← SmarterMarkets™
SmarterMarkets™
Setting Course Episode 4 | Bob Elliott, CEO & CIO, Unlimited
Loading summary
Transcript34 lines
- [00:00]
Bob Elliott
The real question is, what's the probability that we see an all out sharp recession in the US economy over the course of the next six or nine months? It's hard to see the set of dynamics that would align with that, given what we're seeing in the real economy.
- [00:16]
Dave Greely
Welcome to Smarter Markets, a weekly podcast featuring the icons and entrepreneurs of technology, commodities and finance, ranting on the inadequacies of our systems and riffing on ideas for how to solve them. Together we examine the questions. Are we facing a crisis of information or a crisis of trust? And will building smarter markets be the antidote? This episode is brought to you in part by Abax Exchange, bringing you better benchmarks, better technology and better tools for risk management.
- [00:57]
Bob Elliott
Welcome back to Setting course on Smarter Markets. I'm Dave Greely, Chief Economist at ABEX Techn. Our guest today is Bob Elliott, CEO and CIO at Unlimited. We'll be discussing the macro outlook for the economy and markets and making institutional investment strategies accessible to the individual investor. Hello Bob. Welcome to Smarter Markets.
- [01:21]
Dave, it's great to see you.
- [01:23]
Yeah, it's been quite a while since you and I worked together at Bridgewater and I've really been looking forward to being able to catch up with you here on Smarter Markets. I've been enjoying following your discussions online, your discussions of your macro views and investment strategies at your firm Unlimited, and I'm glad you're able to join us today to help orient us to the macro and investment landscape.
- [01:45]
Yeah, thanks so much for having me. One of the things that I always remember about you is coming in and teaching to all of our first year associates basically how the commodity markets worked for a number of years. And I think you know that really in many ways a whole generation at the old shop learned how commodities markets function, how cycles work, et cetera from, from your teaching. So I still remember that legacy today when I'm ever I'm thinking about what's going on in the commodity markets and.
- [02:15]
They learn the rest of the markets from you. So it was always fun to, to tag team that with you as a really enjoyable moment. And you know, as they used to say, let's go back before going forward. If I think about this year, at the start of last year, at the start of 2023, many people in the market were calling for a recession. But to their surprise, instead we saw a year of continued economic growth and a strong equity market, particularly towards the end of the year. So maybe we can start off with the question of what happened.
- [02:47]
Well, I think a lot of ways folks missed that we were in a very different cycle than what they had experienced through most of their professional lives. I mean what most of us had experienced basically bubble booms and busts and reflations. Whether it was the 20 cycle downturn in reflation, or the 2008 downturn, or 2000 downturn, all of those cycles kind of looked the same. But the reality is following Covid, what we really experienced was a shift to what looked more like a very traditional late cycle income driven economic expansion that led to inflation that was too high because of the supply shocks. But even once those were resolved, the tightness in the economy, the elevated wage growth, led to tighter inflation than expectations and led to in many ways a very typical central bank response to that. The issue is that generally these sorts of economic cycles, when you're talking about non crashes, like they're very slow moving. I like to on every day we go open up Twitter and there's always some incremental piece of news and it feels like there's something that's really important that's going to denote that the cycle is turning in one direction or another. But the reality of the macro economy is just so much more boring. And at the time I said look, the economy's slow moving, there's good reasons to believe that the economy is probably more insulated from short term interest rate moves than it had been in previous cycles. And probably we're gonna see not much, not much change in the economy. And think in the last 18 months the unemployment rate in the US has been the same for 18 months. And that really indicates both how slow moving these macro the macro economy really is when it comes to a typical cycle and also how immune really it has been or how it hasn't been particularly sensitive to the tightening that has come from the Federal Reserve. And so where do we stand today? Basically the same place from a macroeconomic perspective that we st 18 months ago with growth above potential unemployment at secular lows and inflation which has come down but is still probably a little too high for the central bank's comfort on a structural basis.
- [05:06]
And so is this a story of Milton Friedman's old line about the long and variable lags of monetary policy and there's just a lot of inertia and it takes a while. Or is there something else that's giving strength to the economy other than waiting for the tightening to kick in?
- [05:22]
Well, I think one of the things that folks, they often focus on the variable and they forget the long and the long, long lag, long and variable lags is something that folks often forget. I mean even those of us who went through the 2008 cycle, if you remember how that played out, is that housing peaked in the fall of 2005. And that's when there was the true peak of the cycle. And it wasn't until a financial crisis in 2008 that we saw a really significant deterioration in economic conditions. That's three years and that is a lifetime for trader. And that was in a cycle that was the most over leveraged cycle in 100 years. And so if you think about it today, the economy's had a lot of healing that has occurred from the GFC household balance sheets, corporate balance sheets have healed significantly, have reduced the amount of debt that they're holding relative to their income, have termed it out, and have reduce the costs of those debts. And so what was even in a highly debt fueled cycle, a very long lag, a very slow moving cycle. Today we've got an even slower moving cycle. And so that's why I think you're spot on. It's the long lags that are typical and today they're even longer than they have been through most of our career.
- [06:51]
And you're taking me back. Remember the 2006 was when the Bear Stearns funds first collapsed and that was two years or so before the rest of the economy. So I think everybody kind of breathed a sigh of relief that was premature at that time. I wanted to ask you though, thinking from the financial crisis on, people know that they need to watch the Fed. Is the Fed raising or lowering short term interest rates? But to understand the true financial conditions that are affecting the economy and the markets, whether there's a tightening or easing in those conditions requires so much more. It's more complex today. Following the financial crisis, it became about quantitative easing. When the Fed couldn't lower short term interest rates any farther, it had hit its lower bound with the pandemic. There's so much more happening with fiscal policy and fiscal stimulus and even regulatory policy. I'm curious, how do you think about and assess the impact of each of these when you're shaping your macro outlook and investment strategies? How do you get your around how all of these different policy responses are impacting the economy?
- [07:58]
Yeah, I think most people will think about those individual pieces in a way that's relatively discreet and almost in a way that's like a diffusion index. Is this positive, is this negative, is it supportive, is it contractionary? And I think the key thing you have to do from a macroeconomic perspective is not just understand the nature of the linkages of fiscal policy or quantitative tightening or the rise in interest rates, but you have to translate that into a concrete and numerical understanding of the magnitude of the influence of those activities. And I think that's the thing that's a very, you know, it's both a very hard thing to do because you have to work through all of those linkages and the quantification of them. And it's also the area that I think a lot of folks will miss. And so whether it's the data that you're looking at at, or the linkages of monetary, fiscal and say, regulatory policy, that's what you have to do. And so too often folks look for confirmatory evidence in, say, data that is aligned with their views without going through that process. I think like a funny one that came up recently is the Empire Fed Manufacturing index went down a lot earlier this week, the week that we're recording. And how many charts did we see on Twitter about that? And that survey, first of all is a pretty bad survey in terms of quality, but also it only represents 0.6% of the economic activity of the economy. Yet when you get a positive confirmatory dynamic like initial claims being at two year lows, people don't necessarily want to reject that evidence when that is a high quality, comprehensive coverage of the overall economy. And so that's where you have to get into the nuts and bolts and really quantify these things and not rely sort of on the narrative senses of what's likely to be what one data point or set of policies is pointing to versus another?
- [09:59]
Yeah, 0.6 doesn't sound much. Not too far off from Taylor Swift's effect. And I'm curious, the confirmation bias is so pernicious. Are there any favorite measures or data points that you follow to try to honestly assess how conditions are unfolding that other people could look at in their own way and time?
- [10:19]
I think the key thing is to be comprehensive in terms of what you're looking at. I think a lot of folks learned during the post GFC period that the goal in terms of understanding the data was to find the one thing that was indicating a turn because the economy was very much rising and falling with the flows of liquidity. And so if you could find the thing that denoted a turn, you could get ahead of the rest of the market. But that's not normally how you want to think about it. The macro economy is a highly complex organism you can think about which has a significant number of cross cutting factors at any point time, not to mention the fact that the data that's measuring any particular one of those dynamics also has a whole range of different quality and information value that's out there as well. And so the key for most macro economists is to think comprehensively, as comprehensively as possible about the information that you're seeing. So don't just look at, say, the employment report, don't just look at payrolls, don't just look at the household survey, but also look at the 10 or 15 other data points that are available around, around the same time that all point to what is going on in the employment situation. And that way you're going to get a holistic understanding that's not overly reliant on one particular point. There's different ways to quickly and efficiently get access to that. So like, you know, the Atlanta Fed GDP now survey, just as a simple example, is something that at least tries to comprehensively measure what's going on in the economy. There's a, there's a good reason why it, it sort of gets, gets top billing when people are trying to think about what's likely to happen, but really it's about just there and looking at the overall picture with all the different data points and not trying to be overly wed to one particular outcome or another when you're putting it all together.
- [12:10]
Yeah. And when you think about what are the policymakers looking at when they're making these decisions, whether it's the Federal Reserve with monetary policy, fiscal policy coming out of the White House and the Congress, what economic or market decisions do you see as driving the decision making among US Policymakers? Is it straightforward inflation and unemployment? Is it the stock market or something more complex? Or is it not even really about the data, it's about some other incentive that they're trying to pursue?
- [12:41]
Well, I think each different area of the government has different motivations and a different mandate. And so you have to think carefully about what their mandate is, and then what are they going to do and look at and engage with to fulfill that mandate. And so the Fed obviously gets top billing in terms of what people are focused on. And I think the Fed has really shown over time to really take a comprehensive approach to thinking about what's going on in the economy. And so there's a reason why, as a simple example, if you were to read the minutes, what you would see, what you see is you see that they're looking at a wide variety of information. They're not not looking at one particular data point or maybe one particular thing that gets mentioned in the press conference as they're discussing the economy, they're discussing it holistically. There's a reason why they have the Beige book, which is a holistic or an attempt at least at a holistic understanding of what's going on. And so from their perspective, I think really what they want and the same I think is true for inflation, where of course they've got a mandate and they've got a specific sort of best version of that mandate with core PCE that they're targeting. But they're definitely not only targeting the literal number that is printed in core pce. If for whatever reason that's wonky or not sufficiently comprehensive or there's a divergence in the actual prices that people are seeing, they're going to think comprehensively about it. And so that's why in many ways the advantage in trading markets of looking comprehensively I think is good because it aligns with how particularly the Federal Reserve looks at things.
- [14:18]
We've been spending a lot of time rightly talking about the situation in the U.S. i'm curious, what are you watching in other parts, parts of the world in particular? I think a lot of people have been confused about what's happening in China. What's your read there?
- [14:31]
I think China's experienced an interesting transition. If you go back sort of 10 or 15 years. The people who were driving the primary economic policy making decisions in primarily the PBOC were highly orthodox Western trained economists and very smart and integrated into the world economy and also into sort of Western thinking about how economies should be run. You could agree or disagree with the policies that they implemented. But as an example, like what they implemented post 2008 sure looked a lot like what the US and other Western countries implemented following Covid. Right. In terms of a highly coordinated fiscal and monetary stimulation coming out of a crisis. I think the big transition that's occurred in China is that that from a policymaking standpoint, those technocrats who were driving policy and were managing the economy to what you'd say is a not perfectly Western idea, but certainly a much more, much closer to a Western idea, have largely been sidelined. You know, the political dynamics that are going on in China, way above my pay grade, I'm just observing what's going on and what's, what's occurred and what's, what's happened really over the last couple of years and I should say really accelerated in the last year, is that politicians, not economists, politicians are at the head of the pboc and the other economic policy making engines, they're deciding what should happen. And so while China is perfectly capable of stimulating their economy and getting out of this malaise that they're in because they have the tools and policies available to do it, and they've done it in the past, particularly because the debts are primarily denominated in their own currency and they can deal with the banking problems that they face. The issue is that the political figures, the Xi administration clearly doesn't want that to happen and so is fine with this economic malaise. Now, the reasons for that, I think there's good reasons to speculate, but the idea that if they want, they can have not really great growth, but also not weak enough growth for it to be a problem, I think that's basically a policy choice that they've made and what they're accomplishing.
- [16:46]
And so if you take a step back and look at the whole picture and all these different forces we've been talking about, when you put it all together, how do you see macro conditions evolving as we move into 2024?
- [16:59]
In a lot of ways, I think we're on a path, at least in the US economy, from the US Economy that looks what I'm calling stronger for longer. I think a lot of folks, again we talked at the outset 18 months ago, thought the economy was going into immediate recession and were surprised to the upside as the resilience occurred. In many ways, I think early 24 is setting up in many of the same ways that early 23 set up where there was significant economic economist expectations of weakening economic conditions as well as market pricing of much weaker economic conditions. Entering the year, we had something like a 1/3 probability that we'd see interest rates below 3% by the end of the year priced into the short term interest rate markets. That's not modest interest rate cuts in response to flagging inflation. That's a sharp recession akin to 2008. That's what was priced in a 35% chance of a 2008 style dynamic going on in the US economy. And there's nothing in the way of data. If you focus on the data and you look at the linkages that aligns with that type of sharp recession in the economy. Growth is above potential unemployment rates at secular lows. If anything, the strength of stocks as well as the fall in bond yields at the end of 23 is creating a short term acceleration in the economy, which we're seeing in the timeliest stats that are coming out. None of that aligns with an immediate recession. And so what we've seen over the course of the last couple of days is that pricing is starting to come out of the market. We're starting to see those bond sell offs, we're starting to see the two year market move back up from the lows that we saw. And I think all of that around this recognition that maybe the US Economy isn't going into the recession nearly as quickly as folks expect.
- [18:59]
And you brought up the bond market. But I wanted to ask you from an investor standpoint, where do you see the big opportunities and the risks in the coming year?
- [19:07]
Well, we're still pricing in 140 basis points of easing into the short term interest rate market at a time when growth is above potential, unemployment's at secular lows, and inflation's a little too hot for the central bank's mandate. If you just plopped me into a random time in the world and said, hey, what do you think if you saw this set of economic conditions that are unfolding, plus the amount of financial market stimulation that we've seen in the recent period, what do you think the central bank stance would be? And my answer would be, well, maybe nothing. Doing nothing would be a totally reasonable stance for the central bank given the set of conditions. I mean, just think about it. If you're in the Fed's shoes and you're getting growth that's pretty good, and you're getting labor markets that are aligned with what you want, and even if inflation has come down and is close to your mandate, why would you do anything? Right? You're accomplishing all of your goals without having to do anything differently. And it's sort of the natural state. Unless there's a big economic, a big growth crash, it's the natural state for central banks to be very slow moving. And so why wouldn't the Fed here be slow moving the way that it has been in the past? And so that I think is the biggest disconnect between what's going on in the real economy and what's going on in markets. And then in particular, as I mentioned, I think the tail event, the pricing of the tail event in the short rate market seems particularly extreme in the context of this. Could the Fed cut three times? Sure, they could cut three times. To be clear, they said they'd cut three times if unemployment rate was at 4.1% and we're at 3.7 and that might be falling, not rising. So it's not clear they'll cut three times necessarily. But look, they could cut a few times. The real question is what's the probability that we see an all out sharp recession in the US economy over the course of the next six or nine months. It's hard to see the set of dynamics that would align with that given what we're seeing in the real economy.
- [21:14]
And where do you see the big risk? So clearly you think the recession risk is overpriced in the market right now. Is there anything else that is kind of sitting in the back of your mind as okay, this might be the worrisome thing?
- [21:27]
I think the biggest risk is that inflation doesn't move back down durably to central bank's 2% targets and put out something a little earlier this week. If you just scan through the data and you look at those data points related to say UK inflation. UK inflation stabilizing, core inflation stabilizing at a level that's around 5%. The bank of England's mandate is 2, it is not 5. And so 5 is very far from 2. And if it stabilizes at 5, that's going to be a real problem. And there's some real risks related to that given that wage growth is growing at between 6 and 7% depending on how you, how you measure it. And the UK has real productivity stagnation. The same thing in Europe, although Europe's a little bit better. But we did see a pop in inflation in the most recent print. Canada, you're seeing inflation looks like it's stabilizing in that sort of 3 to 4 range. Australia, the timeliest inflation numbers popped and looks like it's stabilizing in the 5% range. That whole US CPI looks like it's stabilizing between 3 and 4%. Like you sort of add all those up and you sort of look at it and you go, what's the world going to be like if in six months we've sort of stabilized here in inflation? And then additionally, what does that world look like if a number of these disinflationary pressures that have been important in bringing and resolving inflation from being very high to where it is today? What if those disinflationary pressures flip inflationary? You know, in the US we've benefited like, like gas prices have gone from five to four to three bucks a gallon. That's a big disinflationary impulse in the economy. What happens if gas prices start to rise again? Goods prices globally have gone from rising in price to meaningfully contracting in price. What happens if that starts to moderate, go to zero or go to positive as a result of some of these geopolitical tensions that are going on. All of that is a very worrisome circumstance, particularly in the context of, of a set of global bond markets that are really pricing in expectations of a rapid shift to cuts over the course of 24.
- [23:40]
And in that scenario where inflation stabilizes but stays well above central bank mandates, well above the 2%, where it's an explicit mandate, well above 2%, where it's more implicit, what do you think central banks do? Do they just say, well, we got to keep tightening up financial conditions, we got to raise rates?
- [23:59]
Well, I think the central banks are actually in a pretty good position here in a way to respond to if that circumstance arises, which is the central banks can get a meaningful tightening of conditions simply by doing nothing. So that's a pretty good position to be in. Right, because they can basically say instead of cutting in line with what's priced into the markets, they can just not ease. Consistent with that. They can just hold current policy. Let's say instead of higher for longer, it's high for longer, that policy is going to be a lot more defensible. It's reasonably defensible. Look, we're just taking in more data. We're seeing what's going on, et cetera, and would probably allow them to maintain economic conditions to continue to see that growth while implementing slightly tighter monetary policy, which hopefully could moderate things enough to start to ease some of the pressures off on inflation. But the real sticky point, the real sticky point is what happens if two steps down the line, which is these economies are fine, inflation settles in at a rate that's a little too high. Central banks basically stand back from the easing cycle that's expected. You get a tightening of financial conditions and it's just not enough tightening of financial conditions to then create inflation moving even further down. That's a sticky point. But between then and where we are today, there's a relatively straightforward policy of doing nothing that could go a long way.
- [25:29]
And I wanted to ask you as well about the equity market at a very strong finish to the year. And of course, people's attention are on the tech stocks. And I'm curious about, when you look at the equity market, how do you think about tech stocks relative to the rest of the equity market? We had the Fang Stocks and now the Magnificent Seven. Do you see these as driven in part by different forces than the rest of the market? And should an investor view them differently than they think about the rest of the stock market?
- [26:00]
Yeah, As a macro guy, I don't have a particularly strong intuition about Any individual name stock or even group of stocks, even if they have a nice name like the Magnificent Seven. I think when you look at the history of these sorts of high flying equities, I think there's a pretty compelling case to be made that stocks that have the type of valuation pricing that they've experienced often don't meet the expectations in terms of earnings growth that align with realizing that pricing. And so therefore that's the basic question is can they realize the type of earnings growth that is being priced in? And to be clear, not just earnings growth for one year or two years, we're talking about earnings growth compounded earnings growth for a decade to align with the type of extreme valuations that you're seeing. And if you look through time, it hasn't really happened before. So the odds are certainly against these stocks with extremely high PEs delivering significantly positive returns over the long term. Over the short term, basically anything can happen. And I think that's one of the challenges is that the short term sentiment and flows can easily extend rallies in these assets well beyond what would necessarily be the circumstance over longer term period. I think the real question when I look at the stock market is thinking about the stock market from a macro perspective. I think what we've seen over the course of the last three, four months is we've seen stocks have risen, but so have long end bonds in terms of their return. And if anything, actually long end bonds have rallied more than stocks have rallied over the course of this move over the weeks or so. And that's pretty interesting because essentially what that means with bonds rallying more than stocks, it implies lower growth rates ahead, not higher growth rates ahead at a time when we basically had the biggest easing of financial conditions since 2009, March 2009 or 2003. And that is the thing that doesn't quite make sense to me is that why are stocks trailing bonds when we've had such significant stimulation? And my guess is. Well, my guess and my sense is it's a combination of some short term rebalancing flows away from stocks to bonds at the end of the year, which sort of push those valuations to extremes. And also now we're seeing a recognition that maybe this economy isn't as weak as people expect and that's starting to flip in the opposite direction. And so really, stocks relative to bonds seems much more interesting to me as a positioning than stocks on a particular outright basis.
- [28:55]
Right. And I wanted to ask you, you have your new firm, not really new at this point, Unlimited and You're working to make institutional investment strategies, particularly in alternatives, available to the retail or the individual investor. And I wanted to ask you, why is that important to you?
- [29:14]
I think most investors are basically stuck with some version of the 6040 portfolio portfolio. And if you look at the biggest, most sophisticated institutions in the world, they put about half of their capital into sophisticated alternative investment strategies. And there's a reason why they're able to succeed in terms of delivering a higher return with lower risk than the everyday retail investor. And while there's been a lot of work to try and sort of democratize alts, the vast majority of that work has been to create ways for particularly rich investors to access these sorts of funds or private equity, venture capital, hedge funds, but to do it in a way that's basically at rack rate fees, in tax inefficient structures, and in a way that's super concentrated. And so what we're trying to do at unlimited is to say more fees are not the solution. The idea of democratization is more access and lower fees. And we think with our combination of decades of experience in the 2 and 20 business, plus our ability to use modern machine learning, what we're able to do is essentially replicate what those managers are doing in close to real time, take that understanding, translate it into liquid market positions, and package that in ways that are accessible to all investors at a low cost, say with ETFs or other structures in a way that basically does the two parts, which is creates more accessibility to these strategies and at the same time lowers cost, lowers all in costs, both fees and taxes, when investors do allocate to them.
- [31:03]
Right? And anyone who's worked at a large professional asset manager like Bridgewater understands the massive amounts of resources they can bring to their investment decisions. Professional asset managers have the people, the teams, the experience, the technology, the data. And because of that, I think an individual, a retail investor, needs to approach their own investment decisions differently. They need to think about their investment process differently. And I wanted to ask you, in your opinion, what should the individual investor do? Is it as simple as well, stay passive, stay in industry, stay diversified, or is there a way for them to be able to do more than that, like as you said, trying to democratize access at lower fees. So I guess the question is, in your opinion, what should the individual investor do and what would you like them to have the tools to be able to do?
- [32:00]
The story for the everyday investor in many ways hasn't changed, which is diversified, low cost indexing, that is the solution for the Everyday investor. But the problem that most investors and most advisors are struggling with in terms of implementing that is they've come a long way, I think in general they've come a long, long way in getting the low cost, particularly with stocks and bonds not paying those high fee mutual funds anymore and buying index ETFs. But they haven't extended that to build a holistic portfolio. And so the 6040 portfolio, which is 90% driven by equity returns from a volatility perspective, is still far too concentrated in equity risk for the everyday investor. So looking at opportunities that can help diversify that portfolio by adding higher volatility or longer duration bonds, adding, you know, to increase the amount of portfolio risk allocation that's going to bond markets relative to stock markets, looking at diversified commodities or gold as additional diversification tools, and then I think the real question is once you build that sort of core, well diversified low cost beta portfolio, are there opportunities to bring in diversified low cost alpha in order to improve the risk return profile of your clients portfolios or your own portfolio? And that's where I think we've really come a long way just in the last couple of years in terms of getting access to those sorts of strategies. We talked a little bit about what we're doing, which is essentially an index, low cost indexing of hedge fund style strategies, a diverse set of hedge fund style strategies. But there's lots of other opportunities that are out there that can generate alpha. Say there's a range of different managed futures products that are available at low cost. There are a number of different alpha strategies that are actively managed strategies that are offered at below 100 basis points that when you do the portfolio construction math, they could be very good. They could offer really nice benefits to a typical beta portfolio. And so it's really about 6040 and all the lessons we've learned in optimizing the 6040 portfolio. Let's expand those lessons to diversify your beta portfolio and let's find those low cost sources of alpha so that the everyday investor can have the type of high quality risk return profile that institutional managers have had for decades. Bringing those to the everyday investors investor.
- [34:49]
Thanks again to Bob Elliott, CEO and CIO at Unlimited. We hope you enjoyed the episode. We'll be back next week with our next episode of Setting Course. We hope you'll join us.
- [35:01]
Dave Greely
This episode was brought to you in part by Abax Exchange. Market participants need the confidence and ability to secure funding for resource development, production, processing, refining and transportation of commodities across the globe with markets for LNG battery, metals, and emissions offsets. At the core of the transition to sustainability, ABAC's exchange is building solutions to manage risk in these rapidly changing global markets, facilitating futures and options contracts designed to offer market participants clear price signals and hedging capabilities in those markets essential to our sustainable energy transition. ABAX Exchange bringing you better benchmarks, better technology, and better tools for risk management that concludes this week's episode of Smarter Markets by abax. For episode transcripts and additional episode information, including research, editorial and video content, Please visit Smart SmarterMarkets Media. Please help more people discover the podcast by leaving a review on Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube, or your favorite podcast platform. Smarter Markets is presented for informational and entertainment purposes only. The information presented on Smarter Markets should not be construed as investment advice. Always consult a licensed investment professional before making investment decisions. The views and opinions expressed on Smarter Market Markets are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect those of the show's hosts or producer. Smarter Markets, its hosts, guests, employees and producer, Abex Technologies, shall not be held liable for losses resulting from investment decisions based on informational viewpoints presented on Smarter Markets. Thank you for listening and please join us again next week.