Jeremy Grantham on How to Tell If a Bubble Is About to Burst

24:01Yeah. And for the record, when Microsoft first appeared in a tradable portfolio for GMO, it was in our value stream. We had a value stream and a momentum stream. And we only bought the most attractive 10 percent. And we did that each month for 12 months. So we had 12 little portfolios, each one the best 10 percent for each month of the year. And Microsoft entered the cheapest value decile and stayed there until July of 99. And that's because our value model looked at long-term future earnings and dividends projected as best we could. And we did that through projecting return on equity. And we did that by looking at how return on equity regressed to the mean and which factors affected the rate.

24:59Certain factors slowed it down. Market domination, price setting that you could prove, slowed it down way, way down. And Microsoft was the perfect example of this. It had very, very low volatility. It was clearly, overwhelmingly the price setter. and consequently our model said it was worth nine times book, not seven times book, but it was selling it. So if you have a good value model, you can buy these things. You can see them on occasions coming along, and yes, it's done spectacularly well and has had then particularly a much better moat to me than NVIDIA has today. But if you will allow me a minute here, if you look at the Mag 7, you look backwards in history, and you can say with a pretty clear conscience, each one dominates their seven different niches.

26:04They have near monopolies on a global basis. Even Tesla has a jumpstart, the biggest and the best for a long time in EVs. And you have Amazon beginning to dominate retail, Google research, etc., etc. Seven decent monopolies dominating the world. Justice Department, etc., perfectly sound asleep. No one is interested in pulling a Teddy Roosevelt. They're not going to jump in and slash and burn and divide Exxon into seven different pieces. they're letting these things grow and fix and set their pricing and make tons and tons of money. And then you look forward. Starting from today, does it look anything like that?

27:00Doesn't it look like seven companies deciding they're all in the same market, AI, that moving the most powerfully with the greatest investment is dominant? Are they not seen here beating their chest and saying, my$200 billion in investment in a single year is bigger than your$127, yeah, boo. They know how much gets paid off to the first mover who grabs the market. They all want to be the first. There can only be one, as they say in the movie. And there's seven of them fighting it out. It could be a very messy, blood-curdling game. I suggested that they have it outside the White House. What a comparison.

27:53Just imagine 10 years from now looking back and saying, you couldn't see the difference between seven easy monopolies and a dogfight of seven vicious, rich companies, huge cash flow, huge understanding. of the virtues of being dominant, all deciding at the same time to fight out in one market. And you could say, yes, there was the cloud. What about that? And the cloud was a nice, well-behaved oligopoly. Three of them, genteelly deciding to compete in genteel ways, exactly the right thing to do if you find yourself in that position, and clearly not the approach that is being adopted this time. We have seen huge investment.

28:41You look back, they're idea-heavy, capital-light. You look forward, let's hope they're idea-heavy, but they are capital-heavy this time. It's like a watershed in almost everything that matters between the past and the future. And nobody seems to be talking about it in that way. And I don't get it. Well, can I just ask, related to this point, the dot-com bubble has come up a number of times in this conversation. Do you actually have a preferred historical analogy for the situation that we're facing now? because we've been through technological revolutions associated with speculative manias before, ranging from, I guess, what I would say are pretty real ones like the railroad bubble and the internet to kind of crazier ones like we're all going to go deep sea diving.

29:32Tracy Alloway:Yeah, totally. And get rich that way. You are a connoisseur of historical financial market bubbles. Which one is most similar to the current period that we're in? Ah. So people tend to think a bubble, oh, it has to be somehow a con job. And it's exactly the opposite. The great bubbles are the biggest ideas for decades. So the only one as big as AI is possibly the railroads. Of course, everybody could see that the railroads were going to change the world. You arrived at the railway station in a horse and buggy, for heaven's sake. You went seven miles an hour and then you got on a train traveling at 60 miles an hour and went a couple of thousand miles.

30:22I mean, it was utterly revolutionary. So what happened? Everybody could see that the railroads were going to change the world, which they did. Everybody wanted to have a piece of it and they could. Everybody put their money in it. And you had the biggest bust on both sides of the Atlantic that you could imagine. and everybody lost their money in railroads. And out of the ashes, the tracks were still there. The locomotives were still there. The demand was still there. And it changed the world. And then you fast forward to the internet. Powerful idea. Clearly, by the way, accompanied by a lot of silly stuff as well.

31:08But underneath it, a very powerful idea. So you had Amazon go up six or seven times in 99. And when the market broke, it went down famously, infamously, 92%. Check it, 92%. And then it rose from the ashes, just like the railroads, and inherited the retail market, more or less. To have a great bubble, you have to have decent economic times. The better off, the better the bubble. you have to have easy money the better and easier etc the better the bubble and you have to have a fabulous idea and you have to have it so obviously be important that everybody can see it now they're very very rare events aren't they this one is as big as anything but the railroads i am not even prepared to say it isn't bigger than the railroads it may be but they're the two super champs Besides them, I think the internet is a bit of a piker.

32:13But they're the two colossal ones. If ever there was a massive idea that will change, is already changing the world, it's AI. Does anyone not know that? I think everybody knows it. Does anyone want to put their money in it? I think SpaceX, et cetera, gives us a pretty good idea. 90 % of the value, if you read the prospectus, is based on AI, even though that particular AI seems to be having its bottom kicked by two or three others as we sit, but wouldn't let facts get in the way of a really good story. And this is an absolute classic. It checks everything off, one after another, which haven't been checked off many times in history.

33:01So this is it. If you think This is not a bubble. You are going to be in for a bit of disappointment.

33:07Tracy Alloway:In your book, you talk about how competitive you are and growing up and wanting to play all different types of games. How do you channel competitiveness in a productive manner, career-wise, so that it doesn't hinder you or it doesn't make you chase performance or doesn't make you worry about one year's performance versus another competitor? How do you make the competitiveness instinct be a good thing? I think try and bring it to bear on a few areas that matter to you, starting with obviously the most important, playing a decent game of doubles in tennis. And every point has to be played as if your life depends on it.

33:52And you pick partners and opposition who do the same and you have a wonderfully good time. And then you look around for other things. And for me, it was ideas. And I could have made a lot more money if I focused on profit maximizing. But for me, the idea was the dominant principle. And the idea of being competitive was everything hinges on trying to outthink the enemy. the easiest way for me, it always seemed was to be longer and wider and more comprehensive and stand further back than the other guy. And what you quickly realize when you do that is that no one else is even trying. So this is not a fair fight.

34:42Everybody is focused on the near term. And if you want to profit maximize, that's not a bad idea. And very few people are attempting to be in the market and simultaneously asking questions that are several years out, and even to some extent, a decade or two out. So it's been very easy for me to be both competitive and cheerful and often wrong. Since we're talking about career development now, I suppose, is it important when you're a perma bear or more accurately, when you're perceived to be a perma bear, to distinguish yourself in some way from other bears who are out there. Because again, at this particular moment in time, there are a number of high profile commentators who would say that AI is a bubble.

35:30So how do you actually stand out from, I guess, the bubble calling crowd? Yeah, I've no idea. I have only made two unmitigated bullish calls. The market has a really hard time telling the difference between, hey, this is overpriced. This is going to make you less money over the next 20 years than it would do if it was half price. They're just kind of mathematical realities. And because you say that, they, oh, you said the market was going to collapse. You have been bearish forever. Now, when I want to be really bearish and recommend you get out of the market. I say so. And I've only done that twice.

36:12On July the 15th, 2008, I wrote a quarterly letter which actually said, abandon ship, sove keeper, the French equivalent, and actually quoted the nursery rhyme, don't be brave, run away, live to fight another day. Do not take any risk you don't have to take. We all have restrictions on how much we can get out of the risk-taking business, but do not take anything you don't have to. Okay? That was pretty clear. And the last thing that we had been bullish about was emerging markets. And I said, I've changed our mind. We think this is the end of the line. Sell any emerging that you can. And we did the biggest trade that we had ever done, getting rid of the last of our emerging, I must say shortly before we published the letter.

37:06Tracy Alloway:What year? Sorry, which year was that? Oh, the emergence? Oh, OK. And may I say that following that in four months, the emerging market halved. I think it was the biggest, sharpest decline in the history of any major index from July the 15th to November the 15th. And actually slightly before that, the whole index halved. And the other bearish one was at the end of 2021, where the quarterly letter was called, let the wild rumpus begin, right? That meant now get your tail out, avoid the market. I'm happy to say S &P went down like a rocket ship, minus 25, growth stocks down 35, Mag 7 down 40 and the bond market had the worst year in the history of the bond market.

37:58And then, as I also like to say, my nice bear market was rudely interrupted by chat GPT. And the economy that was doing its usual thing of gracefully moving into a mild recession because animal spirits were going down was also changed by massive and increasing capex spending on AI, which dragged kicking and screaming the animal spirits of the rest of the economy. They didn't change easily, by the way. The S &P, the rest of it went down for another 10 months, but they kept going so powerfully in the market and so powerfully in the capex business that they changed the game. That's only happened once in history.

38:41And I don't know how to predict things like that any more than COVID. And new things are a pain. There aren't happily many of them, but they're the two most interesting ones in my career. COVID was novel. How do you treat novelty if you're a historian? You don't. You have to work it out on other principles. And this AI interruption of what was a perfectly ordinary, and I thought predictable bear market because it flagged my great discrepancy between the market leaders going down as the blue chips continued up. How do you do that? I don't know.

39:22Tracy Alloway:Yeah, this is really striking. You know, we recently we had Torsten Slock at one of our events talking about this sort of imperviousness of the AI trade to what traditionally we'd call macro. So what you described, you're like, OK, here comes the expected, as you said, probably would have been a shallow recession. And now we see this investment, this capital expenditure, this completely, they could, it does not seem like the companies care at all about the fact that the Fed hasn't cut rates as expected, et cetera. These classically macro indicators that we did recession, business cycle, et cetera, had just seemed to be blown out of the water.

39:59Tracy Alloway:Yeah, blown out of the water by the AI trade. Yeah. And I must say that overwhelming interest in interest rate and interest rate predictions has left me totally cold for the last 50 years. I leave that to other people. I think it's, in general, wildly exaggerated. I've lived in a world where for 50 years the increasing debt to GDP ratio of the US economy, the Japanese economy, and every other economy has been predicting imminent collapse. And the ratio has gotten higher and higher, and then it's predicted double collapse, and it still keeps rising. The only function of interest rates is that it makes debt easier to acquire, and the function of easy acquired debt is that it helps the economy.

40:51One little problem. You go back to Alan Greenspan, you find that before he gets there, there is a very, very slow increase in debt to GDP ratio, just because the financial business is becoming more complicated. And then after him, it rises at 45 degrees, and it goes from a small fraction of GDP. If you throw in all debt, it triples and quadruples. And it does it over 30 years. You have biggest economy in the world, 30 years to test what happened, quadrupling of the debt to GDP, and the growth rate goes down. So how can debt be a real mover of growth rate when you've had that wonderful macro test seen from looking back over 40 years.

41:44Huge increase in debt, decrease in GDP growth rate. Very strange. So I leave all that stuff way alone. If you will let me back up, I was saying too clear, get out of the market calls. Plenty of the market's overpriced. The market has been overpriced since 2000. I admit it. It's been overpriced. And we have said so the whole time because looking back at the 20th century, the 21st century has been overpriced. They used to sell at 15 times earnings. We have been selling at 23 times earnings. That is not a small fraction of an increase. It has been a different world, the 21st century. But based on history, it's been overpriced.

42:36And of course, it still is. But I have made two bull calls in my life. The only time for the first 10 years we got quoted was in something called the Wall Street Letter, Long Deceased. I think it was attached to the Wall Street Journal. And it was a weekly kind of gossip thing about the industry. And there, hidden in the tail end, actually, of that letter is my first opportunity to quote. And it's July 82. And the PE of the S &P is seven times. And I say, I think we're close to an unprecedented rally in both the stock and the bond market. And I've always been thrilled to give people copies of this newsletter.

43:25And then the market shoots up and we become more careful for a long, long time. And then finally, the market comes down in 2009. And by a miracle that only occurs once every two lifetimes, we published a letter, one pager. Only two of those were done in my career of 30 years letter writing. It's called Reinvesting When Terrified, and I think is the best thing I wrote, mainly because it was short. And it just said, you won't call the bottom of the market. Don't bother with that. Don't even try it. Just concentrate on the fact that the market is cheaper than it's been for 22 years. Even on our seven-year forecast, you're dealing with 12 % a year compounded returns in the S &P, equivalent to a higher numbers in emerging and foreign equity.

44:20Get together a plan. Take it to your committee. Any plan is better than no plan. You have got to start recycling your money back into the market. And the good news is, as far as I'm concerned, it only counts if you wrote it. Yeah. Saying it is too peripheral. It gets washed away into the ether. But I wrote it. And we sent it to the Wall Street Journal who didn't get back. And day by day, four days passed until my advisor on propaganda and I decided to hell with this. Let's post it ourselves. And because of that delay, we posted it the day the market hit it slow. 666 on the S &P 500, less than one-tenth of where it is today.

45:11My God, this has been a bull market. Thank you for reminding two podcasters that it only counts if you wrote it. No, it's good. But to be fair, we do write some stuff. So there is that. Can I just go back to, you were talking about how investors seem to have, to some extent, become more comfortable with higher price to earnings ratios now versus, say, for much of the last century. When it comes to value investing, we all know that value has been losing recently to momentum. Does it feel at all to you that something has structurally broken in the sense that investors are much more focused on price nowadays?

45:56They're much more focused on short-term gains rather than longer returns. And at the same time, you've had a lot of retail money flow into the market courtesy of new platforms robin hood and whenever i think about robin hood i think about clicking buttons and remember they used to have the animation that would like celebrate if you place to trade like that's a lot of new money coming into the market that potentially thinks differently to the way investors for much of the 1900s actually thought. I think in every bubble, it gets very much like this. And you said much more focused on price, not in the sense that they're looking for bargains, much more focused on momentum.

46:45Right. That's what I mean. Yes. Price rises rapidly and they like it. And the value is irrelevant. You know, this is what happened in the South Sea bubble. And it's what happened in tulips and what happened in the railroads and it's what happens in the nifty 50 and the tech bubble. It's what always happens. This is not remarkable, by the way. This isn't even spectacularly overpriced compared to Japan. Japan is the mother and father of all bubbles. In 1989, it sold for 65 times earnings. And if that doesn't make a value manager wake up in the middle of the night screaming once in a while, nothing will.

47:23Because we went up finally to 35 times earnings in the tech bubble, never having been over 21. That's a pretty spectacular jump. But Japan had never sold over 25 times earnings and went up to 65. And I'm happy to say we survived that quite well through good luck. And the good luck was that international investing had only just come in. And we were selling people their first international portfolios that they had ever had, including Harvard and Yale. And that is quite remarkable, by the way, how slow the U.S. was. Scotland and so on had been doing this foreign investing for a long, long time, but it was not fashionable in the U.S.

48:05Because of that, no one was comparing international with an international index. It was only two or three years or two or three months that they had had an international portfolio, they were comparing it with the S &P because all their competitors were still in the S &P. And the novelty there was betting international against the S &P. It was winning. The international was so far ahead that we could underperform because of Japan. And we underperformed by 10 points a year for three years. And we lost no business at all. And we had a decent market share. And then, of course, Japan broke. The lesson from Japan is pretty clear.

48:46The biggest bubble in the history of the stock market, of an important stock market, second only to the land bubble in Japan of coincident, more or less coincident timing. And what was the price you paid for having it go from 25 to 30 to 40 to 50 to 60 to 65? And the Solomon Brothers team went around at 60 to 65, explaining that the bond rate in Japan was so low, it should be 100 times worse. I am not kidding you. I'm not kidding you. What is the price you paid? It lost 20 years, really, not 10 years. 35 years have to go by before you get back to a high. And I don't think even that is adjusted for the modest inflation that they had.

49:32I mean, you want to have a bigger bubble and a better bubble? Go ahead. Just be advised that the correlation with a longer and worse decline is pretty well won.

49:59The Bloomberg Sustainable Business Summit returns to Singapore on July 22nd. Our fifth annual Asia-Pacific Summit will explore how business and finance leaders are shaping the next phase of globalization by strengthening resilience and driving a multi-speed energy transition across Asia's diverse markets. Join us for solutions-driven discussions and networking opportunities. Thank you to our summit advisor, Bangkok Bank. Learn more at bloomberglive.com slash SBS dash Singapore.

50:29Tracy Alloway:You know, we could talk for another hour just on international, all these things, but I have one last question. You're known for having a lot of personal sort of like other interests besides investing, particularly related to the environment, climate change you talk about. You wrote a letter, I believe, last year about plastics and other forms of like dangers to the environment. Do you have any optimism at all that AI in particular will be of service to humanity in tackling some of these concerns that you have about sort of ecology and so forth? God, I wish I knew it. The spectacular thing about AI is the degree of difference of opinion.

51:11You know, often you find that the rank and file have one view and the hot shots who know the most have a different view. But this is not like that. This is you have Nobel Prize winners who disagree violently. You have real experts who've studied it for 30 years who disagree violently. You have the rank and file with as much experience as they could have who disagree violently. There is simply no agreement on the future of AI. It will either make us all incredibly rich, we'll sit on the beach and be served by robots, or the robots will go one step further and get rid of us inadvertently or deliberately.

51:52This is not bad. This is the ultimate complexity that one has ever heard. And you cannot possibly know what is going to happen. You can only plan for a wide range of outcomes. But we know for a fact that it chews up enormous amounts of electricity. We know for a fact that that is associated with an awful lot of carbon dioxide production and real pressure on the environment. So we start knowing that it will be tough. And by the way, you make robots every 20 minutes. These humanoid robots have to go off, take a coffee break and plug themselves in. They will run through energy like we have no idea.

52:38We can hardly support the energy demands of current AI confined to your laptops. The energy demand of having machines running around will dwarf that beyond recognition. we will have to have multiples of the global energy production that we have now. We are simply living beyond our means. The real experts who studied for 30 years say we need 1.7 planets to maintain the current level of income in a sustainable way. And if we want to live like Americans, we need five planets. And AI, in the best of all possible worlds, might help address this. But it's hard to imagine AI becoming self-aware and being better at everything than we are.

53:30It's hard to think of an example, as Geoffrey Hinton would say, where a smarter civilization, a smarter species, has been dominated by a comparatively stupid species. we somehow implicitly rely on their benevolence. We are not spending that much time and money trying to design a benevolent AI. We are spending money trying to design a more powerful, competitive, devil-take-the-hindmost type of AI. It's inherited our style. Humans have been the survival of the fittest. Grab what you can, why you can. Don't worry too much about three or four years from now. I find that exactly the same in corporate America and capitalism, by the way.

54:25We don't act as if we value our grandchildren. We play soccer with them at the weekend, as I like to say, and we help pay the school fees. But then we go back to work for a chemical company or fossil fuel company and act as if we mean to kill them all. It's a strange nature, except it's the same as every other species on the planet. Grab what you can, live for today. And here we are doing the same. It's something we all recognize is a bigger danger than anything we've ever met before, living with another intelligence that is going to be inevitably much more than we are. And we are left worrying about PEs when the survival of our species is at stake, when strangely our climate is going to hell, not as we used to think in 20, 30, 40 years, but now, Our baby production is going to hell, not as we used to think in 50 years or 100 years, but now.

55:34China is producing a fertility rate of one, a baby production that every 30 years has, that in 90 years is an eighth, and Korea is a third of its baby production each 30 years, a ninth in 60 years, a 27th, i.e. they're out of business in a single lifetime unless it changes. And it has been changing, but it's been changing steadily for the worst. 65 % of all countries are below replacement. And quite a few, like China, are way, way down towards one. and nobody cares. We are not programmed to worry about long-term slow-burning problems, and they're all coming to bear together, and they're compounded by our ignorance or lack of concern about the risks of AI.

56:30This was going to be a very exciting time. Exciting slash terrifying.

56:36Tracy Alloway:Also, if we need five planets, I think you just made the ball case for SpaceX. I was just going to make the same joke. Oh my God. I shouldn't have let you. I shouldn't have let you go first. There's another way to resolve that though. And that is to have a billion people and not eight or 10 or 12. And the interesting thing is if you asked a society to please have fewer children when they wanted more, you wouldn't have a prayer unless you used force. but we are going to have a dramatic sustained drop in our population by sheer luck. We are the first generation in history who are deciding to have, for perfectly good reasons, a hundred good reasons, we've decided to have fewer children.

57:23And if we keep doing this, we go out of business. It's quite simple. If you don't have 2.1 healthy, well-educated children, you're on your way out. and almost nobody does in the developed world. And even in sub-Saharan Africa, baby production is falling like a stone. It's just falling from a very high level, falling from seven babies per mother to four. They have lost more babies over the last 50 years than Europe has. It's just that they've lost them from a much higher level. All right, we're going to have to leave it there. But Jeremy Grantham, thank you so much for coming on All Thoughts. Well, thank you for allowing me at least two minutes to talk about serious stuff.

58:06Of course. Something other than P.E. ratios.

58:09Tracy Alloway:Yeah. Anytime. And you're always welcome back. Thank you so much for coming on the podcast. Thank you.

58:28Joe, I love talking about historical bubbles. Yeah, me too. And I guess I should like shout out some of our really old episodes at this point on very esoteric bubbles. Like the Florida land bubble. No, they're always fun. The catfish bubble. I did think the point about the change in the Mag 7 stocks. Yeah. This sort of watershed moment, this idea of a cage fight. Yeah. On the White House lawn and I guess a change in corporate strategy where everyone is really tackling the same area of business. Yeah, that was interesting.

58:59Tracy Alloway:No, it's super interesting. Like 10 years ago, you could draw a very clear line between what Google's business was and say Meta's business, right? You can't do that the same degree when both of them, Meta, they're not right at the edge, but they're trying to, they want to be in the game as like a model maker. They're also spending, both spending enormous amounts of money on capital expenditures and so forth. Like they really are like no longer the sort of dominance of their verticals. But I have to say, like, his conversation there at the end and he's like, well, will the robots be our butlers on the beach or will they accidentally kill us or will they purposely kill us or will humanity extinct ourselves because we're having babies?

59:40Tracy Alloway:Like, yes, it sort of does make you like, why are we wasting time talking about P.E. ratios? Like when these are like the big questions that we're like right up against. Yeah. Like, why are we talking about P.E. ratios ever? How do I prep my portfolio for robot extinction? Very important. Oh, is Kevin Warsh going to cut at his first interest rate? That will not very likely be a particularly important question or moment 10 years from now. That's probably not what's anything will hinge on that in the grand scheme of things. That's true. But again, this sort of goes back to the big tech argument.

1:00:17But if you couch everything in existential terms, then you can justify anything. Totally. Right. Which is what we're seeing right now in big tech. I realize I just naturally went from talking about the extinction of humanity back to big tech valuation. So, yeah, I apologize for that.

1:00:33Tracy Alloway:You know, it's interesting. You know, we did that episode about the history of rope recently. And, you know, in that book, he made the point on the podcast that, you know, we went for about a million years, maybe not, I don't know if it's humans, but maybe right before humans, where there was literally one invention. And that was the hand axe. and then you think about like in the last few years alone between chad gpt and glp1s and evs etc and then jeremy is making that point like history was a little bit boring you know the 1950s like oh coke opened the new factory and that was news and what that means is literally and other people have said this like time is speeding up like there are just more events per day happening i'm tired joe i'm tired i'm tired but that it's good for the news business it's not so good for our producers.

1:01:19All right. On that note, shall we leave it there? Let's leave it there. All right. This has been another episode of the All Thoughts podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy Alloway.

1:01:28Tracy Alloway:And I'm Jill Weisenthal. You can follow me at The Stalwart. You can follow our producers, our tireless producers, Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Armand Dash. She'll be at Dashbot, Kale Brooks at Kale Brooks, and Kevin Lozano at Kevin Lloyd Lozano. And for more Odd Laws content, go to Bloomberg.com slash Odd Laws. We have a daily newsletter on all of our episodes, And you can chat about all these topics 24-7 in our Discord, discord.gg slash oddlots. And if you enjoy Oddlots, if you like it when we talk about PE ratios alongside the extinction of humanity, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform.

1:02:03And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad-free. All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel for Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening.

1:02:22Thank you.

1:02:47an award-winning journalist. And I've got a new podcast, Leaders with Francine Lacroix from Bloomberg Podcasts. I've interviewed everyone from heads of state to fashion icons about the news of the moment. But I've always been curious, who are these people as leaders? I don't think there's one right way to be a leader. Make decisions. A poor decision is always better than no decision. Listen to new episodes every other Monday. Follow Leaders with Francine Lacroix wherever you get your podcasts.