#13 – Jim Haskel: Bridgewater, Diversification, Outlook

27:53One is, I mentioned before when I was talking about Vanguard, is the nature of beta. Beta is passive investing. It's asset class exposure. It's very cheap to access, but investors should understand that if people are going to depart from cash to take on risk, which is what happens when you take on asset classes, you should be paid a risk premium over time. Okay. Then it's a question of how you construct your different betas together to get the most return that you can for the risk you're taking. And then separating that and realizing that that's one type of risk in your portfolio. And then if you're actively managing something, like even if it comes in a packaged product, like let's say it's an equity product that charges a certain amount of fees or whatever, you're going to have the beta side.

28:41And then there's going to be a component of that risk that the manager is going to use to actively try and beat the market, whatever market you're trading against. And that's a totally different type of risk. It's almost 180 degrees opposite, it, where beta is cheap to access, alpha is expensive to access. And actually, that alpha most of the time won't be worth it, but it will be worth it. You will want to pay higher fees if the alpha is both good and uncorrelated to the underlying asset class, right? So you're just betting basically against that index, long or short or underweight or overweight if you're in a long-only space.

29:21And that's fundamentally different. There's no positive expected return in alpha. It's probably actually negative because there's fees and transaction costs. So you really have to believe in manager skill. And then that brings up the question of like, well, what goes into manager skill, right? And that's a whole thing that's an expert thing. I mean, you're involved with that in your business, right? Because if you're going to take on alpha, you want to do it. You want to do it, you know, really confident that that manager is going to beat the market most of the time. So the separation of beta and alpha and how to think about them and how to size each one, I mean, Ray, in my view, invented that and popularized it in the institutional investment landscape.

30:05To me, that's one of the greatest ways that investors can think. And a lot of great investors, by the way, Alex, will say, I don't think that way. I just think I love this investment or what have you. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that if you're thinking about structuring a portfolio into the future to try and get the most consistent returns as possible, consistent with the risk you want to take, to me, it's a very helpful framework to understand what kind of risk you're taking and then within those risks to try and get as much diversification as you can. So that's one big thing that influenced me.

30:44That was one of the big things that got me to Bridgewater. I thought it was an amazingly important and insightful construct. It's one that I wanted to employ myself. It's one that I wanted to talk about with investors. It's really ingrained in my DNA. Let me ask you a couple quick questions about that. So basically what you're saying is you have to go back to the source of the returns. Where do the returns come from to better understand how to construct a portfolio more efficiently and diversify well so that you're not overly allocating to any single return source, which you could get completely wrong.

31:21Exactly right. And if you don't disconnect the beta, just the market exposure, right, from the alpha, which is the manager's skill, you sort of, if you're munging the two, you're not understanding the source of your risk and return to the degree you have to, to construct a portfolio that's going to be resilient across environments, in my view. Now, what's interesting about this, Alex, is that even if you look, let's say, at the last decade or so, right, absent the COVID, you know, drawdown, you know, which is, I think, for obvious reasons, but then draw up was also for, you know, pretty look at that and say, really, like, is it really that important to understand, you know, why not just basically invest for the long run and so on?

32:11And I think what investors have to understand is that investing is about a long-term approach, right? And really like taking an approach and staying disciplined to that approach. Any single era, any single period of time has certain characteristics. And typically the worst mistake I make, if I'm not careful, and I know investment, investors make more broadly is they extrapolate the past into the future without truly understanding what has made the past and therefore whether those factors have changed and whether they should employ them going forward. And I think that's why so many people get stuck where, you know, they stick with an asset allocation too long.

32:55Today, for example, the U.S. stocks have outperformed tremendously. And the valuations are very different in the US than they are in other countries. So that's the market discounting a kind of a US exceptionalism forever. And as an investor, you should ask yourself, hmm, is that likely to happen? Those are the kinds of things that, and I will say one more thing is that because US equities have outperformed and the U.S. bond market's big, the concentration of U.S. dollar assets in institutional portfolios is so high right now that if anything tips the other way, a lot of investors are going to be caught.

33:38And also, a lot of those investors have illiquid concentrations, or if not concentrations, at least allocations. And it's going to be trouble if it goes the other way. And so it's important to think always independently in what could go wrong here and how do I diversify away from that. And I suppose a big part of that is having a zoomed out perspective, looking backwards and looking forwards, and being knowledgeable about market history, understanding these cycles through time. And as you mentioned, most people are extrapolating the recent past into the distant future. And as a result, tend to overweight things at the most expensive point and underweight them at the cheapest point and kind of repeat these mistakes over and over again.

34:24Exactly. And, you know, it goes back, you mentioned market history. Like I mentioned when I first started, like my initial interest had nothing to do with finance or markets. It was mostly around international affairs and history and so on. But once I got into it now, like incorporating market history, you start to see just how important markets are to history itself. Like, you know, if you go and you look, I mentioned that I was, was, had to be helicoptered off the roof of the Regency Hotel in Indonesia. And OK, so what was happening? Like the markets overwhelmed at that time a dictatorial regime, the Suharto regime in Indonesia.

35:07And I don't think that regime knew what hit it. Right. And all of a sudden people were sort of all their wealth was gone and or, you know, severely depleted. And in some cases there There was shortages and so on, and that led people to the streets, and that affected the stability of the regime, and ultimately the regime was overthrown. When you understand market history and the economics that make that market history, and you bring that together with geopolitics and politics in general, you start to see what the root causes of some of these things are. The other mistake that I've seen is, besides just the lack of understanding of long-term market history is even if you have all that history in your data set, it's not really enough data.

35:53There's just a limited amount of data to try to forecast what the future holds. How do you think about that? Well, I think that's absolutely right. I mean, you know, let me give you an example. When we looked at interest rate cycles, you know, usually we would, it was almost a point of strength. We would show charts that go back all the way, 100 years and so on, right? But for a long time, you know, cycles, economic cycles and interest rate cycles, it was the interest rate that rationed credit, which then drove the cycle, both upwards and lower. So when interest rates came lower, there was more easy to borrow and that got the economy going and people borrow and so on.

36:31And when there was too much borrowing, interest rates then went up because the economy got stretched and inflationary pressure started to show itself. Interest rates went up and that rationed the amount of credit and the economy would come down and you could really like play that over and over and over again. And you just had to know where you were in the cycle, how it intersected with certain asset classes. And you, you know, that's how you could be a successful investor. Now going back a hundred years though, is not enough because what happens when interest rates hit zero, which is exactly what happened in the global financial crisis, right?

37:03We almost, it almost happened when the tech bubble came down. Remember, we hit 1 % and then it was sort of pulling on a string. And that was more than 20 years ago. But when the global financial crisis happened, we went to zero and even negative interest rates. And so the interest rate didn't matter anymore. And that's when we went, you know, we sort of classified these things into different monetary policy types of regimes. You had to think through, well, if the central bank isn't going to do interest rate, they can't use interest rates, the next thing they could do is essentially print money.

37:37And MP2 was sort of the printing money to drive a wealth effect. And we saw elements of this back during the Great Depression, after the US came off the gold center and so on. But really, you had to go way back beyond that to really get sampled of what this was like. And so all investors, not just us, were working on less of a data set, less sample when they're looking at what are the effects of this. And so that was, you know, that's the importance of that. Of course, when we went to MP3, when that played itself out and COVID hit, this time, not only were they printing money, but they were putting it into the pockets of households, you know.

38:20And so there was this direct treasury, Fed and so on, cooperation that had an altogether different effect and still having an effect in terms of household balance sheets and so on. And really having to understand that, and it would be really helpful if you go back way more time across time and across countries to get samples of that. It's very difficult to do. And one of the great advantages that Bridgewater has is you've studied what you call the economic machine for decades and developed an expertise in understanding the cause-effect linkages. And so when things happen that you haven't seen for a long time or maybe aren't even in the historical data set, you have a pretty good advantage in terms of understanding what the potential impact is because you have a very deep understanding of how that machine generally works.

39:10Yes, I think that's true. It's also like it's a real advantage for us as a starting point. It can also be a disadvantage from us if we're too reliant on sort of conventional norm, especially in atypical periods like we've been in, right? And I would say one of the reasons why our performance has lagged relative to our own history recently is because, you know, we probably we are understanding was there, but not we weren't converting it quickly enough. Right. And doubting that maybe it would play out differently than we thought. So, for example, I'll give you an example, Alex. I mean, who would have thought that when you get central banks between 2021 and 2022, raising interest rates or even inflation adjusted interest rates or what we call real interest rates by over 500 basis points, that I think it would be natural to conclude that that rippling through the system would cause a recession, cause asset prices to fall and so on.

40:07And it didn't. It did not. And that was huge learnings for us. Yes, we understand those linkages. And yes, that was a drag. But there was other offsetting factors that were even bigger. Things like, for example, what it meant to household savings rates that were extrapolating of the future. They were flush. And, you know, they were dis-saving longer than we thought and for reasons that we could understand ultimately. So it is an advantage as a starting point, but you can never, ever get, you know, keep your hunger and lose your worry about what you're getting wrong. And that has been sort of relearned time and time again as an investor here at Bridgewater, but just in general.

40:52And that goes back to our earlier conversation about what keeps us in this industry for decades is this thirst for knowledge and trying to master your craft and recognizing you're never going to get there, but you can constantly improve. And the market has a remarkable way of humbling you. You know, when you just feel like you've got to figure it out, it slaps you across the face and teaches you another lesson. And that's what keeps us going. Absolutely right. Right. It's always a challenge. It's like you never you never you never master it totally because there's always something new coming. And I mean, today, you know, here we have extensive research in AIML like that could change the face of of how we invest.

41:33It could mean that some of the things that we use in our investment systems will change and we'll do it a different way. I mean, we have to be open to this. You cannot you can't get stuck in your in your ways. And so, yeah, I mean, we're seeing incredible, incredible change. And then, of course, you know, we've never seen an election like this in our lifetimes. And, you know, the geopolitical risk that we see across the world, I mean, the heart of geopolitical risk could be right here in the in the US. I mean, so there's so many different types of risks, so many different types of technologies.

42:08It's an incredibly interesting time to be an investor, for sure. That is for certain. Bridgewater is highly regarded for its market insights. And unfortunately for the vast majority of people, most of that is not publicly available. You try to keep it close to the vest and with your clients. But are you able to share some of Bridgewater's high level market outlook at this point? Yeah, I mean, you know, I mentioned that, you know, one of the mistakes we made was that we thought that that inflation that really broke out in 2021 and 22, something we nailed correctly, right, was going to be more persistent and that the interest rate rises to combat it would then create a recession.

42:54That did not happen. And so we sort of took our lumps along those lines. And where I see where we are today is I do think there's reason to believe that inflation is going to be stickier. And I think we're starting to see the evidence come out. And you've even started to see interest rates as we record this that have been backing up over the last number of days. And I think that that's one element, right? But I think the big thing is that the differentials between conditions in different regions of the world is really notable, okay? There are different valuations. There are different conditions.

43:29There's also reform efforts going on from a regulatory point of view. Like if I look at Japan and Korea, for example, Japan is already the equity market is starting to really get a lift. And I think that's in part because of their monetary policy shifts, but also in part because from the bottom up, they're starting to figure out that they need to really start to prioritize shareholder value. And so we're getting change in Japan, which is exciting to see. We're seeing that in Korea. I look at fundamental differentials between Europe and the U.S. and I see a much weaker economy. And I mentioned before that the asset prices would suggest, even though it's a weaker economy, we're likely to get weaker policy.

44:10When I say weaker, more accommodative policy in Europe, and that should lift assets. And in the US, we have a much richer valuation picture. The market is extrapolating exceptionalism. And by the way, there is good reason. We have incredible tech companies, but the markets are very concentrated that way. And so there comes a point, I think, where you really can have big differential views, and we're starting to have those. And so that is the way I see the markets right now. Inflation should be a little stickier. Growth seems stable. And the Fed not likely to be able to cut rates in the way the market is discounting.

44:53And if they don't cut rates the way the market's discounting, that's an effective tightening, and that has an impact on assets. And then we see these differential opportunities as well. And I think that's really where we are at the moment. You talked about inflation a few times. If we zoom out a little bit, inflation and interest rates have been falling for decades. Is your sense that we've actually hit an inflection point and the days of near zero or zero interest rates and low and stable inflation are behind us? I would have said so because many of the underpinnings, you know, even we see this in the U.S.

45:31labor force. There's just there's been more movement to raise wages. We've seen it more broadly than that. Union power has grown a little bit. I wouldn't call it strong, but it's grown stronger. trade is still pretty globalized, but you see the geopolitical tensions, certainly trade relationships changing among key economic centers, China, for example, the US. So I think those were some of the underpinnings of that very low inflation, because you could always source to the lowest common producer. You could do it with a sense of stability and safety, right? But I don't think that exists in the same way anymore.

46:11So that's one thing we're watching. But then I look across the world, I see China and China is the second largest economy in the world. And so it's a very, very important economy. It may not, its financial markets may not be as advanced as some of the other world's financial markets, but it's economic, it's trade relationships and so on certainly are. and you know they're having a very difficult time it's it's it's uh it's more of like a balance sheet type of recession that we saw in japan ultimately in the 1990s uh and and beyond that i think china's facing with the overinvestment that they had in the debt that they took on and we see that in the property sector most acutely and that is very deflationary and unless the chinese government is very aggressively fighting that um it's it's very deflationary and it can spread because of the size of the economy around the world as more of a disinflationary force.

47:06So I think it's going to be the netting out of those two things that's going to dictate where inflation goes from here. But if we had to guess right now, and I wouldn't hold this as a high conviction, but if we had to guess right now, we would say that the forces that are leading to stickier inflation, not exorbitant, but stickier inflation are probably winning at the moment. And what would you say are some of the major risks at play today, besides the ones you mentioned already? There's something that go through my mind. Of course, we talk about the geopolitical risk, and we see that playing out.

47:43We see it in Russia, Ukraine, we see it in the Middle East, the Middle East, you know, with this direct connection, if we saw the northern front in Lebanon really explode, and Iran get involved, and now we have a major Gulf situation, that that is very worrisome. beyond where it is even now. So that's one big thing. If Russia is not countered, that would also be another consideration where I think risk premiums could rise, especially in Europe. I think this notion of US exceptionalism is understandable. A glut of global savings has come into the US. It's been a highly productive economy, deep capital markets.

48:26I worry about the concentration. You know, we, the current account deficit in the United States, that we've now built with a strong dollar and sort of importing more than we've export is like 75 % of the global, roughly 75 % of the global current account deficits. All right. So we are huge. And the market concentration of U S assets and global portfolios is very, very big. And I worry about the destabilization. If something upsets that, and I look around and I say, well, you know, politically, we aren't doing great at the moment. Now, we are our economics, our capital markets have survived many different risks over times.

49:04And I'm hoping that will be the case here. But I think we have to also be very sober that our divide right now in the U.S. is as wide as I think I've ever seen it, certainly in my lifetime. And it's it's pretty acute, right? There's not a lot of room for compromise. And often people are voting in our institutions. now, they're voting in Congress and so on, not so much because they think something's good or bad public policy, but because the other side's in favor of it. That's pretty dangerous stuff. So I'm hoping that, you know, as a market, that the political market sort of equilibrates a bit because that would take down the risk that we're seeing.

49:41But I think when you put those things together, that is something to be watched for sure. And, you know, I think those are the ones I see that are most obvious at the moment. I said the only other thing that I would say, Alex, is that we've had this huge transfer of wealth or between the private sector to the public sector. I should say wealth. I should say the huge transfer of debt from the private sector to the public sector. So it's still there. Right. I think it's better from an economic point of view that it's being held in the public sector because the public sector can at least try and maneuver it away through some opportunistic printing and stuff.

50:20But we're getting to levels now that are really a concern. And, you know, people listen to me when I say this and they always say, yeah, you've been saying that for years. And I have been. So this is one of the frustrations of being an investor. I can't tell you the timing. I can just tell you that the underlying fundamentals of that are worrisome. And eventually all things come home to roost. And if your total indebtedness and your deficits are out of control, then ultimately that's got to be paid. And if it can't be paid, it's got to be defaulted on. And when you're holding it in the public sector, the way to default that is through your currency.

50:55And again, this goes back into the idea that the dollar has been quite strong and US dollar denominated assets are heavily held around the world. And if you get a reversal of this, it will hit everything. It'll hit the currency. It'll hit these assets and so on. So that's a worry of mine too. And when I think about all these risks, to me, in terms of what do you do about it as an investor, it seems like you want to be more diversified rather than less diversified. And one of the challenges of being more diversified today is you have to deal with geopolitical risks. You know, if you want to diversify by country, you have to think about geopolitical risks.

51:34You have to think about debt levels and potential default risk when you're trying to diversify on the fixed income side. How do you think about, you know, that tension between needing to diversify and challenges associated with doing so? Yes, it's very challenging. You know, I listened to one of your previous hosts who was one of my ex-colleagues, Paul Podolsky. And, you know, he would normally have said that emerging markets are a good place also to diversify, but he wouldn't say that today. I think it just calls for more diversification. I think there are certain things you can look to. You know, bond yields now are at normal levels, and that means bonds can be used as a diversification asset, if nothing else.

52:12And so they're useful, in my view, as are inflation-linked bonds as well. And while I won't go into the intricacies of them or the disappointments of them when we had inflation, especially long duration bonds, just trust me when I say that that asset needs to be looked at as a valuable piece of a portfolio because it has or can have inflation sensitivity. There's commodities and then there's equities. And even within the equity market, it's how you're buying your equities. If you're just trying to get diversification, it seems to me that one should diversify away from a market cap global index right now to have more countries represented and so on just because of the valuation differences.

52:54To me, that's appropriate diversification. So I think you have to look within asset classes. I think you have to look across asset classes. I think we're held by the fact that interest rates have normalized from where they were since the global financial crisis up until the inflation broke out in 2021, 22. I think that's been a help. And so you got to use that. And yes, I totally agree with you that, you know, diversification is really warranted right now. And as is sort of diversification between liquid and illiquid assets to, you know, you have to be careful about that because if you get a break, you can't just sell illiquid assets.

53:34And usually then if investors have to raise liquidity, it comes through the liquid assets. So you got to think through those risks and make sure you're diversifying between those two types of assets as well, I think. The other challenge with the whole notion of being more diversified is if you look backwards, I'd say diversification has been in a bear market, if there's such a thing. If you just look at the last few years, diversification didn't really do much because you've had the, you know, what is the Fed's going to do been driving markets. You had the tightening, everything fell. You had the easing, everything rallied.

54:09You have the potential Fed pivot, things rally, more tightening, they fall all in tandem. And so that's the last few years. And then even if you go back 10 years, you basically had US stocks have done really well, and most other asset classes have barely beat cash. So the less diversified you were, particularly in US stocks, the better you did. And so I'm like you, I preach diversification because I think it's really needed. But when you look backwards for a fairly long period of time, and the data doesn't support it. So how do you think about all that? I think that it is one of the big issues, right?

54:44Which is, again, I remember we were talking earlier about one of the great mistakes that investors can make is extrapolating the past into the future. And this is one of those, as my mentor Ray would say, right? And I think it's true, right? It hasn't worked, so therefore it won't work. That's not right. It's never been that way. Things don't always stay as they were. There are understandable reasons in retrospect as to why equity markets and particularly US equity markets have been dominant. But to extrapolate that into the future in perpetuity, I think it's going to be proven to be wrong. But then there's the question of the constraints about if you were just freely investing, trying to preserve wealth over time and grow it, your timeframe is long and you can afford to be patient.

55:28If you have constraints where you have to invest and win this year, this quarter, what have you, you don't have that luxury. And so you respond to the pressures and that's really a problem, right? So I think it's an issue. And the other thing I would say is that I find it hard to believe, like if you stage this out, I find it hard to believe that if US equities, for example, as the asset class, right, If US equities really go through a difficult time, and especially if that is a market dislocation, as opposed to like a grinding bear market over a number of years, I find it hard to believe that other markets are going to totally prosper.

56:11I think they might do better, but they also may suffer absolute losses. You have such a dominant market. There's so many different interlinkages. So my personal view on this is that, yes, you want to diversify, and you also want to diversify into cash when cash is is giving you uh five plus percent uh and you also probably want to diversify into gold and i while i don't know enough about crypto maybe even that too like you know uh with a piece of of risk right but when i say cash and gold the the cash would be because you're getting you're yielding you know five plus percent in t-bills today and if we're right about the fact that the Fed may not lower rates as much as market thinks it will, then you're still going to get paid something close to that for a while.

56:59And then the gold is if this debt problem I mentioned before becomes such a, or precious metals like it becomes such an issue, that's always been an alternative storehold of wealth that can't be printed by any government. So So I find that is a more robust portfolio. Having said that, I would say, and we've discussed this, and your partner, Damien, and I have discussed this as well, it's also a risk of being underinvested. It's a risk of not taking enough risk, right? And I would say, if anything, as an investor in my own personal investing, I'm a little bit guilty of that, that really, sometimes you have to take that depreciation, take it with a personal risk, and just see it through the long term, and count on the fact that you're going to get the risk premiums over time relative to cash and get your emotion out of it, get any other considerations.

57:49So it works both ways, but those are just thoughts I would have on the current environment and how to think about that question. And that's one of the great challenges of investing is you have emotions, you have fear of losing, you have the fear of missing out. And all of that has to be navigated on top of all the things that we described in terms of everything that's happening. It's pretty fascinating. Yeah. I mean, I would say that I've been so fortunate. I have been around in my career some of the most legendary investors in the world. I look back, starting with Bruce Kovner at Caxton, some of the traders I encountered that may not be household names who are really great traders at Goldman Sachs.

58:31Of course, there's Ray, but there's also Greg Jensen and Bob Prince and Karen Carnel Tambor and others here at Bridgewater and I love being around them and doing it. I think the reason that I could be a good thinker in the markets but not a great investor is that to be a great investor, you have to be completely dispassionate. And I've never been able to totally get over that. And the reason I say dispassionate is because it's very unusual that the world just is discounted one way and then it completely changes and stays that way or gets more. We've certainly seen it. We saw in the Great Depression and so on.

59:09We saw it a little bit in COVID when we got a bolt from the blue. I mean, these things can happen, right? But most of the time, the best way to manage money is take advantage of your opportunities in a gradual way and stay very, very disciplined. And I can see it, but I often can't do it myself. I think a lot of people are guilty of the same thing. So, Jim, why don't we close with one interesting investment insight, if you could narrow it down to one that you think you'd like to share with investors that they may not have thought of or heard of? I think that one of the most interesting things that investors don't, you know, we talk about diversification, right?

59:51But I think if you have a, I think what they, but I don't think it's appreciated enough, okay? I do not think it's appreciated enough. And I also think it can be hard to find. But let me go to an extreme on this. If you can find a return stream, and I think that's the way I think about structuring a portfolio is like return streams. It's just a set of return streams. If you can find a return stream that is positive over time and you have reason to believe it will continue to be positive over time and has a zero or even better yet, an inverse correlation, meaning it literally acts the opposite way to everything else in your portfolio, the value you should put on that is huge.

1:00:35It's huge, right? And it's just about thinking about when other things in the portfolio are going up, right? This can go a different direction, but if it's positive over time, when other things go down and this thing's going up, it is so valuable because the biggest problem in investing is when you lose a lot of money. when you lose it. Imagine you had a hundred dollars and you and you lose 50 of it. So you've lost 50 percent to get back to 100. You have to make 100 percent. OK, so it takes you a long time to get back to where you even just started. But if you you know, you're going to take losses in them as an investor.

1:01:12But if you can take less losses when you lose so that you can get back higher and you're when you're winning, that's the key to to to great investing. And that comes back to identifying zero correlated or very lowly correlated or even better yet inversely correlated return streams that are positive returning over time. That is so important. And I think one of the things I've really learned at Bridgewater that I'd never really realized before. The thing that I think very interesting about what you just said is there's also a difference between paper and practice. So on paper, the math works out brilliantly the way you described.

1:01:51In practice, the hard part about implementing that approach is investors, not only do they have to add to the things that are doing poorly, but they have to not sell. And the challenge as an investor is we are trained to look at all the line items in our portfolio and the things that are doing poorly, our eyes go to, and how do we fix this? And rather than having the inverse thinking of, I got to buy low and sell high. And that is just so hard because these cycles can last a long period of time. Absolutely. And I think it goes back to like having a plan and following your plan in a very disciplined way.

1:02:28It's very difficult to do. And it's, you know, even people that get it, they may not be able to continue to follow it if they're the ones that it's their portfolio, or they may not be able to convince others to do it if they're managing money for others. And it's just a constant challenge. It really is. But the best investors do that. That's for sure. Jim I appreciate you taking the time I always enjoy our conversations and I'm glad that we were able to have another one today Well Alex it was great being with you and you just had to promise me you're going to come on my podcast Do I get that promise?

1:03:02Yeah absolutely Thank you Jim Alright thank you so much Thanks for listening We hope you enjoyed this episode Please visit our website at insightfulinvestor.org to access past shows and learn more about our podcast If you have questions, feel free to email us at info at insightfulinvestor.org. And if you enjoyed the discussion, please subscribe to this podcast to ensure you don't miss future episodes. And don't forget to forward today's conversation to others you think would enjoy listening. This podcast is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, or tax advice.

1:03:43All opinions expressed by podcast participants are solely their own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Evoque Advisors, their affiliates, or companies featured. Due to industry regulations, participants on this podcast are instructed not to make specific trade recommendations, nor reference past or potential profits. And listeners are reminded that securities trading, commodity trading, and alternative investments are complex and carry a risk of substantial losses. As such, they are not suitable for all investors.

1:04:16Listeners should be aware that guests featured on The Insightful Investor may have current or past associations with Evoke advisors or the host, including as an investment manager of a private fund opportunity by Evoke, or access through an affiliated Evoke fund, or as a client. Participation as a guest on the podcast should not be perceived as an endorsement or testimonial with respect to Evoke Advisors, the podcast host, or their services. Similarly, the inclusion of a guest on the podcast does not imply that Evoke Advisors or the host endorses the guest or any company with which they may be affiliated or employed.