WEBVTT - AQR Capital Management Founder & CIO Cliff Asness Talks Buying Opportunities

0:00:02.360 --> 0:00:06.680
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:06.880 --> 0:00:10.160
<v Speaker 2>AQR this year has been to double digit percentage returns

0:00:10.160 --> 0:00:13.000
<v Speaker 2>in key strategies, and that comes at a time when

0:00:13.080 --> 0:00:15.840
<v Speaker 2>many hedge funds have really been minting only marginal gains.

0:00:16.120 --> 0:00:19.280
<v Speaker 2>The gains have been in long short in multi strategy,

0:00:19.560 --> 0:00:24.439
<v Speaker 2>all with billionaire co founder clip Asda's trademark quantitative investing approach.

0:00:24.520 --> 0:00:27.600
<v Speaker 2>All of the forefront Asness joins us. Now, of course,

0:00:27.640 --> 0:00:30.479
<v Speaker 2>that is AQR Capital Management, founder, managing principle and chief

0:00:30.480 --> 0:00:31.360
<v Speaker 2>investment officer.

0:00:32.159 --> 0:00:32.800
<v Speaker 1>How do you do it?

0:00:32.880 --> 0:00:35.360
<v Speaker 2>How do you navigate this market at this moment?

0:00:35.479 --> 0:00:39.680
<v Speaker 1>Very simply, Well, first, we generally do what we always do.

0:00:40.680 --> 0:00:42.839
<v Speaker 1>We are quants, which means we spread our bets out

0:00:42.840 --> 0:00:46.440
<v Speaker 1>fairly wide. We divide them into categories, and you mentioned

0:00:46.440 --> 0:00:49.440
<v Speaker 1>a few of them, one major one and the single

0:00:49.440 --> 0:00:53.599
<v Speaker 1>best on the year is individual stock picking. Now for us,

0:00:53.640 --> 0:00:55.640
<v Speaker 1>as you well know, that doesn't mean, you know, we

0:00:55.760 --> 0:00:59.440
<v Speaker 1>visit one company, and we probably have about two thousand

0:00:59.520 --> 0:01:03.000
<v Speaker 1>longs in a two thousand shorts, balanced by country and

0:01:03.200 --> 0:01:07.160
<v Speaker 1>mostly been not entirely balanced by industry. That's been a

0:01:07.200 --> 0:01:10.760
<v Speaker 1>super strong start to the year. Basically every aspect of

0:01:10.800 --> 0:01:14.240
<v Speaker 1>what we do is working with the exception of famous

0:01:14.319 --> 0:01:17.600
<v Speaker 1>value Investing. I actually kind of love that because sometimes

0:01:17.600 --> 0:01:19.520
<v Speaker 1>people think of us too much as a value shop.

0:01:19.920 --> 0:01:24.440
<v Speaker 1>So having a really strong period, but things like are

0:01:24.440 --> 0:01:27.560
<v Speaker 1>the fundamentals getting better? Or is it a profitable company?

0:01:27.600 --> 0:01:29.760
<v Speaker 1>Are they buying back shares or issuing shares? Is it

0:01:29.840 --> 0:01:32.760
<v Speaker 1>high beta or low beta? We prefer low. Is the

0:01:32.800 --> 0:01:37.520
<v Speaker 1>price momentum there, including even some newer techniques mL based,

0:01:38.120 --> 0:01:41.920
<v Speaker 1>natural language processing, alternative data. It's been strong across the

0:01:41.920 --> 0:01:46.720
<v Speaker 1>board except my baby from nineteen ninety value investing, but

0:01:47.120 --> 0:01:49.200
<v Speaker 1>I try not to care. I just care about the total.

0:01:49.800 --> 0:01:51.960
<v Speaker 1>The other thing really strong for us on the year

0:01:52.440 --> 0:01:56.560
<v Speaker 1>is trend falling, and this one I'm going to brag

0:01:56.640 --> 0:01:59.080
<v Speaker 1>now because it's not been a good year for trend falling.

0:01:59.120 --> 0:02:03.200
<v Speaker 1>In general. Price trends in the major markets have been

0:02:03.200 --> 0:02:05.360
<v Speaker 1>a disappointment. There's been a lot of whipsaw. In particular,

0:02:05.480 --> 0:02:10.320
<v Speaker 1>April was very painful whipsaw. But over the last I

0:02:10.320 --> 0:02:14.959
<v Speaker 1>don't know, seven years, we've diversified our trend following process

0:02:15.240 --> 0:02:17.359
<v Speaker 1>to do many, many more markets, so it's more spread

0:02:17.360 --> 0:02:21.320
<v Speaker 1>out and importantly to give a very significant way not

0:02:21.400 --> 0:02:23.880
<v Speaker 1>just a price trend, but to a fundamental and economic

0:02:23.919 --> 0:02:25.440
<v Speaker 1>trend and that's been great this year.

0:02:25.560 --> 0:02:27.080
<v Speaker 2>Cliff, I feel like I could do this because I've

0:02:27.120 --> 0:02:29.359
<v Speaker 2>covered the tough times and the good times here and

0:02:29.480 --> 0:02:31.880
<v Speaker 2>right now for the good times for AQR. It's interesting

0:02:32.639 --> 0:02:37.040
<v Speaker 2>long short fund tracked by Bloomberg is down about one

0:02:37.080 --> 0:02:39.440
<v Speaker 2>percent on the year. You guys are up double digits

0:02:39.520 --> 0:02:42.160
<v Speaker 2>for long short in particular for the people who can't

0:02:42.200 --> 0:02:45.320
<v Speaker 2>spread their bets across thousands of firms and don't have

0:02:45.400 --> 0:02:47.360
<v Speaker 2>the machines at work to help.

0:02:47.520 --> 0:02:48.840
<v Speaker 1>What can they learn?

0:02:49.040 --> 0:02:51.720
<v Speaker 2>It looks like it's lower risk investments that are helping

0:02:51.720 --> 0:02:54.840
<v Speaker 2>you out. What are you finding that works well?

0:02:55.080 --> 0:02:57.959
<v Speaker 1>The general philosophy quants believe, and there's some difference is

0:02:58.040 --> 0:03:00.000
<v Speaker 1>some of the more modern again the mL they'll try

0:03:00.280 --> 0:03:04.040
<v Speaker 1>of data. This analogy doesn't work for. But the core

0:03:04.160 --> 0:03:08.560
<v Speaker 1>things that quantitative investors believe in are not so dissimilar

0:03:08.560 --> 0:03:11.200
<v Speaker 1>to what a classic Graham and Dodd investor would believe in.

0:03:11.240 --> 0:03:15.280
<v Speaker 1>We believe in profitable companies that are reasonable multiple where

0:03:15.280 --> 0:03:18.480
<v Speaker 1>the fundamentals are getting better, where they're buying back rather

0:03:18.520 --> 0:03:22.320
<v Speaker 1>than issuing shares, and all SQL and it's always all

0:03:22.200 --> 0:03:24.560
<v Speaker 1>all s equal because everything's done at once. We can

0:03:24.600 --> 0:03:27.120
<v Speaker 1>love a company with a high beta, but all sql

0:03:27.160 --> 0:03:31.919
<v Speaker 1>we prefer lower market risk. Obviously, as a quant I'm

0:03:32.000 --> 0:03:34.520
<v Speaker 1>not skilled at doing this, But if I were to

0:03:34.920 --> 0:03:38.160
<v Speaker 1>do more concentrated investments, I would use these things as

0:03:38.160 --> 0:03:40.360
<v Speaker 1>a screen. I'd use it as where do I fish?

0:03:40.400 --> 0:03:44.240
<v Speaker 1>I want companies that look like this. Then a traditional

0:03:44.280 --> 0:03:47.840
<v Speaker 1>manager's job is to get the specifics right. They can

0:03:47.880 --> 0:03:50.480
<v Speaker 1>do wonderful and do things we can't do if they

0:03:50.600 --> 0:03:53.360
<v Speaker 1>hit a home run in one specific stock, and they

0:03:53.400 --> 0:03:57.400
<v Speaker 1>can utterly get destroyed if they get it wrong. We're

0:03:57.400 --> 0:04:01.240
<v Speaker 1>betting on the statistical average of good investing working. They

0:04:01.240 --> 0:04:06.320
<v Speaker 1>are betting on applying good investing to specific situations, and

0:04:06.400 --> 0:04:09.360
<v Speaker 1>both can work and both cannot work, but they are.

0:04:09.480 --> 0:04:11.080
<v Speaker 1>In fact, It's a great question because I think they

0:04:11.080 --> 0:04:14.880
<v Speaker 1>are more similar than people sometimes realize in philosophy, if

0:04:14.920 --> 0:04:16.200
<v Speaker 1>not in execution.

0:04:16.520 --> 0:04:18.839
<v Speaker 3>By the way, it reminds me of you know, when

0:04:18.839 --> 0:04:22.039
<v Speaker 3>you say stock picking, I think of a random walk

0:04:22.040 --> 0:04:24.760
<v Speaker 3>down Wall Street. And when we were kids, the Wall

0:04:24.760 --> 0:04:27.279
<v Speaker 3>Street Journal did this experiment where they had staff members

0:04:27.320 --> 0:04:30.400
<v Speaker 3>through a dart at a board, and often that was

0:04:30.440 --> 0:04:33.120
<v Speaker 3>a better way to pick stocks than Wall Street analysts,

0:04:33.160 --> 0:04:36.320
<v Speaker 3>who were paid gazillions or at the time maybe hundreds.

0:04:36.000 --> 0:04:38.880
<v Speaker 1>Of thousands of dollars. You know, so yeah, and I'm

0:04:38.920 --> 0:04:43.560
<v Speaker 1>sure if they redid that study, it's still true. If

0:04:43.560 --> 0:04:45.359
<v Speaker 1>I want to get really geeky, I'll tell you that

0:04:45.560 --> 0:04:48.520
<v Speaker 1>throwing darts gets you a big small cap microcap bias

0:04:48.520 --> 0:04:50.400
<v Speaker 1>because there's a lot more of them. But let's the

0:04:50.520 --> 0:04:57.680
<v Speaker 1>principle is correct. Active management picking specific stocks, be it

0:04:57.760 --> 0:05:01.240
<v Speaker 1>a concentrated manager or a very diverse did long short

0:05:01.279 --> 0:05:05.359
<v Speaker 1>manager's fully hedged is inherently an arrogant act. I know

0:05:05.400 --> 0:05:07.839
<v Speaker 1>anyone who's followed me will be shocked that I will

0:05:07.839 --> 0:05:12.480
<v Speaker 1>do an arrogant act. But the average can't win. Jack

0:05:12.520 --> 0:05:15.719
<v Speaker 1>Bogel was right, you add up everyone. It adds up

0:05:15.760 --> 0:05:18.960
<v Speaker 1>to the market. Some people underperform, some outperform, and the

0:05:19.040 --> 0:05:22.960
<v Speaker 1>average after fees and costs underperforms. So no one can

0:05:22.960 --> 0:05:25.560
<v Speaker 1>get around from that. With that, we need active management

0:05:25.560 --> 0:05:27.160
<v Speaker 1>in the world. We can't have a world of one

0:05:27.200 --> 0:05:31.000
<v Speaker 1>hundred percent indexing. That's a really weird world. What happens

0:05:31.000 --> 0:05:34.400
<v Speaker 1>when nobody is looking at prices and good active managers

0:05:34.400 --> 0:05:37.680
<v Speaker 1>I think can do well. But to believe you're one

0:05:37.720 --> 0:05:41.400
<v Speaker 1>of the good ones is an inherently arrogant act. So

0:05:41.440 --> 0:05:44.680
<v Speaker 1>I don't disagree. I certainly don't disagree with Burton at all.

0:05:45.600 --> 0:05:47.800
<v Speaker 1>I do think for someone who doesn't think they have

0:05:47.839 --> 0:05:50.760
<v Speaker 1>an edge or can find someone with an edge that

0:05:51.839 --> 0:05:53.880
<v Speaker 1>unfortunately he's passed. But I used to love to say,

0:05:54.720 --> 0:05:58.120
<v Speaker 1>my friend Jack Bogel is not a bad alternative, right.

0:05:58.000 --> 0:06:00.279
<v Speaker 4>Right, And to that point, I'm speaking to David with

0:06:00.360 --> 0:06:02.839
<v Speaker 4>the co founder of Dimensional at twelve thirty and I

0:06:02.880 --> 0:06:05.800
<v Speaker 4>believe we'll have a pretty similar conversation about that. But

0:06:06.040 --> 0:06:08.359
<v Speaker 4>I want to talk about your market neutral strategy, your

0:06:08.440 --> 0:06:10.719
<v Speaker 4>market neutral fund as well, because I was.

0:06:10.720 --> 0:06:11.799
<v Speaker 1>Playing around with some charts.

0:06:11.800 --> 0:06:15.239
<v Speaker 4>It's also up about fifteen percent on a total return

0:06:15.440 --> 0:06:18.320
<v Speaker 4>basis this year. It's outperforming the S and P five

0:06:18.400 --> 0:06:20.279
<v Speaker 4>hundred over the last five years, but a lot of

0:06:20.320 --> 0:06:24.200
<v Speaker 4>that outperformance has come specifically from the past year.

0:06:24.440 --> 0:06:25.520
<v Speaker 1>We were just speaking.

0:06:25.160 --> 0:06:27.760
<v Speaker 4>With Gargey Chowdery over at Blackrock and she said that

0:06:27.880 --> 0:06:30.919
<v Speaker 4>right now she would be looking at market neutral strategies.

0:06:31.000 --> 0:06:32.320
<v Speaker 1>So why is.

0:06:32.279 --> 0:06:35.200
<v Speaker 4>Market neutral working so well in this specific environment.

0:06:35.720 --> 0:06:38.080
<v Speaker 1>I'm going to give you a very unsatisfying answer. Oh no,

0:06:38.160 --> 0:06:41.880
<v Speaker 1>of course, we bet on these multiple themes, and I'm

0:06:41.880 --> 0:06:43.679
<v Speaker 1>only giving you a few of them. There are hundreds

0:06:43.680 --> 0:06:46.400
<v Speaker 1>of factors in our model, and one thing quants are

0:06:46.440 --> 0:06:50.440
<v Speaker 1>really bad at is telling a story about what. In fact,

0:06:50.480 --> 0:06:53.680
<v Speaker 1>when we can tell a story, it's usually bad news.

0:06:54.160 --> 0:06:56.760
<v Speaker 1>It's all value has gone so crazy, it's dominating what

0:06:56.760 --> 0:06:58.200
<v Speaker 1>we do and we have to stick with it. Oh,

0:06:58.200 --> 0:06:59.919
<v Speaker 1>and it's come back and the round trip has been go.

0:07:00.000 --> 0:07:04.680
<v Speaker 1>But there's a story. This year, there's been a tremendous

0:07:04.880 --> 0:07:09.360
<v Speaker 1>return x value to what we would call basic rational investing,

0:07:10.200 --> 0:07:12.360
<v Speaker 1>and I think you see that with maybe Europe out

0:07:12.400 --> 0:07:16.120
<v Speaker 1>performing the US, and that's one place. Value probably has

0:07:16.120 --> 0:07:21.480
<v Speaker 1>helped because Europe has been cheaper, but the market has

0:07:21.520 --> 0:07:26.200
<v Speaker 1>rewarded good companies that are getting better that aren't too risky.

0:07:26.480 --> 0:07:30.280
<v Speaker 1>We're not in a bubble period, and basically a bubble

0:07:30.320 --> 0:07:35.320
<v Speaker 1>period is the only period I fear. Doesn't mean we

0:07:35.360 --> 0:07:37.280
<v Speaker 1>won't do poorly at other times, I think we make

0:07:37.320 --> 0:07:38.880
<v Speaker 1>money much more of it than we don't, but we can.

0:07:39.200 --> 0:07:41.520
<v Speaker 1>We can get it wrong in any environment, but in

0:07:41.560 --> 0:07:46.280
<v Speaker 1>a bubble both valuation strategies and fundamentals get thrown out

0:07:46.840 --> 0:07:50.880
<v Speaker 1>the window. And that is very hard in those times

0:07:51.760 --> 0:07:54.880
<v Speaker 1>sticking with your process and having the wherewithal to see

0:07:54.880 --> 0:07:56.520
<v Speaker 1>it through I think can make you a lot of

0:07:56.520 --> 0:07:59.120
<v Speaker 1>money round trip, including the tough times. You know, those

0:07:59.120 --> 0:07:59.880
<v Speaker 1>are the tough ones.

0:08:00.000 --> 0:08:02.520
<v Speaker 2>Speaking of tough times, it looks like a lot of

0:08:02.560 --> 0:08:03.800
<v Speaker 2>people are still keeping.

0:08:03.600 --> 0:08:05.320
<v Speaker 1>Money on the sidelines for a rainy day.

0:08:05.320 --> 0:08:07.680
<v Speaker 2>If you look at what money market fund assets have

0:08:07.720 --> 0:08:09.080
<v Speaker 2>been doing, they've been drawn down.

0:08:08.960 --> 0:08:11.679
<v Speaker 1>A little bit, but not buy very much.

0:08:11.960 --> 0:08:14.320
<v Speaker 2>They've really climbed. What do you tell people who are

0:08:14.320 --> 0:08:16.840
<v Speaker 2>sitting in cash and looking for the right buying opportunity

0:08:16.920 --> 0:08:17.280
<v Speaker 2>right now?

0:08:17.400 --> 0:08:19.040
<v Speaker 1>First, you know, a pet peeve of mine is the

0:08:19.040 --> 0:08:21.520
<v Speaker 1>phrase money's on the sidelines, cash on the sidelines.

0:08:21.600 --> 0:08:23.760
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I've been hearing it for twenty five years.

0:08:23.480 --> 0:08:26.120
<v Speaker 1>Cliff Under the moment, everyone says it, and what you

0:08:26.200 --> 0:08:32.080
<v Speaker 1>generally mean is people have embarrassed tin to them. But

0:08:32.160 --> 0:08:34.160
<v Speaker 1>what I always do, this is really geeky, But if

0:08:34.160 --> 0:08:36.280
<v Speaker 1>you try to get to the sidelines and sell your stocks,

0:08:36.360 --> 0:08:38.360
<v Speaker 1>you got to sell them to someone who just left

0:08:38.880 --> 0:08:41.400
<v Speaker 1>the sidelines. With that said, I think a lot of

0:08:41.440 --> 0:08:45.480
<v Speaker 1>managers are cautious and a lot of individual investors may

0:08:45.480 --> 0:08:49.720
<v Speaker 1>be less so. On the individual side, our view on

0:08:49.960 --> 0:08:53.640
<v Speaker 1>timing the market, I co authored a paper with one

0:08:53.679 --> 0:08:56.520
<v Speaker 1>of my partners, Anti Illminent. I'm having a good day

0:08:56.520 --> 0:08:58.760
<v Speaker 1>because I nailed this name. I've only known Anti for

0:08:58.800 --> 0:09:01.480
<v Speaker 1>almost forty years, but it's still you know, if you're

0:09:01.480 --> 0:09:05.080
<v Speaker 1>having a tough day, it's finished. It's a mouthful. But

0:09:05.160 --> 0:09:09.400
<v Speaker 1>we wrote a paper an institutional investor called Sin a

0:09:09.480 --> 0:09:13.240
<v Speaker 1>Little about timing the market, and it's a subtlety. You know,

0:09:13.280 --> 0:09:15.240
<v Speaker 1>it's easy to tell people never do this. You're a

0:09:15.240 --> 0:09:17.480
<v Speaker 1>disaster if you do this, And it's easy to tell

0:09:17.480 --> 0:09:20.280
<v Speaker 1>people even if it doesn't work out, get out now.

0:09:21.200 --> 0:09:24.680
<v Speaker 1>But Sin a Little says market timing is pretty freaking hard.

0:09:25.600 --> 0:09:29.000
<v Speaker 1>Combinations of basic things like trend following and valuation we

0:09:29.040 --> 0:09:32.000
<v Speaker 1>think do add some value long term. When the market

0:09:32.040 --> 0:09:34.800
<v Speaker 1>looks cheap and has been doing well lately on price

0:09:34.840 --> 0:09:38.679
<v Speaker 1>and fundamentals, we do think it's you can overweight somewhat

0:09:38.679 --> 0:09:41.880
<v Speaker 1>and vice versa. But the risk adjustin returns on that

0:09:41.960 --> 0:09:46.160
<v Speaker 1>trade are still low, so I think on net we're

0:09:46.160 --> 0:09:50.240
<v Speaker 1>probably close to neutral, maybe a little negative. Valuations is

0:09:50.280 --> 0:09:53.840
<v Speaker 1>pretty bad, particularly for US docs. The trend has gotten weaker,

0:09:53.880 --> 0:09:55.640
<v Speaker 1>but it's still because we look it up to about

0:09:55.679 --> 0:09:58.520
<v Speaker 1>a year horizon, still pretty decent. They're balancing out to

0:09:58.559 --> 0:10:03.120
<v Speaker 1>a pretty wimpy view. But I encourage wimpiness on this.

0:10:03.760 --> 0:10:06.760
<v Speaker 1>I don't know if there's anyone there who can do it,

0:10:06.880 --> 0:10:09.760
<v Speaker 1>but I think the universe of people who can can

0:10:10.040 --> 0:10:12.960
<v Speaker 1>can add a lot of value from really pure timing

0:10:13.520 --> 0:10:17.200
<v Speaker 1>is exceptionally small. One element of hypocrisy. What we do

0:10:17.280 --> 0:10:21.920
<v Speaker 1>in trend following takes net long and short positions, so

0:10:21.960 --> 0:10:24.719
<v Speaker 1>that will average flat the market, so that in a

0:10:24.800 --> 0:10:28.360
<v Speaker 1>very long term sense it is not timing but short term.

0:10:28.400 --> 0:10:30.600
<v Speaker 1>Of course, if you're doing trend following, you have lungs

0:10:31.200 --> 0:10:33.240
<v Speaker 1>and shorts. But even there we spread the bets pretty

0:10:33.240 --> 0:10:33.800
<v Speaker 1>far and wide.

0:10:33.920 --> 0:10:36.640
<v Speaker 4>And Cliff, we were having this conversation last week on

0:10:36.679 --> 0:10:39.680
<v Speaker 4>my podcast with Matt Levine Money Stuff about this push

0:10:39.760 --> 0:10:43.640
<v Speaker 4>really to put private assets in the hands of retail investors,

0:10:43.679 --> 0:10:47.040
<v Speaker 4>either through ETFs or interval funds. The list goes on.

0:10:47.280 --> 0:10:48.800
<v Speaker 4>You said that you were going to head yourself, and

0:10:48.840 --> 0:10:51.800
<v Speaker 4>then you said it's a terrible idea. And I'm hoping

0:10:51.800 --> 0:10:53.880
<v Speaker 4>you can just expand on that a little bit.

0:10:53.960 --> 0:10:56.640
<v Speaker 1>Why exactly what me to me is the whole thing's

0:10:56.640 --> 0:10:57.480
<v Speaker 1>not going to be fair.

0:10:57.720 --> 0:10:58.559
<v Speaker 4>Was that a good setup?

0:10:58.600 --> 0:11:01.440
<v Speaker 1>I said that last week? Yeah, I don't. My opinion

0:11:01.440 --> 0:11:05.320
<v Speaker 1>has completely changed. Tell us all right, I have some

0:11:05.360 --> 0:11:09.200
<v Speaker 1>cynicism about where we are in the private world. I've

0:11:09.240 --> 0:11:13.319
<v Speaker 1>written about this. I don't think they're necessarily bad investments

0:11:13.320 --> 0:11:15.440
<v Speaker 1>by any means. They may make a lot of money.

0:11:15.640 --> 0:11:20.000
<v Speaker 1>My cynicism is mainly about people understanding the risks. You know,

0:11:20.760 --> 0:11:23.200
<v Speaker 1>we try to create assets that are very low correlation

0:11:23.280 --> 0:11:27.760
<v Speaker 1>of markets by shorting as much as we're long. I

0:11:27.800 --> 0:11:29.440
<v Speaker 1>think we make money long term. I think we've made

0:11:29.440 --> 0:11:30.960
<v Speaker 1>a lot of money long term. But that doesn't make

0:11:31.000 --> 0:11:33.600
<v Speaker 1>a great investment. You have to do it well. But

0:11:33.720 --> 0:11:36.800
<v Speaker 1>it does really hedge. It creates something that's not very correlated.

0:11:38.160 --> 0:11:42.960
<v Speaker 1>Privates are simply long only equities, usually with some leverage applied,

0:11:43.280 --> 0:11:46.480
<v Speaker 1>and they look uncorrelated because they just don't tell you

0:11:46.520 --> 0:11:49.760
<v Speaker 1>the price is very often, and they can. They could

0:11:49.800 --> 0:11:52.360
<v Speaker 1>tell you every day, well, market went up, and we

0:11:52.400 --> 0:11:54.559
<v Speaker 1>know what our multiples are to the market, and it's

0:11:54.600 --> 0:11:58.040
<v Speaker 1>worth this today. So I don't think they're a true

0:11:58.080 --> 0:12:01.400
<v Speaker 1>alternative frankly in the sense an alternative way to buy

0:12:01.480 --> 0:12:06.760
<v Speaker 1>long only equities, and as such, they've gotten extremely popular,

0:12:07.040 --> 0:12:09.800
<v Speaker 1>partly because many of them have done very well, but

0:12:09.840 --> 0:12:12.200
<v Speaker 1>partly because we've been in a massive equity bull market

0:12:12.240 --> 0:12:18.800
<v Speaker 1>forever and selling equity exposure with reported risks that's lower,

0:12:18.960 --> 0:12:21.319
<v Speaker 1>not real risk, but reported risk turns out to be

0:12:21.360 --> 0:12:24.880
<v Speaker 1>a great business model. So it does feel like a

0:12:24.920 --> 0:12:29.240
<v Speaker 1>crowded place. It feels like not having to mark to market.

0:12:29.600 --> 0:12:32.720
<v Speaker 1>Being a liquid used to be when David Swinson pioneered

0:12:32.840 --> 0:12:35.400
<v Speaker 1>at Yale, used to be a bug that you got

0:12:35.400 --> 0:12:37.880
<v Speaker 1>paid for. Bearing a bug is you don't want this,

0:12:38.000 --> 0:12:40.600
<v Speaker 1>You don't want a liquid, so you need extra return

0:12:41.160 --> 0:12:44.520
<v Speaker 1>to compensate you. And he was brilliant at monetizing that. Well,

0:12:44.600 --> 0:12:47.360
<v Speaker 1>if it's a feature now, because it simply makes investments

0:12:47.400 --> 0:12:49.400
<v Speaker 1>easier to live with because you don't have to look.

0:12:50.160 --> 0:12:53.600
<v Speaker 1>You pay for a feature through lower returns. So they'll

0:12:53.640 --> 0:12:55.480
<v Speaker 1>be winners, they'll be great firms. I think some of

0:12:55.480 --> 0:12:58.520
<v Speaker 1>the firms out there, I'm less specific. You could no,

0:12:58.679 --> 0:13:00.480
<v Speaker 1>I'm not going to go there, but there are some

0:13:00.559 --> 0:13:03.719
<v Speaker 1>I really think we'll navigate this well. Yeah, but as

0:13:03.760 --> 0:13:07.200
<v Speaker 1>an industry, I think people think they're way too low risk,

0:13:07.480 --> 0:13:11.480
<v Speaker 1>they're way too popular, and they may have market or

0:13:11.520 --> 0:13:15.520
<v Speaker 1>sub market returns as what was once a bug is

0:13:15.559 --> 0:13:17.600
<v Speaker 1>a feature that you pay for in terms of return.

0:13:18.040 --> 0:13:21.240
<v Speaker 1>So with all that said, hey, if you have those

0:13:21.240 --> 0:13:22.800
<v Speaker 1>concerns and You don't have to agree with me, but

0:13:22.800 --> 0:13:25.400
<v Speaker 1>if you share those concerns, saying, hey, you know what

0:13:25.480 --> 0:13:28.640
<v Speaker 1>we should do? We have all these things, you know,

0:13:28.640 --> 0:13:32.199
<v Speaker 1>who would buy this? Now, retail doesn't always work out

0:13:32.200 --> 0:13:32.720
<v Speaker 1>for retail.

0:13:33.120 --> 0:13:35.920
<v Speaker 4>Well, one of the pushbacks here because private assets.

0:13:35.920 --> 0:13:36.920
<v Speaker 1>Of course, we're also talking.

0:13:36.720 --> 0:13:39.800
<v Speaker 4>About private companies, and there's the argument out there is

0:13:39.840 --> 0:13:43.080
<v Speaker 4>that companies are staying private much longer, and some of

0:13:43.120 --> 0:13:47.319
<v Speaker 4>the highest growth and most exciting companies I'm thinking Stripes, SpaceX,

0:13:47.400 --> 0:13:50.319
<v Speaker 4>open Ai, the list goes on, are in the private markets,

0:13:50.360 --> 0:13:54.160
<v Speaker 4>and perhaps retail should have access to that innovation. I

0:13:54.240 --> 0:13:55.760
<v Speaker 4>wonder if that holds water with you.

0:13:57.000 --> 0:13:59.439
<v Speaker 1>Directionally, I buy the argument there has been a shift

0:13:59.480 --> 0:14:04.400
<v Speaker 1>to more private. It doesn't make them necessarily fairly priced investments.

0:14:05.240 --> 0:14:07.920
<v Speaker 1>You know, the private world has changed. It used to

0:14:07.960 --> 0:14:10.559
<v Speaker 1>have more of a value flavor. The old LBO of

0:14:10.679 --> 0:14:13.760
<v Speaker 1>this company is too cheap. It has somewhat, at least

0:14:14.440 --> 0:14:17.600
<v Speaker 1>to my casual observation, switched to a little bit more

0:14:17.600 --> 0:14:20.800
<v Speaker 1>of a growth investment, which also makes it probably a

0:14:20.880 --> 0:14:24.480
<v Speaker 1>riskier investment. And it's a riskier investment that's still not

0:14:24.600 --> 0:14:27.920
<v Speaker 1>reporting its daily risk. So I'll give you part of

0:14:27.960 --> 0:14:31.640
<v Speaker 1>that argument. I wouldn't say private should not be part

0:14:31.640 --> 0:14:34.320
<v Speaker 1>of a portfolio. I sit on quite a few investment

0:14:34.360 --> 0:14:37.120
<v Speaker 1>committees over my time, and I never stand up and

0:14:38.160 --> 0:14:39.760
<v Speaker 1>bang my fist and say we have to get out

0:14:39.800 --> 0:14:42.520
<v Speaker 1>of these. But I do say we should be treating

0:14:42.560 --> 0:14:46.560
<v Speaker 1>them as risky or more risky than the stock market.

0:14:47.160 --> 0:14:49.760
<v Speaker 1>And that is not always the case. Sometimes you see,

0:14:50.160 --> 0:14:53.640
<v Speaker 1>I'll be geeky for a second, like I'm ever not geeking. Yeah,

0:14:53.840 --> 0:14:57.880
<v Speaker 1>if markets have a fifteen six to twenty percent annual volatility,

0:14:59.040 --> 0:15:01.760
<v Speaker 1>you'll see people put out graphics where it's like privates

0:15:01.880 --> 0:15:05.200
<v Speaker 1>four percent, And yeah, those are the reported numbers, but

0:15:05.240 --> 0:15:08.200
<v Speaker 1>I promise you the actual number is thirty two percent.

0:15:08.560 --> 0:15:11.560
<v Speaker 1>So if I worry about some institutions not getting that,

0:15:11.760 --> 0:15:15.200
<v Speaker 1>I worry more about retail not getting it. Shanali will

0:15:15.240 --> 0:15:18.840
<v Speaker 1>explain that to me after the thirty five is bigger

0:15:18.840 --> 0:15:19.480
<v Speaker 1>than fifteen.

0:15:19.560 --> 0:15:23.160
<v Speaker 3>No, No, I mean if the numbers reporters are four. Anyway,

0:15:23.280 --> 0:15:25.480
<v Speaker 3>I have a different question, a different kind of line

0:15:25.480 --> 0:15:29.280
<v Speaker 3>of questioning here, which is I think AQR is one

0:15:29.320 --> 0:15:32.840
<v Speaker 3>of the most interesting from an academic standpoint firms out there.

0:15:33.000 --> 0:15:35.200
<v Speaker 3>I mean, I love have always loved the quant Jim

0:15:35.200 --> 0:15:38.000
<v Speaker 3>Simons and everybody who's doing your work, because you're so

0:15:38.080 --> 0:15:41.720
<v Speaker 3>closely involved with universities, and I think of the University

0:15:41.720 --> 0:15:45.120
<v Speaker 3>of Chicago when I think of AQR, and I wonder

0:15:45.160 --> 0:15:49.560
<v Speaker 3>what you make of this push to reduce foreign students

0:15:49.760 --> 0:15:53.600
<v Speaker 3>studying here in America because President Trump recently study things

0:15:53.600 --> 0:15:56.400
<v Speaker 3>Harvard should only have fifteen percent foreign students, they have

0:15:56.440 --> 0:15:58.680
<v Speaker 3>like twenty seven percent. I looked up Universe Chicago twenty

0:15:58.720 --> 0:16:02.120
<v Speaker 3>four percent. And you work so closely with these students

0:16:02.120 --> 0:16:03.760
<v Speaker 3>and professors, So what does it mean to you.

0:16:04.080 --> 0:16:07.880
<v Speaker 1>Well, you know, I'm going to try to stay as

0:16:07.880 --> 0:16:11.800
<v Speaker 1>a political as possible because I want to survive the week. Yeah,

0:16:12.440 --> 0:16:16.200
<v Speaker 1>I will speak purely as a self serving consumer of

0:16:16.280 --> 0:16:22.160
<v Speaker 1>great researchers. We have found the great students at great

0:16:22.200 --> 0:16:25.640
<v Speaker 1>PhD programs and even at great NBA programs to be

0:16:25.680 --> 0:16:28.800
<v Speaker 1>a tremendous resource for AQR. Not all of them by

0:16:28.800 --> 0:16:33.320
<v Speaker 1>any means, but a fairly decent number have been international students.

0:16:33.640 --> 0:16:36.520
<v Speaker 1>And as a business person, I'm certainly concerned about that

0:16:36.880 --> 0:16:40.480
<v Speaker 1>drying up. It's been a real talent pool that I

0:16:40.520 --> 0:16:43.400
<v Speaker 1>think makes them better off and makes us better off.

0:16:43.440 --> 0:16:46.000
<v Speaker 1>I don't think they're necessarily they're only taking American jobs

0:16:46.000 --> 0:16:48.720
<v Speaker 1>if we find them better than the Americans, and we

0:16:48.720 --> 0:16:51.320
<v Speaker 1>don't always buy any means there are a lot of great Americans,

0:16:51.360 --> 0:16:54.640
<v Speaker 1>but reducing the talent pool for us is a negative,

0:16:54.640 --> 0:16:57.360
<v Speaker 1>and I imagine we can't be the only one, so

0:16:57.480 --> 0:17:00.160
<v Speaker 1>I think it is somewhat anti growth to reduce the

0:17:00.200 --> 0:17:02.960
<v Speaker 1>talent pool. A lot of some of these people go

0:17:03.000 --> 0:17:04.560
<v Speaker 1>back to their home country, but a lot of state

0:17:05.080 --> 0:17:08.439
<v Speaker 1>in the United States. So there are aspects of what

0:17:08.520 --> 0:17:10.639
<v Speaker 1>President Trump is doing. There's some messed up things in

0:17:10.680 --> 0:17:12.840
<v Speaker 1>the university world, and he doesn't have a whole lot

0:17:12.880 --> 0:17:15.280
<v Speaker 1>of levers, so maybe he's using what he thinks he

0:17:15.320 --> 0:17:17.760
<v Speaker 1>needs to use. But this I don't like.