Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to What Goes Up. My name is
Speaker 1: Mike Reagan. I'm a senior editor at Bloomberg, and I'm
Speaker 1: Bildonna Higher Across Acid reporter with Bloomberg. And this week
Speaker 1: on the show, well, stocks, bonds, even crypto, they're all
Speaker 1: tanking this year. Is it time to buy? Or is
Speaker 1: it time to stuff your money under the mattress. We'll
Speaker 1: get into it with the chief investment officer of a
Speaker 1: registered investment advisory, but Bildona first, I need to thank you.
Speaker 1: I know I was off on vacation last week and
Speaker 1: you filled in on the podcast without me admirably. I
Speaker 1: will admit I haven't yet listened to it. You probably shouldn't.
Speaker 1: We made a lot of fun of you. I figured
Speaker 1: that you were. You burned me a few times, and
Speaker 1: I will say, during vacation, I got a terrible sun burned.
Speaker 1: So I can only hand all so much burn at
Speaker 1: one time. I'm very, very ashamed of myself for that
Speaker 1: burn remain Bostic filled in and I told him that
Speaker 1: if just if you just happened to be stuck in
Speaker 1: California for some reason, or you couldn't get a return ticket,
Speaker 1: I told him he was welcome to fill in for
Speaker 1: the rest of eternity for you. Oh okay, well good,
Speaker 1: so you've already lined up my replacement exactly. Okay, but
Speaker 1: no more parents. I promise to a minimum because we
Speaker 1: did miss you, and I will say I'm very ashamed
Speaker 1: of getting sunburned. I've dealt with Molinomo myself. A remindered
Speaker 1: everyone this is a time of year where we all
Speaker 1: get burned. In my case, I I blame the delicious
Speaker 1: cocktails that they serve at the Hotel Grenado. Yeah so
Speaker 1: uh lemon vodka concoction that had me let my guard down.
Speaker 1: So yeah, um, I recommend everyone reapply I think you
Speaker 1: maybe after the second cocktail every two cockos. I don't
Speaker 1: know the ratio the reapply to cocktail ratio is is
Speaker 1: up to the individual. But a reminder to uh to
Speaker 1: where that sun block. At this time of year, I
Speaker 1: cannot protect myself from vildanna and romains burns. Unfortunately, but
Speaker 1: hopefully you did not tell all this week's guests to
Speaker 1: burn me as much as you did. Really did, Actually
Speaker 1: I did. I told her. You know, it's a fun podcast.
Speaker 1: We can have as much fun as she wants. But
Speaker 1: speaking of the guests. I do want to bring in
Speaker 1: Efan Devit. She's the chief investment officer at Monetta. I
Speaker 1: want to welcome you to our show. Maybe just to
Speaker 1: start out, you can tell us a little bit about Monetta,
Speaker 1: What's what the firm does, where you guys are based,
Speaker 1: and what you've been up to recently. Great, well, thank you.
Speaker 1: We are fee only financial advisors were in our i A.
Speaker 1: We are one of the top ten independent r i
Speaker 1: as in the US. Our headquarters are in St. Louis,
Speaker 1: and we have thirty two billion in assets under management.
Speaker 1: And although our headquarters are in St. Louis, we have
Speaker 1: a national footprint. And I myself and based in the
Speaker 1: Chicago office. Okay, well, if he I was actually editing
Speaker 1: a column this morning that happened of your name in it,
Speaker 1: so I I figured that's a good segue. Uh So,
Speaker 1: one topic I wanted to ask you about, which is
Speaker 1: the nature of of defensive stocks, and um, you know,
Speaker 1: I'll sort of recap the column for listeners who aren't
Speaker 1: privileged to read taking stock on the Bloomberg terminal, which
Speaker 1: you really should be doing, by the way, but if
Speaker 1: you're not, you know, I think it's a very sort
Speaker 1: of headache inducing time to think about how do you
Speaker 1: play defense in this stock market? UM? You know, traditionally
Speaker 1: you would you would go to something like consumer stables, utilities,
Speaker 1: high dividend payers with stable earning streams. UM. The pandemic
Speaker 1: obviously turned that on its head. The way to play
Speaker 1: defense in that environment was to buy all the internet um,
Speaker 1: e commerce, you know, streaming, social media. That all the
Speaker 1: stocks that reflected what people were doing while they were
Speaker 1: stuck inside, which is you know, craually have been kind
Speaker 1: of the opposite of defensive stocks, those high growth tech
Speaker 1: stocks now as crazy as it sounds, you know, you
Speaker 1: look at the leaders of the market this year, Energy
Speaker 1: up a million percent, beating basically everything. People playing defense
Speaker 1: against this inflationary oil shock environment by by buying energy stocks.
Speaker 1: I'm wondering how you unpack it all? What what does
Speaker 1: defensive means to you right now in the stock market? Um?
Speaker 1: Given the risks are kind of across the spectrum. You know,
Speaker 1: some people are worried about a looming recession next year.
Speaker 1: Everyone else is worried about inflation and an erosion of
Speaker 1: purchasing power, higher interest rates. What does it mean to
Speaker 1: be defensive? Is there a way to to sort of
Speaker 1: still allocate the stocks and be defensive in this environment.
Speaker 1: It's an excellent question. I mean, ultimately, the way to
Speaker 1: be defensive at a portfolio level is to have a
Speaker 1: well diversified portfolio, and by that I mean across all
Speaker 1: asset classes, so including bonds, including alternatives, including cash flow generators,
Speaker 1: including real assets, and that is our best way of
Speaker 1: assuring an old weather portfolio. When it comes to stock,
Speaker 1: defensive stocks are perhaps a bit of a misnomer because
Speaker 1: ultimately we are in equities, which are a higher risk
Speaker 1: reward asset class. They will be marked to market, they
Speaker 1: will experience volatility. We can see equities with a high
Speaker 1: correlation to each other, especially when there's a sell off event.
Speaker 1: But that said, there are still sectors that might be
Speaker 1: considered value stocks, which as opposed to growth stocks, have
Speaker 1: been quite out of favor as a whole for the
Speaker 1: last number of years, and there have been pockets of
Speaker 1: time was when investors have cycled into value in that
Speaker 1: great kind of growth value rotation that we might see,
Speaker 1: but those rotation periods have actually been quite short. So
Speaker 1: I think we shouldn't be under the illusion that these
Speaker 1: defensive stocks are essentially somewhere to hide if there is
Speaker 1: a dramatic equity market correction, but they should be somewhere
Speaker 1: where investors may go in a flight to safety. The
Speaker 1: additional complexity though right now, around these so called defensive
Speaker 1: stocks a new listed high dividend payers in that is
Speaker 1: that traditionally, when interest rates rise, these are seen as
Speaker 1: perhaps bond proxies, or had been seen as bond proxies,
Speaker 1: and then funds flow out of these defensive stocks when
Speaker 1: interest rates rise, because bonds become relatively more attractive, so
Speaker 1: they tend to see funds flowing out when it's just
Speaker 1: right rise. So they're not actually that defensive if we
Speaker 1: see a rising rate environment, So it's all relative. Are
Speaker 1: they more defensive than a high growth portfolio? Absolutely? Are
Speaker 1: they going to protect your capital in an equity market downturn?
Speaker 1: Not necessarily. Yeah. It's just such a unique environment because
Speaker 1: usually when you're seeing yields rising, it's because growth is
Speaker 1: picking up, you know, it's it's a different point in
Speaker 1: the cycle. We just have kind of this unique sort
Speaker 1: of upside down cycle now where you know you have
Speaker 1: decelerating growth and rising yields. Um So how do you
Speaker 1: sort of play that you know, given especially the last
Speaker 1: couple of weeks, we have seen yields sort of come
Speaker 1: down a little bit um off their highs, oil come
Speaker 1: come off of its highs. I mean, is the worst
Speaker 1: of that inflation shock over? Do you think can? And
Speaker 1: and you know, are those defensive place a little bit
Speaker 1: more defensive now in that case, Well, just as we
Speaker 1: could adjust to to anything, any new normal somehow quickly
Speaker 1: becomes the norm. We saw that with COVID restrictions, where
Speaker 1: how mask wearing became the norm, how restrictions became the norm.
Speaker 1: I think when it comes to inflation numbers, something that
Speaker 1: was perhaps eye popping at a forty year high starts
Speaker 1: to become normal very quickly. I would be surprised if
Speaker 1: we were to see high single digit inflation persists, maybe
Speaker 1: for a few more months, maybe it through the middle
Speaker 1: of the year. But ultimately we have to remember the
Speaker 1: base effect and some of those numbers and some of
Speaker 1: the contribution of the shock rises and energy and some
Speaker 1: other components in there that perhaps were not likely to
Speaker 1: be sustained. Food prices would be an example. So the
Speaker 1: quick heat question around all of these inflation numbers is stickiness.
Speaker 1: But I've just written a piece called head Winds and
Speaker 1: cross Currents, because, as you mentioned, there is an abundance
Speaker 1: of risk right now in markets, and they're all inter related,
Speaker 1: but equally they're all any one of the could potentially
Speaker 1: grow to exponentially to become a serious problem. Those are
Speaker 1: the problems you noted around inflation, around is yours right rising?
Speaker 1: And you mentioned upside down. I think that's a great
Speaker 1: analogy because there are a lot of things that just
Speaker 1: don't make sense today. Typically we speak about stagflation, that
Speaker 1: maybe when we have a rising inflationary environment it's accompanied
Speaker 1: by high unemployment and that then is that kind of
Speaker 1: perfect storm that leads to the recession. We don't have
Speaker 1: a high unemployment environment today. We have an actually very
Speaker 1: robust labor market, and in fact, we have low unemployment
Speaker 1: numbers which are back to pre pandemic levels, So that
Speaker 1: doesn't look like a recipe for recession. Equally, when we
Speaker 1: have a high inflation environment, we often have a weaker dollar,
Speaker 1: and we have the opposite. Now we've a dollar at
Speaker 1: two year highs. So what's that telling us, Perhaps that yes,
Speaker 1: the dollar should be under pressure because of the of
Speaker 1: an inflationary environment. But our central bank is taking measures
Speaker 1: that other central banks are not, and perhaps it's it's
Speaker 1: it's only looking strong because every other and see worldwide
Speaker 1: is looking quite weak. So we have a lot of
Speaker 1: juxtapositions of interesting bactoids right now, and it is challenging
Speaker 1: for markets to make sense of it. I agree with that.
Speaker 1: So can you actually talk a little bit more about
Speaker 1: some of those I think you call them currents. There's
Speaker 1: all these cross currents that are that are going on
Speaker 1: right now, these different factors that are weighing on investors.
Speaker 1: So what what's type of mind for you? Well, I
Speaker 1: got to start with the two eyes, inflation and interfest rates.
Speaker 1: So you mentioned inflation being at a forty year high,
Speaker 1: So it's true that most traders and markets today have
Speaker 1: never seen inflation at these levels. Most people don't have
Speaker 1: careers that are are great in forty years, so this
Speaker 1: is uncharted territory for most market participants today. There is
Speaker 1: no playbook for this. The last one was I mentioned
Speaker 1: was in the eighties when we had a very different environment.
Speaker 1: We had certainly a hawk ish FED then, and when
Speaker 1: we look to the Fed's potential playbook, we do look
Speaker 1: to what they did the last time there was inflation
Speaker 1: in high single in high in high single digits into
Speaker 1: load into load double digits. So as a result, that
Speaker 1: is certainly something we have to contended. The key question
Speaker 1: is is it sticky, is it likely to resist um?
Speaker 1: And are we likely to have a situation where um
Speaker 1: the consumer comes under pressure and where companies lose their
Speaker 1: pricing power and start to see that hit their margins.
Speaker 1: So really there is a lot of unknown that's unknown
Speaker 1: currently about how the inflation picture is likely to pan out.
Speaker 1: But right now, because the consumer still has quite a
Speaker 1: bit of pent up demand, quite a bit of savings,
Speaker 1: and perhaps it's still feeling this need to spend on services,
Speaker 1: we're not seeing it really pinched yet. The other major
Speaker 1: I is, of course interest rates were in a tightening cycle.
Speaker 1: We don't know how aggressive is likely to be. I
Speaker 1: would argue that already quite a few fifty basis point
Speaker 1: rate rises are priced in for the rest of this year,
Speaker 1: perhaps three fifty basis point rises are more, or even five.
Speaker 1: So that is looking like markets already have kind of
Speaker 1: absorbed that have have factored that in, and for that
Speaker 1: reason we can expect that we don't expect there to
Speaker 1: be really any interest rate shocks if that is in
Speaker 1: fact the interest rate trajectory, But again we don't know
Speaker 1: how markets are likely to react to that. We see
Speaker 1: that even that in the last few weeks there's been
Speaker 1: quite a lot of more volatility as the Fed has
Speaker 1: sensuated it's stance and it's um it's the language that
Speaker 1: it's using around the imperative of of being assertive around inflation.
Speaker 1: We've lost the kind of the looser language of earlier on.
Speaker 1: So how do The reason I think there's uncertainty around
Speaker 1: this is how is this likely to play out in
Speaker 1: terms of a portfolio? Is as likely to cause bonds
Speaker 1: to to lose And we've had a shocking first quarter
Speaker 1: for fixed income in terms of how it's it's absolutely
Speaker 1: return So is this likely to be a poor environment
Speaker 1: for bonds? We've mentioned equity market volatility? Is it likely
Speaker 1: to lead to more equity market volatility? So that the
Speaker 1: two eyes of inflation in interest rates are obviously top
Speaker 1: of mind, and we can't not mention the geopolitical surprise
Speaker 1: the potential for ongoing surprise. There it seemed that markets
Speaker 1: were completely agnostic. It seemed as to the impact of
Speaker 1: geo political risk for the last eighteen months until the
Speaker 1: first quarter of this year, until Russian invaded Ukraine, and
Speaker 1: markets reacted quite suddenly and aggressively to this up ending
Speaker 1: of global order, so called potential end to globalization. I mean,
Speaker 1: there was a lot of hyperbole every being used in
Speaker 1: terms of what this geopolitical event actually meant for the
Speaker 1: long term. I think for the first time, investors are
Speaker 1: really starting to now focus on geopolitical risk, and that
Speaker 1: is again another potential surprise and markets so all of that,
Speaker 1: and then add to that the backdrop of still ongoing
Speaker 1: COVID tensions and caution companies emerging from that, house prices
Speaker 1: that are up last year, rising mortgage rates that are
Speaker 1: themselves reaching um multi year highs, and there's just this
Speaker 1: kind of a concoction of risks that any any one
Speaker 1: of them, as I mentioned food rise to the top
Speaker 1: be devastating. And so markets are already in a juggling
Speaker 1: act right now as to which to give emphasis to.
Speaker 1: You know, you brought up that notion of the consumer
Speaker 1: um and obviously consumer savings accounts, and that just the
Speaker 1: normal household balance sheets, just in the aggregate got very
Speaker 1: very strong during the pandemic you know, whether it be uh,
Speaker 1: people collecting some some government stimulus money or just not
Speaker 1: being able to spend money elsewhere. Um, so I wonder
Speaker 1: you know, in large part the question is, well, how
Speaker 1: how long does that by the consumer in sort of
Speaker 1: an accelerating inflation environment. And some pretty interesting tidbits from
Speaker 1: some of the earnings reports we saw this week. Uh
Speaker 1: one the guy noticed the visa The spending on the
Speaker 1: visa network was like off the charts. People are are
Speaker 1: still spending like crazy. And it gets your notion of
Speaker 1: pricing power. You know, chip Chipotle raised prices during the
Speaker 1: order and it didn't hurt them at all. Um, they
Speaker 1: had a very good quarter. So are there any sort
Speaker 1: of sectors you're looking at that are more vulnerable to
Speaker 1: a pricing power problem? You know? Um, you know, Chipola
Speaker 1: almost strikes me as the type of place where you
Speaker 1: would cut back if if you were worried about spending, um,
Speaker 1: you know, and and you'd be going to the supermarket more,
Speaker 1: going to McDonald's more, you know, a lower priced option.
Speaker 1: Are there any pockets of the sort of the consumer
Speaker 1: economy that you think are less vulnerable to um rising
Speaker 1: prices and others that don't quite have as much pricing power,
Speaker 1: and their margins might get squeezed. It's an interest in
Speaker 1: question because I think we can look at normal circumstances,
Speaker 1: but inflation would mean for different sectors, and then look
Speaker 1: at the current back drop, whereby the level of assets
Speaker 1: and money market funds reached a peak right after the
Speaker 1: pandemic due to stimulus payments and other cares act, etcetera.
Speaker 1: And the fact that consumers couldn't spend their money and
Speaker 1: the enhanced unemployment benefit and just the fact that there
Speaker 1: was nothing to spend money on. Really it couldn't use services.
Speaker 1: They did consume guns in a very robust way. So
Speaker 1: because of all that, there is this kind of pent
Speaker 1: up purchasing power I should say, or released a dry powder.
Speaker 1: It's it's getting less by the day because obviously inflation
Speaker 1: erodes cash, so it will erode that actual purchasing power.
Speaker 1: So I think that's where the interesting dilemma is. Normally,
Speaker 1: I would say it would be things like discretionary expenditure,
Speaker 1: expenditure on say hospitality or travel. That would be where
Speaker 1: I'd see normally and the consuming to be more vulnerable.
Speaker 1: And ironically Chipotle is probably in that kind of price
Speaker 1: point of restaurants that's sort of that fast food or
Speaker 1: enhanced fast food segment where actually that's where people tend
Speaker 1: to sort downgrade to as opposed to eating more fine
Speaker 1: dining establishments. So probably is still in that category that
Speaker 1: is likely to be quite robust and supported. But as
Speaker 1: far as if we saw United Airlines come out recently
Speaker 1: to say that they actually expected demand to be buoyant
Speaker 1: um and we've seen fuel prices passed through into higher
Speaker 1: airline ticket prices. But notwithstanding, there is that pent up
Speaker 1: demand to take that that vacation, take that overseas trip,
Speaker 1: and I don't see that subsiding. So as I said,
Speaker 1: it may be that that's artificially prolonging the strength of
Speaker 1: the consumer. These savings, plus the sense of the fear
Speaker 1: of missing out of having missed out on on perhaps
Speaker 1: that the normal spending pattern for two years. So for
Speaker 1: that reason, it's very hard to say at this point
Speaker 1: where we can see clearly things like Netflix, things like
Speaker 1: some of It, maybe Peloton, you know, areas that they
Speaker 1: would have spent money on during the pandemic which now
Speaker 1: are no longer um adequate substitutes for the real thing
Speaker 1: or or for going out and spending on cinemas or
Speaker 1: or you know, taking that bike trip. So I see
Speaker 1: that there those are areas perhaps that were perhaps overbought
Speaker 1: during the pandemic um. So it's it's a it's an
Speaker 1: interesting dilemma really as to what how this purchasing power
Speaker 1: effect is likely to pan out. I'm really glad you
Speaker 1: brought that up, because I was just about to ask
Speaker 1: you about that. Which is this idea that maybe some
Speaker 1: of the earnings reports so far are giving us a
Speaker 1: hint that there is consumer pushback for rising prices. So
Speaker 1: you mentioned Netflix, that's one good example. Then also we
Speaker 1: have Whirlpool mentioning it, uh and a bunch of the
Speaker 1: mattress companies. I think sleep number was one of them.
Speaker 1: Temper Seely had said that just demand is falling off
Speaker 1: in response to higher prices, but not just on the
Speaker 1: good side. I believe Jet Blue also had mentioned something
Speaker 1: about rising prices and consumer pushback. So are you paying
Speaker 1: attention to some of those things and seeing it crop
Speaker 1: up a bit more. That's a really interesting point. We
Speaker 1: see the concept of demand destruction has been used for
Speaker 1: years in the commodity segments. So the idea that the
Speaker 1: oil price can't rise to the moon because at some
Speaker 1: point there will be less driving, less use of fuel,
Speaker 1: conversion to other forms of energy, and that there is
Speaker 1: a point out which they're simply isn't it is not
Speaker 1: going to go on forever unlimited demand at unlimited price.
Speaker 1: So that's what presents a natural ceiling, and I suggest
Speaker 1: that that's what what what all these companies are also
Speaker 1: seeing as demand destruction at certain levels that if something
Speaker 1: is ultimately a discretion or expenditure, there will be there
Speaker 1: will be a desire to shift, to find substitutes and
Speaker 1: and to not not tolerate that price. So that probably
Speaker 1: actually could be a natural correction on inflation. It's not
Speaker 1: likely to rise forever, so let's see how that works out.
Speaker 1: But I think it's an excellent point. You know, if
Speaker 1: it's funny a lot in the financial world. If you
Speaker 1: want to have a quick meeting with someone in the
Speaker 1: US and New York, it's it's usually a coffee meeting,
Speaker 1: but you and you're you're charming, irish ways you have
Speaker 1: tea meetings. I've noticed C C I O. T. S
Speaker 1: Uh that you videotape and and put on the website
Speaker 1: as a podcast and really interesting one recently with Cathy
Speaker 1: Wood of Our Investments UM, and it's just been such
Speaker 1: an amazing story UM with her her et fs and
Speaker 1: and really the you know, those sectors of the stock
Speaker 1: market that she she favors, the real sort of high
Speaker 1: future growth, innovative, disruptive type of companies that the Tesla's
Speaker 1: of the world and whatnot. I'm curious, you know what
Speaker 1: you took away from that conversation with her as far
Speaker 1: as UM. Is that strategy sort of in peril for
Speaker 1: I don't know, the next couple of years or what
Speaker 1: do you think needs to be in place in sort
Speaker 1: of the macro environment maybe to to bring that type
Speaker 1: of uh OUR performance back that she saw that and
Speaker 1: that sort of risk taking in the market, you know,
Speaker 1: on an even broader scale, that that willingness to really
Speaker 1: UM invest in a company with a future that might
Speaker 1: not you know, reach truition for five or ten years,
Speaker 1: that that sort of thing is that is that sort
Speaker 1: of risk taking just really gone for good now or
Speaker 1: is there something that will bring it back? But I
Speaker 1: think we're seeing is just to waive critical thinking. And
Speaker 1: that was really where I focused my discussion in the
Speaker 1: interview with Kathy wood was. I wanted to really challenge
Speaker 1: some of the growth assumptions that were built into some
Speaker 1: of the modeling they do on seconds, such as driverless
Speaker 1: cars or artificial intelligence, or perhaps the adoption of digital
Speaker 1: wallets or the price of bitcoin. I asked her about
Speaker 1: her modeling and where the probabilities were in there and
Speaker 1: where the potential was inflection points were in order of
Speaker 1: this modeling to to big sense or to not. I
Speaker 1: also asked her about in the past how their modeling
Speaker 1: had worked out and whether they have an instance where
Speaker 1: they had been wildly over optimistic, because that often would
Speaker 1: be the the the the assessment exactly around some of
Speaker 1: these models is that they are they're overly optimistic, and
Speaker 1: I don't think that our fascination and our obsession with
Speaker 1: innovation is likely to go away anytime soon. What we
Speaker 1: have probably introduced is a dose of realism and the
Speaker 1: irrational exuberance that on Greenspan were referred to back in
Speaker 1: O eight. There was perhaps a shade of that around
Speaker 1: some of these protections. If you think about it, it's
Speaker 1: probably not five years ago we all thought that today
Speaker 1: two we'll be driving around and we would have driverless cars.
Speaker 1: That's not a reality today. Sometimes tech is inherently very
Speaker 1: difficult to model. Um we are grappling with modeling adoption technology,
Speaker 1: or grappling with modeling the impact of climate change. So
Speaker 1: many of these models have so many different inputs that
Speaker 1: are all often interrelated that any one there's going to
Speaker 1: be a huge element of a funnel of possibilities and
Speaker 1: funnel of doubt with any of that modeling. So what
Speaker 1: we've seen is a dose of realism around some of
Speaker 1: the projections. It probably is not a coincidence that that
Speaker 1: has come at the same time as we've seen just
Speaker 1: there's some of the sheen come off some of the
Speaker 1: tech stocks that perhaps are not great innovators, but someone
Speaker 1: even look at Netflix or look at Meta um. Perhaps
Speaker 1: they're not innovators, but they've seen the sheen come off them.
Speaker 1: So it probably is a sectoral just a general falling
Speaker 1: out of favor right now that we're seeing. But as
Speaker 1: far as innovation, I am watching that very carefully. And
Speaker 1: if we were to look at the robust demand for
Speaker 1: say venture capital on which is just the private sect
Speaker 1: markets way of playing innovation, that has not subsided and
Speaker 1: if anything, we are seeing massive institutional capital shift into
Speaker 1: venture capital. We've seen the endowments do it for years now.
Speaker 1: The pension funds are following suit. Family offices are large
Speaker 1: participants in that. Venture capital is just innovation and public
Speaker 1: markets by another name. So that doesn't seem to have
Speaker 1: slowed down. So there will be a fascination with the
Speaker 1: next new idea, and I suppose that the test will
Speaker 1: be um, at what stage is our markets prepared to
Speaker 1: fund that? And at what stage are they going to
Speaker 1: want to see the proof statement and the revenues follow
Speaker 1: h forget about driverless cars. I thought we would have
Speaker 1: flying cars by now, you know the Jetsons. We do
Speaker 1: have the video chat though that they had in the
Speaker 1: jets and so I never thought we'd see that in
Speaker 1: our life time. I actually thought the flying cars were
Speaker 1: more likely before that. But there we are talking like
Speaker 1: they did on the jets and so who knows. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't want to drive a flying car. I mean, in
Speaker 1: New York City driving is a nightmare, and a flying
Speaker 1: car would be like even worse. I feel like a
Speaker 1: true true nightmare. Um. But even so, you mentioned some
Speaker 1: of those big tech names, and I feel like the
Speaker 1: notes that I've been reading from the banks and just
Speaker 1: research reports in general, they're sort of mixed on them.
Speaker 1: Where As you said, the shine has come off off
Speaker 1: of some of them. We we saw a bunch of
Speaker 1: them report earnings this week. So how should we be
Speaker 1: thinking about them? Because I remember writing stories during the
Speaker 1: pandemic saying exactly what we had just been talking about,
Speaker 1: where the big tech names were considered defensive place. So
Speaker 1: how should we be thinking about them today? Well, definitely
Speaker 1: not as defensive place. I think that that probably was
Speaker 1: a very much a window of time, and tech has
Speaker 1: always been. It's not we will have see a growth
Speaker 1: and CASHLA is well into the future. It has always
Speaker 1: been in the growth segment, and we've seen some staggering
Speaker 1: performance out of those names, perhaps twenty twenty one, and
Speaker 1: now we were seeing that there's the dose of realism
Speaker 1: as I mentioned before. So we would shouldn't necessarily see
Speaker 1: them as as defensive names, but they will, I believe,
Speaker 1: be important parts of the portfolio. But we are seeing
Speaker 1: changing of the guard. We're seeing a shifting, We're seeing
Speaker 1: the encroachment of regulation. Even in the past week, the
Speaker 1: spat around Twitter and the impact that the deal that
Speaker 1: the LA must bid for Twitter had on the price
Speaker 1: of Tesla. We can see that there is a lot
Speaker 1: of drama always in storytelling around many of these tech names.
Speaker 1: There they are become so large that the regulators cannot
Speaker 1: ignore them, and there will be pressure from around privacy concerns,
Speaker 1: use of data, and are anti competitive concerns as well.
Speaker 1: So we need to watch these players. They are essential
Speaker 1: parts of our ecosystem and they will continue to flex
Speaker 1: their muscle, their cash rich. We will see some of
Speaker 1: the innovation coming from within them, but regulators are not
Speaker 1: turning a blind eye, and that may in fact but
Speaker 1: pressure on the business model. And what we're actually seeing
Speaker 1: is maybe investor expectations around growth, say have subscribers or
Speaker 1: revenues were based on the ROY anchor and I anchor
Speaker 1: that was set during the pandemic um that was an
Speaker 1: unusual due to an exogenous event, and perhaps we need
Speaker 1: to just reset some of those expectations. But they will
Speaker 1: be he and they will dominate the index going forward,
Speaker 1: but they will not be defensive. If you had mentioned UH,
Speaker 1: private offices dipping their toe a little bit more into
Speaker 1: venture capital um and I know Monetta has some family
Speaker 1: office UH clients. I find that space kind of interesting
Speaker 1: because there were a few years there were so many
Speaker 1: hedge funds, whether it be regulatory reasons or whatever else,
Speaker 1: we're converting family offices and we never quite hear very
Speaker 1: much about what they're up to until something like Archagos hits,
Speaker 1: you know, uh in the news again this week for
Speaker 1: just the spectacular blow up of that family office. Um,
Speaker 1: I'm curious how much contact you have with the family
Speaker 1: office clients and is there any sort of you know,
Speaker 1: temperature check that you could give us from sort of
Speaker 1: the risk taking and the strategies of that group. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm sure there's a lot of a lot of different
Speaker 1: disparity among what they're doing. But um, you know, when
Speaker 1: the only sort of insight you get into this space
Speaker 1: is a situation like Archegos, it really makes you wonder
Speaker 1: what sort of the mood is with that cohort of
Speaker 1: an investors. Are they in general a little bit more
Speaker 1: risk taking than than perhaps, uh, you know, your retail
Speaker 1: clients or your typical hedge fund is. Does that structure
Speaker 1: of a family office sort of encourage a little bit
Speaker 1: more of an embracing risk. It's a really good question.
Speaker 1: I say, each individual family office is as individual as
Speaker 1: the family members in it. So it's very difficult to
Speaker 1: set to say a trend or kind of any norm
Speaker 1: across family office investors. I would say in general versus
Speaker 1: say institutions, there does tend to be perhaps more risk
Speaker 1: appetite because of the whether it be an entrepreneur that's
Speaker 1: behind the family office that has had an uptid and
Speaker 1: it's successful at taking risk some business. We do see
Speaker 1: more esoteric investment strategies come out of family offices. It
Speaker 1: could be that they're more localized in terms of their investment,
Speaker 1: tend to invest locally. Um, they may be a desire
Speaker 1: to invest more in real estate because that's an area
Speaker 1: that has a lot of familiarity. We might see interest
Speaker 1: in some more off the run type of investments such
Speaker 1: as digital assets, because again there is the discretion that
Speaker 1: they have to not be forced to be index focused.
Speaker 1: Different family offices according to the generational situation, may or
Speaker 1: may not need income. And if they don't need income,
Speaker 1: then they can very much be focused on the long
Speaker 1: term and the absolute return of the portfolio. If there
Speaker 1: is a need to take income, and then we look
Speaker 1: at areas such a private credit that are throwing off
Speaker 1: an income and real estate is great for that as well,
Speaker 1: because there's an inflation linkage built into real estate and
Speaker 1: it throws off for reliable income, and it tends to
Speaker 1: be less less marked to market or less um get
Speaker 1: correlated with public markets. So it's all of those factories
Speaker 1: factor in. Certainly we get some of our most interesting
Speaker 1: inquiries on the family office side as there is that
Speaker 1: just a really broad based, extremely stimulating group um of
Speaker 1: clients that that are are really open to ideas. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that makes a lot of sense. But I wonder do
Speaker 1: you think that trend could you know, sort of pick
Speaker 1: up ag end of hedge funds converting. And I'm thinking
Speaker 1: mainly because of all the you know, there's been so
Speaker 1: much scrutiny from the sort of reddit uh traders of
Speaker 1: the world towards hedge funds and and there's been um,
Speaker 1: you know, new disclosure rules coming up on on shure positions.
Speaker 1: Could that drive a further move into family offices? Do
Speaker 1: you think? Yeah, potentially, I mean there's certainly been a
Speaker 1: nice run. I wouldn't say we've seen the kind of
Speaker 1: the legendary runs that we saw in back in in
Speaker 1: the early two thousands in terms of hedge funds fortunes
Speaker 1: being made. Because equity markets themselves have been so strong,
Speaker 1: hedge funds have actually been laggards, and they've struggle to
Speaker 1: find their place in portfolios. They've struggled to to eke
Speaker 1: to earn their place and really earn their key. We've
Speaker 1: seen hedge funds they only earned their keep when they're
Speaker 1: compared to fixed income returns recently, which would be quite
Speaker 1: a muted rate of return. They certainly haven't held their
Speaker 1: own relative equity markets. That said, in a month like
Speaker 1: we're seeing right now. The word on the street is
Speaker 1: that many hedge funds were short going into some of
Speaker 1: this correction, so they're actually maintaining their their their their
Speaker 1: absolute return near today quite nicely. That they're not actually
Speaker 1: falling along with equity markets. So but that said, as
Speaker 1: far as structurally do we see them closed. There have
Speaker 1: been some black eyes and hedge fund land recently, there
Speaker 1: have equally been some extraordinary gains, and certainly those their
Speaker 1: household names are ASSERTI of the well known names and
Speaker 1: hedge fund land. If they are are well known, it's
Speaker 1: because they've been in the business for decades and they
Speaker 1: have probably survived some pretty tumultuous markets. So that is
Speaker 1: staying power that perhaps a survivorship bias. But those hedge
Speaker 1: funds are here for the long haul. They tend to
Speaker 1: have a sticky kind base. They have perhaps a liquidity
Speaker 1: structure that allows them to invest more long term. They're
Speaker 1: not used as the a t M. They've been a
Speaker 1: lot of lessons learned through the liquidity crisis of OH
Speaker 1: eight in terms of how to set terms of exit
Speaker 1: and the type of capital they want to attract. There's
Speaker 1: been a real focus on diversifying capital basis. So that
Speaker 1: means that they don't see the kind of outflows that
Speaker 1: they might have seen during maybe one consultant when Sarah
Speaker 1: on a hedge fund for example. So a will continue
Speaker 1: to happen, there will be fortunes made that will they
Speaker 1: now will want to consolidate and and not run with
Speaker 1: the strict scrutiny. But if anything, I see more regulatory
Speaker 1: risk on the private market side, because that's perhaps the
Speaker 1: side that has not had the same level of scrutiny,
Speaker 1: whereas hedge funds have have run with that level of
Speaker 1: scrutiny now for for many years. You mentioned digital assets,
Speaker 1: and that's actually something I hear quite frequently in reporting
Speaker 1: on cryptocurrencies that family offices really sort of are interested,
Speaker 1: if not doubling in the space. So I'm wondering what
Speaker 1: you make of the cryptocurrency space because you know, just
Speaker 1: looking at it's that that bitcoins daily moves, for instance,
Speaker 1: on some days, it's actually less volatile than what we
Speaker 1: see in tech for instance. So what do you make
Speaker 1: of what's been going on there? It's really interesting. Our
Speaker 1: position of man Etta on digital assets is that we
Speaker 1: provide education. We don't provide recommendations from a compliance standpoint,
Speaker 1: but we need to educate ourselves and our clients have
Speaker 1: come to us with questions and it is a fast moving,
Speaker 1: dynamic area, so we are embracing that wholeheartedly in terms
Speaker 1: of our mission to get all that learning curve. So
Speaker 1: as far as how do you characterize with any new asset,
Speaker 1: we like to see how do we characterize this? Where
Speaker 1: do we plot it on the risk return spectrum? So
Speaker 1: how can we think about it in terms of how
Speaker 1: it is likely to behave in any market environment and
Speaker 1: ultimately with digital assets and has been a process of
Speaker 1: discovery because is it a substitute for gold? Is it
Speaker 1: a risk a safety asset? Is it a substitute for
Speaker 1: for cash or is it ultimately the highest risk reward
Speaker 1: asset you can put in a portfolio that should be
Speaker 1: right out there with emerging market equities and vegure capital,
Speaker 1: And certainly up to now, given the volatility you've seen
Speaker 1: and the way that some of that's a bitcoin has moved,
Speaker 1: and I put this maybe even prior to the current
Speaker 1: all out of the tech stocks, because there's been a
Speaker 1: couple of, as I said, dramas that have led to
Speaker 1: some isolated tex stop falls. But as far as the
Speaker 1: way bitcoin was looking to us in term and digital
Speaker 1: assets in general, in terms of our process of discovery,
Speaker 1: was that it was seen as being quite highly correlated
Speaker 1: to risk assets, not to be something you would use
Speaker 1: in a portfolio as insurance or a hedge. It would
Speaker 1: be very much something that would be there, almost like
Speaker 1: the kind of the play money, the kind of the
Speaker 1: the gambling segments that you would you would look use
Speaker 1: and do not know how it's likely to behave. It
Speaker 1: certainly wasn't an inflation hedge. It certainly wasn't likely to
Speaker 1: be a hedge in a case of a flight to safety.
Speaker 1: That said, I think there has been perhaps an oversimplification
Speaker 1: of digital assets and looking at say bitcoin as a
Speaker 1: proxy for all of them. But if we break apart
Speaker 1: n f t s and look at has say ultimately
Speaker 1: some n f t s could behave in a portfolio,
Speaker 1: They could have their own stream of cash, a royalty
Speaker 1: stream that would attach to them, and that would look
Speaker 1: then like simply any other asset that has a contractual
Speaker 1: cash flow. So we've seen pharmaceutical royalties, film royalties, music
Speaker 1: royalties all sit alongside private credit as being nice sources
Speaker 1: of cash that are not necessarily related to my equity
Speaker 1: market movements. We've seen in the past collectibles like art
Speaker 1: be thrown into portfolio and expected to be kind of
Speaker 1: an alternative alternative or alternative square. They used to be
Speaker 1: called back I think in the early two thousands because
Speaker 1: it was a diversifier, but wasn't really known how that
Speaker 1: would behave. So digital assets are probably in that category,
Speaker 1: but we are definitely as I said that the name
Speaker 1: of the game is discovery right now. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: that's an important distinction to make about n f t
Speaker 1: s that not a lot of the sort of outsiders
Speaker 1: of the space don't really appreciate that sort of income
Speaker 1: producing yield generating UM potential. You know, they're not all
Speaker 1: just pictures of cartoon apes, smoking cigarettes and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: If you one more thing before we get to our
Speaker 1: crazy things, I wanted to UM. I know you've given
Speaker 1: some thought to the notion of the end of globalization.
Speaker 1: Were the deterioration of of globalization? We've talked a lot
Speaker 1: about it on the podcast. How do you see that
Speaker 1: playing out, UM, and what effects on the market do
Speaker 1: you think it will have. Some of the shocking news
Speaker 1: this week, obviously, was Russia turning off the gas supplies
Speaker 1: to Poland and Bulgaria. I believe the EU pushing back
Speaker 1: UH and saying no, we we do not want anyone
Speaker 1: paying for Russian energy and rubles. UM. It seems every
Speaker 1: day we're you know, the sort of old new world
Speaker 1: order of globalization is breaking apart before our eyes. I mean,
Speaker 1: is that too pessimistic do you think? Or is that
Speaker 1: the right way to read it at this point? You know,
Speaker 1: and against reading what how does that all play out
Speaker 1: the markets? It's a really interesting question. I think we
Speaker 1: are guilty of some oversimplification when we suggest that the
Speaker 1: Russia evading Ukraine, which is the latest of its certainly
Speaker 1: it's land grab elsewhere. Is the end of globalization. Certainly
Speaker 1: it underscores the dangers of interdependencies. But what we saw,
Speaker 1: and I think it was somewhat almost irresponsible to suggest
Speaker 1: that this is the end of globalization because that same week,
Speaker 1: but in fact happened was that President Biden had gone
Speaker 1: to Europe and committed to providing natural gas liquid natural
Speaker 1: gas to Europe from the US. I don't see how
Speaker 1: that signals the end of globalization. That to me is
Speaker 1: just a reorganization of relationships, and ultimately it just resetting
Speaker 1: of some of this some of these these arrangements. So yes,
Speaker 1: we certainly have seen a wave of protectionism that has
Speaker 1: been a global phenomenon for some time. With the supply
Speaker 1: chain constraints that we saw during COVID, we saw the
Speaker 1: benefit of supplying locally and having a less complex supply chain.
Speaker 1: But that's said, many of these bottlenecks have been eat
Speaker 1: now and ultimately, especially if there is pricing pressure and
Speaker 1: and we're seeing that companies are seeing margin margins shrinkage,
Speaker 1: they are going to continue to try to outsource. They
Speaker 1: will not be on shoring facilities if they can still
Speaker 1: ensure that their margin is protected. But through offshoring, you
Speaker 1: do make a very different, interesting and important point, though,
Speaker 1: which is around the the moral implications of some of
Speaker 1: the globalization that we've seen, the very swift multilateral adoption
Speaker 1: of sanctions against Russia. Thought that there was certainly a
Speaker 1: concept of what when does something become uninvestible? When does
Speaker 1: a risk become intolerable? When are we prepared to divest
Speaker 1: entirely from a country stocks because we kind of tolerate
Speaker 1: what's going on in the geopolitical stage. If we take
Speaker 1: that kind of a lens, the e s G lens too,
Speaker 1: And I think if things say employee rights or corporate governance,
Speaker 1: a rule of law, or treatment of minorities, if we
Speaker 1: ethic minorities, if we do take that lens to all
Speaker 1: of our emerging market investments, we might find that many
Speaker 1: of our emerging market become uninvestable as a result. So
Speaker 1: not only does this have implications for how a company
Speaker 1: sets up a supply chain, it will have implications for
Speaker 1: how an investor decides to invest. I think that lens
Speaker 1: will ultimately mean rising standards everywhere. Just as the movement
Speaker 1: towards the energy transition, it is quickly realized that there's
Speaker 1: no point in pursuing this simply among the first world countries,
Speaker 1: that this is only meaningful and we can only get
Speaker 1: to the climate change goals that we are seeking if
Speaker 1: we apply this across the world in a in a
Speaker 1: way that is that it is equitable that we we
Speaker 1: we need to assist emerging markets to get on this
Speaker 1: climate transition path as well. So I think out that
Speaker 1: we've seen this, we are looking globally everything. It only
Speaker 1: matters if we look globally, and so I don't think
Speaker 1: we're the end of globalization. Perhaps is a different form
Speaker 1: of globalization though. That's pretty good. Good answer, more hopeful, hopeful. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I always like it when people pull me out of
Speaker 1: my pessimistic doom and gloom mood and and have me
Speaker 1: more hopeful than I started. So thank you for that.
Speaker 1: But with that said, I think it's time for our
Speaker 1: Crazy Things of the Week. Vil Donna. I heard you
Speaker 1: say before the podcast, you don't do not have a
Speaker 1: washing machine in your apartment there in New York, so
Speaker 1: wish it's like my greatest wish. So I've got a
Speaker 1: washing machine themed crazy thing of the Week. But first
Speaker 1: let's hear yours I can't wait to hear yourself really like,
Speaker 1: it's my greatest wish to have a washing machine. I
Speaker 1: think all New York City. Uh, anybody who lives in
Speaker 1: New York City can can commiserate with me. But I'm
Speaker 1: I'm going back to the cryptocurrency space. Uh. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of crazy stuff this week, but um, something that
Speaker 1: caught myra was the Fidelity said they're going to soon
Speaker 1: allow up for one key participants therefore one key participants
Speaker 1: to put a portion of their savings into bitcoin, and
Speaker 1: employers that decide to offer the option, they'll be able
Speaker 1: to choose what percentage and employee's account can be directed
Speaker 1: into crypto. But there's a cap of so this was
Speaker 1: huge in crypto. It was all over Twitter. I I agree.
Speaker 1: I think that is it is pretty um pretty amazing.
Speaker 1: I mean Fidelity has kind of been, uh getting more
Speaker 1: and more crypto friendly over over the years, but sort
Speaker 1: of a real contrast of Vanguard, where they're they're still
Speaker 1: like to forget it, We're not down anywhere near it.
Speaker 1: But uh so it's interesting. A lit'll be interesting to
Speaker 1: see if that it may actually help them gather assets
Speaker 1: that you know, it won't all be in crypto. But well,
Speaker 1: you know, people who want that exposure is interesting thing
Speaker 1: to watch. How about you if you see anything crazy
Speaker 1: this week, well I'd say more this this past few
Speaker 1: weeks what I've been You know, we've certainly now stopped
Speaker 1: speaking about this inverted deal curve as a harbinder recession.
Speaker 1: I was kind of quite tired of that, um you've
Speaker 1: been said, almost like a voodoo that this that this
Speaker 1: has happened. It happened intra day and all of a
Speaker 1: sudden markets were jumping on the recession bandwagon. Clearly there
Speaker 1: were so many other reasons for that meal curve to behave,
Speaker 1: as it did question whether we're even looking at the
Speaker 1: correcteal curve. They were looking at the two year tenure
Speaker 1: when in fact maybe a three year tenure or even
Speaker 1: a different um set of a set of comparisons would
Speaker 1: have been more appropriate. And the idea that this can
Speaker 1: be a hard harbinger of recession anywhere from six thirty
Speaker 1: six months, as I just think as an indicator, this
Speaker 1: is essentially meaningless. So a lot of newsprint was wasted
Speaker 1: on that particular topic, which I just find is really
Speaker 1: missing again and oversimplification and missing a lot of nuance,
Speaker 1: and it was steepening again before the inquisit even tried
Speaker 1: on on any of those takes. Yeah, I get what
Speaker 1: you're saying to me. Bigger harbinger of recession was a
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty dollar oil You know, I don't. I
Speaker 1: don't see how the the global economy could have withstood that.
Speaker 1: So to see that come off the boil too, I
Speaker 1: think is UH is good um for for the economic outlook.
Speaker 1: Um all right, well do I'll get get to the
Speaker 1: washing machines. I will say, I find it's humorous that
Speaker 1: you hipster's in the city, all crable. What you know,
Speaker 1: all you people who make fun of us suburban dwelling,
Speaker 1: boring family people. I've got a washing machine. Build on it.
Speaker 1: You probably. I've got a dryer. I've got a dishwasher.
Speaker 1: Come to the suburbs. We've got it all. We've got
Speaker 1: it all. So this came from UH. I believe it
Speaker 1: is the earnings call for the Dutch company a s
Speaker 1: m L. They're big company that makes UH manufacturing equipment
Speaker 1: for the semiconductor industry, and the CEO related an anecdote
Speaker 1: on the call. He said, UH he was talking to
Speaker 1: the another CEO of only the way he described it
Speaker 1: was a big industrial conglomerate. He wouldn't say who the
Speaker 1: person was or what company, but he said this person
Speaker 1: told him that the company has resorted to buying washing
Speaker 1: machines and tearing out the semiconductors inside of them to
Speaker 1: use in the manufacturing of their own devices. Again, we
Speaker 1: don't know what devices they're manufacturing. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: skepticism on Twitter about about whether or not this guy
Speaker 1: is sort of spending a yarn here with this story. Um,
Speaker 1: but it goes to show like how how bad that
Speaker 1: semiconductor trunch is. Um, if people are even floating the
Speaker 1: anecdote of someone going and buying up washing machines to
Speaker 1: rip out the semiconductors for all thing, who knew washing
Speaker 1: machines even had computer chip chips in them. I guess
Speaker 1: every every appliance these days does probably probably my air
Speaker 1: fryer and toaster ub and have have chips in them.
Speaker 1: They all sing those the song at the end when
Speaker 1: when when it's finished talking about like my my dish,
Speaker 1: my dishwashers. Yeah right right. It trives you not if
Speaker 1: you leave leave the door on it open, that sort
Speaker 1: of thing. Yeah, exactly. But I know you're wondering, how
Speaker 1: could I turn this crazy thing into a Price's right competition?
Speaker 1: And I found the way. I found the way. Great
Speaker 1: little factoid in that story, uh, is that Susquehanna Financial Group.
Speaker 1: You know you're very familiar with them, Big Options House,
Speaker 1: but you know obviously other business lines as well. They
Speaker 1: actually maintain a data series that tracks the weight time
Speaker 1: for semiconductor deliveries, so the time it takes between when
Speaker 1: you order a semiconductor and when you actually receive it.
Speaker 1: So the Prices Right competition this week is what do
Speaker 1: you think the current weight time for semiconductors is? I
Speaker 1: will say it's at a record high obviously, and it
Speaker 1: keeps getting higher and higher. But what do you think
Speaker 1: it is? The according to Susquehana and their methodology for
Speaker 1: doing this. You know again, I'm sure it depends on
Speaker 1: what you're buying and how big of a buyer you are,
Speaker 1: but the way they index this, what do you think
Speaker 1: the average weight time is for a computer chip? Can
Speaker 1: I go with twenty six weeks? How you read the story?
Speaker 1: Didn't you know? I didn't know? I didn't, I promise, Shoot,
Speaker 1: I just gave it away, gave it away. I did
Speaker 1: not read the Story'll tell you this, it's not exactly
Speaker 1: twenty six weeks. So if you can go over or
Speaker 1: under on twenty six weeks, I was gonna go with
Speaker 1: nine months. I guess like a human gestation period, forty
Speaker 1: weekst station and now it's it's it takes as long
Speaker 1: to get a computer chip as it does have a
Speaker 1: twenty six point six weeks. I can't believe you've nailed that, Valdana,
Speaker 1: and I can't believe I gave I gave up my
Speaker 1: poker face by I can't believe you gave up so easily.
Speaker 1: I listened to a lot of podcasts about the supply chain,
Speaker 1: so it was a good guess. But that's pretty good.
Speaker 1: I can't believe how easily you gave up twenty six
Speaker 1: and a half weeks exactly half year, two fiscal quarters.
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's coincidence or not, but pretty
Speaker 1: pretty interesting anyway. Wow, I've impressed Feldada for once. You
Speaker 1: for once, You've impressed me. Yes, I think this is
Speaker 1: the first time I've ever actually guessed correctly. I will
Speaker 1: not be even though you want to replace me with Romayne.
Speaker 1: I will not be planning a replacement for you. I
Speaker 1: appreciate it. Well, that said, I think that is all
Speaker 1: our time for the week. If he's so great to
Speaker 1: get your insights. UH, really appreciate your time, and I
Speaker 1: hope we can get you back again sometimes than I
Speaker 1: really enjoyed it too. Thanks for joining us What Goes Up.
Speaker 1: We'll be back next week. Until then, you can find
Speaker 1: us on the Bloomberg Terminal website and app, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. We'd love it if you took
Speaker 1: the time to rate and review the show on Apple
Speaker 1: Podcasts so more listeners can find us. I think you
Speaker 1: can find us on Twitter, follow me at Reaganonymous Wildona
Speaker 1: Hierrich is at Bildonna Hirich. You can also follow Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Podcasts at Podcasts. What Goes Up is produced by Stacy Wong.
Speaker 1: The head of Bloomberg podcast is Francesco Levie. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 1: To see you next time. Thank