart beta. I mean, this is VTV is as
Speaker 1: close to beta as you could possibly get it with
Speaker 1: a value fund, right, which that's intriguing to me. Normally
Speaker 1: i'd picture an advisor putting grammar on this because they
Speaker 1: would never get fired because it will always be around
Speaker 1: the SMP. But you, I would I would think you'd
Speaker 1: go to something a little more exotic, But but you
Speaker 1: like it. We do like it because it's a long
Speaker 1: term core holding for us. It allows us to maintain
Speaker 1: a long term value bias, and we have a we
Speaker 1: have a tilt towards value anyway, and some of these
Speaker 1: things that are more exotic or more pure play value
Speaker 1: are gonna work really good when their time is right,
Speaker 1: and then when their time is not right, they're not
Speaker 1: working at all. And so we like the v The
Speaker 1: VTV is a long term core holding for us. We've
Speaker 1: owned that thing for for forever and have a very
Speaker 1: low cause basis in it. Um. But so, for example,
Speaker 1: if the economy is to accelerate, like maybe we're coming
Speaker 1: out of a recession and and things are trying to turn,
Speaker 1: that's when you want that pure beta or pure play
Speaker 1: value style and when if that's our thesis, we will
Speaker 1: move into that. But that's not our thesis right now. UM,
Speaker 1: and Joel, I have one for you. Um, this is
Speaker 1: one that Tom from our team actually wanted to bring up,
Speaker 1: which is ao Tom saraphagus. Yeah. Um, you know you
Speaker 1: always ask about why isn't there an ETF just does everything? Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what a okay does. It's a it's a okay
Speaker 1: is a kind of a great ticker name. So it's
Speaker 1: a conservative core conservative allocations, an ascid allocation ETF. So
Speaker 1: it holds basically like seven other e t f s,
Speaker 1: the track bonds, stocks, small caps, midcaps. So in a
Speaker 1: way it's full Yeah, the meta e t F. Aren't
Speaker 1: you the ascid allocator? So why would you own an
Speaker 1: ascid allocation ETF for that one? In particular, we own
Speaker 1: that for a particular investor who's rather limited in what
Speaker 1: we can own, and so it fills us a spot
Speaker 1: for us where in our full blown ETFs strategies we
Speaker 1: actually don't own it. We do own some other acid
Speaker 1: allocation e t F s um that a little more
Speaker 1: esoteric um things like m D I V and I yield.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about MDEV real quick, because this is a
Speaker 1: multi asset income ETF, which sounds you know, boring and convoluted.
Speaker 1: But really it's the way I would phrase it is
Speaker 1: it's like um all of the above for yield goes
Speaker 1: into junk bonds. Uh, you know, dividend stocks, you know
Speaker 1: everything that has like a nice yield. It kind of
Speaker 1: just does it all in one shot. And you like that.
Speaker 1: We do like that when that one's got a little
Speaker 1: more zing to, a little more beta to it because
Speaker 1: it picks up things like um M LPs and the like,
Speaker 1: and so it's got a it's got a healthy yield
Speaker 1: of about six percent. So we look at this as
Speaker 1: something that can capture our forecast for equity returns for
Speaker 1: example going forward is about seven percent total ry to
Speaker 1: return M D I V gives us about six percent
Speaker 1: of that just out of yield. And uh, now it's
Speaker 1: it's gonna have some volatility to it. We think it
Speaker 1: will get us probably about seventy of the risk of
Speaker 1: the market. But it's capturing something like the potential return
Speaker 1: of the market. So we like that. And it's got
Speaker 1: a relatively low correlation. It's about a point eight correlation
Speaker 1: to the broad equity market, so it gives diversification benefit.
Speaker 1: Why do you think an a OK type et F
Speaker 1: or an m did frankly, but let's stick with it. Okay,
Speaker 1: Why aren't these more popular? Is it because advisors they
Speaker 1: kind of disintermediate a layer there, Because Joel wonders this
Speaker 1: all the time, Like and Rick ferry Um who's an
Speaker 1: advisor himself, thinks there's a market that hasn't been tapped
Speaker 1: yet for these. But I'm like, they're out there and
Speaker 1: they don't have much money. My thesis actually is that
Speaker 1: everyone has somebody in the middle, so that stuff doesn't
Speaker 1: quite get picked up because you're gonna put me in
Speaker 1: another things that could be um And maybe it's just
Speaker 1: people who make look like it's too easy, right? Why
Speaker 1: would you pick one et F that does all this stuff?
Speaker 1: But to us, we really like that because that covers
Speaker 1: a lot of ground for us, because I don't want
Speaker 1: to own to present positions and m LPs and to
Speaker 1: present positions in this and that I can own one
Speaker 1: broad e t F that I know what's gonna do.
Speaker 1: It's gonna cover that ground for us and get us
Speaker 1: that that consistent return with less risk with one ticker symbol.
Speaker 1: So that makes a lot of sense, and then we
Speaker 1: could build around it, give us room to do things
Speaker 1: like q Tech and I h I when we own
Speaker 1: own it. So how often do you have you mentioned
Speaker 1: this is one particular investor that you basically built a
Speaker 1: separate strategy for. How often do you do something like that?
Speaker 1: Very rarely? They were a big investor for us and
Speaker 1: a put investor for us. So somebody comes knocking on
Speaker 1: the door like that, you're gonna take it and say, hey, okay,
Speaker 1: uh so I'm notssing though that it seems like you're
Speaker 1: long only? Are you short anything? Because that would be revealed.
Speaker 1: You know, the long only stuff is what's going to
Speaker 1: come out in the thirteen f But do you have shorts?
Speaker 1: We don't have shorts. We do use from time to
Speaker 1: time ETFs that do long short within them, but our
Speaker 1: broad clientele really don't want us to do anything in verse.
Speaker 1: And so what about other exotic stuff that Eric would
Speaker 1: put on his red light system. You don't do leverage, right,
Speaker 1: We do not do. Do you do any commodities that
Speaker 1: hold futures? We can? We haven't lately. Um, we just
Speaker 1: don't think it's a time at the time is right
Speaker 1: to own those. Do you do you own senior loans
Speaker 1: or junk bonds? We do not we have in the past.
Speaker 1: We don't have EUROPG and G it's like with a
Speaker 1: little yellow he's uh, he's he sticks to the family movies.
Speaker 1: Well for now that we have like for example, for
Speaker 1: an stop Friday night, let's ask about his personal account.
Speaker 1: We have owned high yield in the past. Last time
Speaker 1: we owned hig yield in a big way was when
Speaker 1: we are work suggested that the price of oil is
Speaker 1: vulnerable and how yield that market is something like energy related,
Speaker 1: So we didn't want to own that going into it.
Speaker 1: And we still think that sector is vulnerable, so we're
Speaker 1: not gonna own it now, and we think we're shorter
Speaker 1: inter strates are now we're not getting compensated very well
Speaker 1: for taking uh, the senior loan risk, But we did
Speaker 1: years ago when the FED just started hiking interest rates.
Speaker 1: The market price in the probability that the FED was
Speaker 1: going to continue to do that, we thought it was
Speaker 1: a lock. So we wanted to use that variable rate
Speaker 1: that floating right on the short end of the curve,
Speaker 1: and we did pretty well with it at that time.
Speaker 1: You know you you said something interesting that I'm interested about.
Speaker 1: Do you eat your own cooking? Yes? Everything I own
Speaker 1: our clients own. In fact, I'm just invested in the
Speaker 1: same portfolios our clients are invested in. So now we're
Speaker 1: each we're gonna ask you about an idea that that
Speaker 1: we're kind of intrigued with and see what you think
Speaker 1: as the master user. Here. One thing I'm just I
Speaker 1: can't help be super intrigued about is uranium miners because
Speaker 1: you know, nuclear power according to Bill Gates and a
Speaker 1: lot of people starting to read more about this. If
Speaker 1: you want to fight climate change, but yet you want
Speaker 1: economic growth and nobody wants to like stop moving around,
Speaker 1: it kind of needs something to help out wind and solar, right,
Speaker 1: So nuclear is a clean, cheap seven method, and I
Speaker 1: get that has to get over this public relations hurdle.
Speaker 1: But a new E t F came out U R
Speaker 1: n M. And there's also you are a after an
Speaker 1: eight downturn in the market over the past eight years,
Speaker 1: and I've never seen an e t F come out
Speaker 1: with a back test quote unquote that bad. The whole
Speaker 1: thing made be intrigued in that A, Um, here's a
Speaker 1: of story, and B it's been beaten up so much
Speaker 1: that the smallest little catalyst seems like it could be
Speaker 1: massive upside thoughts. So that's a very specific, particular idea.
Speaker 1: And if we think about our client based being individuals
Speaker 1: and families, not that nerdy right right, And and if
Speaker 1: we do that, so let's say we go ahead and
Speaker 1: invest in that and it works great, you know that's
Speaker 1: what they expect of us. But if it doesn't work,
Speaker 1: now I've got something. Why did you put me in? What?
Speaker 1: Why am I in Urania? Right? And so for us
Speaker 1: it's such a specific particular thing. And how much of
Speaker 1: that would you really own in a portfolio? Is it
Speaker 1: really going to add that much to the contribution to
Speaker 1: the overall return of a strategy? Um? For us, when
Speaker 1: we think about all those kinds of things, that's gonna
Speaker 1: be so specific. It's an interesting academic exercise, um, But
Speaker 1: it's hard to say, hey, I want to own ten
Speaker 1: percent of your portfolio and I right your Okay. So
Speaker 1: here's a different one. And we we did a sort
Speaker 1: of a game show last spring where we had a
Speaker 1: bunch of people pitch an idea that we think would
Speaker 1: make for a good d t F or that person
Speaker 1: would think for a good DTF the one that I'm
Speaker 1: actually interested in his millennials, right, Like here's a gigantic generation,
Speaker 1: bigger than the boomers. So if you believe that's part
Speaker 1: of the thesis, these are going to be massive consumers.
Speaker 1: Will you that seems like a long term play that
Speaker 1: you could get into. How would you approach something like that?
Speaker 1: We actually did approach uh, the millennial generation a couple
Speaker 1: of years ago when we thought about I remember during
Speaker 1: the global financial crisis two nine. The whole story was,
Speaker 1: you know, these people are graduating college and they can't
Speaker 1: find jobs, right, so they had the boomerang generation. People
Speaker 1: have been back into their parents basement. Well that was
Speaker 1: ten years ago. So now you're thirty years old living
Speaker 1: a mom's basement, right, and so you're not gonna keep
Speaker 1: doing that. So we thought, Okay, they don't have money
Speaker 1: to buy holms, so what's the next best thing? Apartments
Speaker 1: multi family housing. So we picked up on our easy
Speaker 1: which is the mortgage that's heavily invested in that, and
Speaker 1: that did fairly well for us that way. You know,
Speaker 1: the millennials also that e t F sounds gimmicky, but
Speaker 1: when you think about it, I think every company there
Speaker 1: has to have of its revenue from millennials. And you
Speaker 1: know how tech savvy and and picky. They are. I
Speaker 1: think if you can serve them, you know, you probably
Speaker 1: are gonna eventually bring over other people from other demographics.
Speaker 1: That's and it has done pretty well. Although the problem
Speaker 1: with comparing a millennial ETF. It beat the SMP over
Speaker 1: many periods, but then you throw in the Russell growth
Speaker 1: and it does now perform that. Like, that's a tough
Speaker 1: part about some of these themes. If you if you
Speaker 1: slap on the growth index, almost nothing beats it. It's like, well,
Speaker 1: what's the point anyway? That's exactly right. Yeah, so when
Speaker 1: you actually dig in do that kind of work, you've
Speaker 1: got this cute theme, or I can do it using
Speaker 1: the broad growth and get it like five basis points
Speaker 1: and be done. Okay, So I just want to kick
Speaker 1: the tires on this a little bit more because you know,
Speaker 1: we've we've got to interview Jack Bogel Buy and hold
Speaker 1: guy kind of anti et fs. You're almost exact opposite.
Speaker 1: We're very t f s and we're treating not constantly
Speaker 1: but frequently right and using you know, uh ccs to
Speaker 1: sort of inform how how your performance might be able
Speaker 1: to beat the market. Right, what do you have to
Speaker 1: say through you know the large swath of the world
Speaker 1: who just as a buy and hold investor and maybe
Speaker 1: using still right. So Bogel has been a great inspiration
Speaker 1: for us over the years, and a couple of things
Speaker 1: that he said, like, for example, he talks about how
Speaker 1: most of the marketing stuff we we see out there's
Speaker 1: bogus right, it's all malarky. A lot of it is,
Speaker 1: and we actually agree with that. A lot of the
Speaker 1: stuff that he's he's talked about and he's inspired us
Speaker 1: to be a little more cynical the way we look
Speaker 1: at the world and not necessarily accept what you might
Speaker 1: the researchers might might give you. Now, the challenge with
Speaker 1: being a buy and hold investor only is that people
Speaker 1: don't actually do that. If you look at the average
Speaker 1: holding time for a mutual fund over the years, it's
Speaker 1: something like eighteen months. Because markets are volatile and people
Speaker 1: get scared and they end up bailing at the wrong time.
Speaker 1: So a lot of our tactical work is to act
Speaker 1: as behavior relief valve to help our investors stay the course.
Speaker 1: So I appreciate Mr Bogle's viewpoints on how there's a
Speaker 1: lot of marketing bs out there and I get that.
Speaker 1: I think that's right. Um, but we've demonstrated over more
Speaker 1: than a decade that we can perform as good as
Speaker 1: a market while taking less risk and help people stay
Speaker 1: the course. So, speaking of which, over that decade, what's
Speaker 1: performers been like for our our core three portfolios that
Speaker 1: we launched, Um, actually in September, I'm sorry, two eight
Speaker 1: is when that track record starts. Each of those strategies
Speaker 1: has outperformed their respective benchmarks while taking between ten and
Speaker 1: less risk. And that's the key, if you can smooth
Speaker 1: the ride for people and help folks especially in down periods.
Speaker 1: You know Richard Taylor when the Nobel Prize for his
Speaker 1: working behavior economics, and one of his key thesis is
Speaker 1: that downside volatility affects people at least twice as much
Speaker 1: of the befort have a gain. So protecting in the
Speaker 1: downside is at least it's worth at least twice as
Speaker 1: much as being able to outperform on the upside. Right,
Speaker 1: So if we can protect on the downside, that's what
Speaker 1: helps people stay the course and achieve these long term results. Well,
Speaker 1: the buin whole thing works great in a classroom in academia,
Speaker 1: in the world. World people don't do that. And on
Speaker 1: the flip side to Bogel's complaints, there's the hedge fund
Speaker 1: guy complaint I call it, which is, uh, e t
Speaker 1: f s are going to blow up their systemic risk
Speaker 1: passive makes everything dumb. They're distorting fundamentals. You've heard them
Speaker 1: all or you are a user of these. Does any
Speaker 1: of that affect you as any of it true? Um,
Speaker 1: you know, as somebody who's actually putting other people's money
Speaker 1: in it. What do you think when you hear that
Speaker 1: there are narrow parts of the market where you can
Speaker 1: get trapped holding an e t F. You might remember
Speaker 1: the junior gold miners a couple of years ago got
Speaker 1: locked up. But how big is that market? You know,
Speaker 1: the et F is going to dominate that more so.
Speaker 1: But the broader based e t F that's not an issue.
Speaker 1: And in fact, it's just another market participant. You always
Speaker 1: have buyers and sellers participating in the market. And if
Speaker 1: you look at it taking a step back, the market
Speaker 1: is driven by the large institutions and the big mutual
Speaker 1: funds that together combine make the market. So just one
Speaker 1: more entrance isn't broadly speaking, isn't going to be that impactful.
Speaker 1: So at four trillion dollars roughly the et F landscape,
Speaker 1: and it's got a pretty big parabolic growth rate. But
Speaker 1: mutual funds are still right around three are thirty trillion,
Speaker 1: and the global liquidity is around three hundred trillion. So
Speaker 1: what are we talking about. We're talking about marginal stuff.
Speaker 1: And anytime something locks up, like junior goal miners, it
Speaker 1: hits the press and everybody gets excited about it. But
Speaker 1: sp y doesn't have that problem. The big broader things
Speaker 1: that we invest and don't have that problem. Yeah, we
Speaker 1: call it the big fish in the small pond phenomenon.
Speaker 1: Every now and then, like an xt I V, something
Speaker 1: just gets a little bit bigger than the issue where
Speaker 1: thought it would and it owns a little too much
Speaker 1: of the stocks s d Y that dividend aristocrat one
Speaker 1: recently had it. But largely I would agree with you.
Speaker 1: I think sometimes times, uh, you cannot perform. So I
Speaker 1: don't know. It sounds like sour grapes to me. But
Speaker 1: also I think showed the sell off was pretty violent
Speaker 1: in some parts of the FED wasn't having the markets back,
Speaker 1: and they seem to work fine. We saw in two
Speaker 1: thousand eight two, which is the biggest crisis and it
Speaker 1: US ever seen since a great depression, and they held
Speaker 1: up just fine. What are we not talking about that
Speaker 1: we should be talking about right now with the t s, yeah,
Speaker 1: or or just in your investing philosophy. So, um, there's
Speaker 1: some risks out there that we're paying a lot of
Speaker 1: attention to. And uh, you mentioned the FED didn't really
Speaker 1: have the markets back in December. Um, we're a little
Speaker 1: bit concerned that the FED is a little bit sleep
Speaker 1: at the wheel right now. We'd like to see them
Speaker 1: cut interest rates for because we can't forget that the
Speaker 1: yield curve inverted last year and that's a one in
Speaker 1: two year lead time, so we're still in that cautionary window. Um.
Speaker 1: So the markets at all time highs. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of risk out there, and we think uncertainty is doing
Speaker 1: nothing but increasing for the new yar term. And so
Speaker 1: ets are actually a great way to to be able
Speaker 1: to participate in the upside while managing that risk. And
Speaker 1: you can quickly pair act which is what works. Do
Speaker 1: you have a Bernie Sanders et F just in case,
Speaker 1: just in case he starts to climb a Polese and whatnot?
Speaker 1: You what are you gonna go to g l D.
Speaker 1: Actually no, if if if the market gives us an opportunity,
Speaker 1: like the market pulls back because of Bernie Sanders election,
Speaker 1: we would buy that. We would buy just basic beta
Speaker 1: because our work shows that who's in the White House
Speaker 1: really doesn't have a broad effect on the global on
Speaker 1: the economy, and then therefore the markets. Now, certainly you
Speaker 1: can affect individual sectors and industries, so you probably don't
Speaker 1: want to be in the energy space in a big
Speaker 1: way under a Bernie Sanders kind of environment. Um, but
Speaker 1: everything else let's just fine to us. Okay, I can't
Speaker 1: think of a better person to ask my closing question too,
Speaker 1: which is what is your favorite ticker? Oh? That's probably would?
Speaker 1: Oh interesting inspired choice, which, by the way, is the
Speaker 1: timbo et F And there's an other one called cut,
Speaker 1: which is a it's right up there. Yeah, but he goes,
Speaker 1: would why would? Uh? Hey, you know what it is? Right,
Speaker 1: It's like even tan you have to think about it
Speaker 1: for a second. What does that mean? Well, what I'm buying?
Speaker 1: What I'm buying November? All right, Gary, thanks for joining
Speaker 1: us on trillance. Thanks for having me this pleasure. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening. To Trillions until next time. You can find
Speaker 1: us on the Bloomberg terminal, Bloomberg dot com, Apple podcast, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and whoever else you'd like to listen. We love to
Speaker 1: hear from you. We're on Twitter, I'm at Joel Webber Show,
Speaker 1: He's at Eric fall Tunas, and you can find Gary
Speaker 1: at Asset Stringer. This episode of Trillions was produced by
Speaker 1: Magnus and Rickson. Francesca Levie is the head of Bloomberg Podcast. Bye.