Animal Spirits Podcast - Talk Your Book: Investing in Science Fiction

Episode Date: October 3, 2022

On today's show, we are joined by Kevin Kelly, CEO and Founder of Kelly Intelligence to discuss what CRISPR technology is, use cases, and investing in the future of Healthcare 2.0.   Find complete shownotes on our blogs...  Ben Carlson’s A Wealth of Common Sense  Michael Batnick’s The Irrelevant Investor  Like us on Facebook  And feel free to shoot us an email at [e-mail] with any feedback, questions, recommendations, or ideas for future topics of conversation.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's show is brought to you by Kelly Intelligence. For more information, visit Kellyintel.com. Welcome to Animal Spirits, a show about markets, life, and investing. Join Michael Batnik and Ben Carlson as they talk about what they're reading, writing, and watching. Michael Battenick and Ben Carlson work for Ritt Holt's Wealth Management. All opinions expressed by Michael and Ben or any podcast guests are solely their own opinions and do not reflect the opinion of Rit Holt's Wealth Management. podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon for investment decisions.

Clients of Ritthold's wealth management may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this podcast. Welcome to Animal Spurts with Michael and Ben on today's show. Ben tried to preemptively put me out of business. I've been laying the groundwork for a bald consultation business. I am the man. If you have any questions on whether or not you should shave your head, you probably should, but you come to me. On today's show, we spoke with Kevin Kelly about gene editing and Ben asked the low hanging fruit type of a question or is there you're going to cure baldness? Not him, but will this technology cure baldness? What do you say? He's pretty confident. Okay, let's say before our days are up, there is a shot or a pill you could take that

will just completely think all your hair come back. Do you take it or you just say, no, I don't eat it. I don't want it. Or do you take it like a day one? Okay, right now I tell you I'm out. I have no desire for hair. I'm good. But we'll see what happens. I mean, I don't know. You would have to try. So you've never actually seen the movie Gattaca before. Hang on. Hang on. Here's what I would do. I think maybe I would try the pill, but I want the option to go back. In other words, if this is a permanent cure for baldness, I'm out. Okay. What, you could just keep shaving. Even if it came back. Okay. That's sacrilegious. As a bald, when you see full-headed men shave their heads, it's like, oh, it's like, I feel like a slap in the face. Okay. I call BS. If there's a pill, you're signing up, you're going to get hair, and you're going to love it. So you'd do it immediately.

You might be right. I'm just saying that as it stands today, I'm out. Yeah, it's easy to say because it's not here. So you've never seen the movie Gattaca, Ethan Hawk, Uma Thurman, and Jude Law. It's from like 1997, I want to say, 96. Older movie, really good. I think you should, well, I think you would actually like it. It's a very good movie about gene edit. It's obviously a little bit ahead of its time, but it's about a future where the people

can't even, like, see the differences in each other. Everything is just done by genes. And it's very interesting. So I used to work, my old endowment from what I worked for was for a medical research institute. And they talked a lot about this. Just like, it's like flipping an on-off switch in your genes because that gene editing is now, I know nothing when it comes to this.

So I would listen to a few presentations here and there, but this stuff is both exciting and kind of terrifying. Yes? Terrifying how? I guess terrifying in Kevin talks about this. We're talking to Kevin Kelly today from Kelly ETFs. He talks about how there's now some rules in place about in terms of, I want a baby boy who's going to be 5'10 and blonde hair and green eyes and all these attributes and take away these

attributes, that stuff is kind of scary to me. Oh, hmm, it's a bit odd, isn't it? But, yeah, who knows? To potentially live in a world where there's no more baldness. You'll be a one of a kind. You're right. I'm getting scared. So anyway, we got into it with Kevin Kelly, who has great energy. I think you're going to enjoy this conversation. So here it is. We're joined today by Kevin Kelly, Kevin is the founder and CEO of Kelly Intelligence. Kevin, thank you for coming on today. Thanks so much for having me. All right. Before we get into the products that we're going to talk about, why don't you give the audience just as a general sense of who you are, who Kelly is, why you started the company,

what you do, et cetera. I got started in the ETF space in 2013. And so one of the first ETFs I launched was an options based one that's over $6 billion right now. It's called QILD. Oh, no kidding. Yeah. So I launched QYLD. So that was my first product. We get emails about that thing all the time. Tons of questions about that one, yes. Oh, that's funny. You were ahead of your time. I was way ahead of my time. And one of the interesting things about QILD is it was tracking an index that was sort of broken. So we went in, we fixed the index. We made it a better product by changing out the way the option is calculated and traded. And that's one of the reasons why QILD is such a success today. Okay. So from there,

what else? How'd you get here? So from there, I sold the company to a firm that's now part of Global X. And then from there, I launched two other ETFs as the sponsor and index provider, Server and INDS. So those are really real estate plays, Data Center, cell phone towers, fiber optic cables and server. And then INDDS is the e-commerce and logistics warehouses. Launched those products. They're doing very well. One and a half billion plus. Through that really went out, try to revolutionize the way you invest in real estate, great way to get it through public equities. And then from there, I started my own actual RIA as well as trust to launch products where I think investors needed access to. So you guys lean into the thematic side of ETFs.

You've got three now. You've got a CRISPR and Gene editing one, which we're going to talk about today, you've got a hotel and lodging, and you've got residential and apartment real estate. What was it about the thematic side that attracted you? What really attracted me is that there weren't a whole lot of great options to get pure play, direct access, and concentrated exposure. So if you look at the field today, you can go out and buy an ETF, but it's going to have a hodge, pod of stuff, even though you're trying to directly access a pure theme or sector or segment. What we're providing is typically between 20 and 30 names of pure play exposure,

so you're not getting diluted returns from other segments of the economy or theme that could really dilute it. So that's what we really wanted to offer is pure cutting edge exposure to segments people want. So these are all relatively concentrated strategies then in terms of the holding size. Yeah, very concentrated. That's why you're not getting diluted out. So if you look at, Let's take, for example, a residential one, the most popular ETF that's out there. It holds health care reits. It owns self-storage reits. It's really diluted.

It's like residential and multi-sector. And so it really doesn't make sense because you're not getting the exposure you really want. So we came out with the ETF that gives you that pure play exposure. Interesting. So I've seen the movie Gattaca before. That's about the extent of my knowledge on gene editing stuff. First of all, tell me what CRISPR technology is. Now we can get into the strategy a little bit more.

CRISPR technology is basically a pair of biological scissors that goes in and edits DNA, alters DNA, transforms DNA. And so what CRISPR is, is it's health care 2.0. It's the next evolution of humanity and society. As we know, you alluded to Gattaca. And the reason I say that is because if you look at what health care 1.0 was, we were trying to treat diseases. CRISPR and gene editing technology cures diseases. So under healthcare 1.0, you take therapeutics, drugs, you do all these other different things and therapies, including RNAI therapies, gene therapies. You're trying to beat down a disease. That's completely different than what gene editing does. It's healthcare 2.0. It cures the disease. You can take it one time and you're done,

one and done. So what it's going to do is there's a lot of drugs out there today where people have to take them an oral daily or they've got to get shots twice weekly. Well, they won't ever have to do that anymore. The gene editing technology is a one-time treatment and they're done. So that's really what CRISPR is doing. It's revolutionizing health care as we know it. Are we talking essentially going into and just turning things on and off? Basically, is that kind of how it works? You pull a few levers here and then it more or less fixes the problem is. That's essentially it. What you have to think about is you're getting a treatment. Well, now you're getting a treatment in your body. CRISPR in its early stages, they'd actually take the cells out of your body and then they'd

take it to a lab. They'd apply the CRISPR and gene editing technology and then reapply it within your body. Now we've had such evolution in the last 10 years is that they can apply it to you directly and you get an injection. And what happens is, is you have what's called a guide RNA or a messenger RNA that actually delivers the technology to the broken down cells, the broken part of the DNA. It releases the CRISPR technology. It goes in, it cuts out the bad DNA and puts in good DNA and then you're fixed. And so that's what it does. This sounds like science fiction. Was this stuff available 10 years ago? Like, when did this Hit the scene.

The advent of the new CRISPR revolution was 10 years ago, actually, this past June. And that's when you actually had a new paper come out by Jennifer Dowdna, where she talks about the CRISPR and then the Cas9 protein. So the Cas9 protein is what goes in and actually does the editing of the bad DNA. And so over the past 10 years, what we've seen is we've gone from theory and concept and paper. to actual application, pre-clinical trials and clinical trials today. So the last 10 years, really setting up the next 10 years. And I always like to put this as analogous to the 2007 iPhone moment, which was the advent of the Internet of Things. Because what happened was, is previous 10 years before the iPhone, you actually had Blackberry Curves. You had the N95 by Nokia.

Nokia had about 49% market share of smartphones. But what Apple did is actually changed the way humans actually interacted with the internet and the internet of things. Because before we would shop online on our desktops, we would do everything on our desktop. We didn't really do any computing mobily. And so that's what changed it. And that's what's happening today. So over the past 10 years, it's really led to the next 10 years of results from preclinical and clinical trials. What's the number one thing that this technology has made better to date? So to date, there's been two substantial things that have happened. One is the actual success in trials of ex vivo CRISPR and gene editing. And that's where you edit the cells and genes outside of the

body. And that's really helps people with very, very rare diseases, such diseases that impact their eyesight, where they can't even see colors or shapes. And then we've applied CRISPR technology in the lab and put it to them, and now all of a sudden they're out on the dance floor, they can see colors, shapes, they can eat better. It's just changed their quality of life dramatically. They still have ocular problems, but it's changed the way they live. Same with sickle cell. With sickle cell, we can do it outside of the body.

People are living normally now. One of the first sickle cell trials of CRISPR, one of the women isn't even in the trial anymore. She's like, cured. Before it would have been debilitating for her to even board a place. plane and think about how COVID happened, she could have been easily killed. Now, her body's fixed. She's living normally. She's going to her kid's soccer games. She is interacting with other mothers. So that's one thing that happened is the ex vivo. What really changed and kicked off the next leg and CRISPR revolution was last June in 2021. We had the first successful in vivo application of

CRISPR technology where they could just directly inject it and then it works. And what happened was is a year later, we've actually got two very big things that came out of that first application. One is that the data is still good. The people that got their treatments are still successful and it got knocked out of their system. The second data that came out was that the higher the dosage, the better the results. So this has changed everything as we know of because XViva was really hard to do and complicated and there's tons of complications that can happen by directly applying CRISPR in person, that changes everything because then the technology just goes to the bad genes, changes them, replaces them, fixes them, and you're good to go. So that's really what's happened

and changed. And that is for a fatal genetic disease that people get swelling. And if it's not treated, they die. And right now, people have to take orals from Pfizer or they've got to get injections from other types of drugs. And if they can do it one and done, they're good to go. What Michael really wanted to ask is, is he going to be able to get a shot someday and he grows all his hair back? Yes. Yes, exactly. So you've got to short the hair club for men because eventually that stock's going to go to zero. But I think you're bringing up an even better point is because the biggest concern with CRISPR and gene editing is that we can make designer babies. And so we can actually choose now. I can go into a lab and say, hey, I want a kid that's, I'm a short guy. So

I'm under six foot. So I want a kid that's over six foot. I want him to have this IQ. I want wanting to be muscular. And so that's the biggest concern within the CRISPR space. But what you've seen is you've actually seen the entire community, the scientific community come around with rules and governments as well about how you can use the CRISPR technology and the licensing of it and the applications for it. How did you personally get into this stuff? Because it seems like this is the kind of thing where Michael said it sounds like science fiction. How do you educate yourself on this space? One of the best ways you educate yourself on this is actually just follow the headlines. People kind of get worried with page one and all the news that happens there. But

if you look at page two through 16, you're seeing CRISPR in it every single day. You're seeing high school students sending CRISPR kits to the International Space Station for astronauts to take samples in space and apply some CRISPR in space and then send it back down. So it's actually everywhere all around us. And so when I look at the CRISPR space and how I really got into it is that Walter Isaacson wrote a book called Codebreaker. It was one of the best-selling books and still is to this day out in 2018. It was his follow-up to Steve Jobs biography that he wrote, that Ashton Coucher then was in the movie and what have you. So it's called Codebreaker, and it's about Jennifer Downa, who did win in 2020 the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for CRISPR. And it's all about

how we're in the next industrial revolution, according to Isaacson. Before, the last one was about the bit and the digital revolution. Now this is about the human and genetic revolution. And so that's how I really got into this is when he wrote that book and it was just so fascinating about all the things that we could do. We can now cure disease. This is healthcare 2.0. And then in June of last year, when Intelia and Regeneron came out with the first successful application of CRISPR in person, that just changed everything. And so now you can go on NPR right now and go to NPR's website and type in CRISPR and they have an entire series or following people in trials. It's in every journal you can ever read. It's in the newspaper. So CRISPR's everywhere. It's just we haven't

seen it commercialized just yet. And so that's why people really haven't. Once people hear about it, then they see it everywhere. Like if you see a green truck, that's all you're going to see is green trucks. So now people are going to be more conscientious of it as they start to hear it as it starts to get more commercialized. Maybe a cynical question here. But what is the incentive for these companies to offer like a one-and-done type solution where you pay for the medicine, technology, whatever it's called, and then they're done with it? That is one of the most bloody, brilliant ways to think about CRISPR and gene editing. Because if it's one and done, then you're going to cure it and it's gone and how are you going to make money? Well, these are

technology platform companies. So they're not looking at just one and done. They can apply this technology to a broad swath of genetic diseases, not only rare, but they can also apply it now to common diseases. So because it's a platform, a technology platform company, what you're starting to see is within the space, traditional big pharma, old guard healthcare companies are now partnering with these technology platform companies because they want access to the technology. For example, in January, Pfizer did a strategic partnership with Beam, which is one of our constituents, for three genetic diseases. So what Pfizer did is they went to Beam and said, hey, listen, you've got the technology, you've got the application, you've got the wherewithal. Please go and look at our list of therapeutics that we have and pick three of them.

And here's a $1.4 billion deal for you to go find out how you can apply. those therapeutics via the CRISPR technology platform and we will do this deal together and we will join venture on the drugs and we will go from there. So your question gets at the root of what this is. Is this biotechnology? Is it technology? What is this? And this is just technology platform for healthcare. And I think another way to look at the platform aspect of it is this is companies applying their craft in rare diseases and then venturing into common ones that they can constantly apply. So your question was like, okay, one and done, great. But what about common diseases? Let's take cholesterol, for example, LDL cholesterol.

I got a rash, man. Sorry. Yeah, yeah. You could do that. Like, eczema would be a great one. What just happened over the summer that changed the entire CRISPR game too. And this is exponential growth in this space too. We're at the S curve of growth because we've gone from rare diseases to common ones. So here's what happened. Verve came out over the summer and they said, guess what? World, we are actually applying our gene editing technology to lower cholesterol to cure heart disease. I mean, that is a mass affliction. That's not just a rare one where you get only a couple people in a trial and see if it works. So we've now gone from rare diseases to common ones. And so that's going to be a reoccurring revenue stream because people are always going to have

high cholesterol. So it's pretty interesting that we can now go from rare to common and that will be just reoccurring revenue over and over and over again. So that the first application was to a patient in New Zealand. It's now gone to the UK. We're hoping that Verve is going to bring it here soon. If you get to the point where you have this idea, you have this theme that you want to invest in, how do you determine when there's enough opportunity and when there's enough companies? You said you have concentrated portfolios, but how do you know that there are enough good ideas to fill this portfolio up with companies that can actually deliver on this idea? That was the hardest part in the beginning, because I was following this space,

and there were only really a select few companies that were out there because it is still nascent. When you look at an S-curve of growth, you're talking about a 40-year kind of build-out and ramp up of the entire space. So what we've seen is IPOs consistently happen every single year of more and more companies. So we've gotten to the point where there are new companies coming public all the time that can go in there. And at the same time, we've had companies previously now grow to big size. And you're starting to see more and more of those early preclinical companies start to go into clinical trials. and they start to go public, raise money. So it's reassuring that the space is actually growing by leaps and bounds in the amount of companies,

what they're trying to focus, because gene editing isn't just CRISPR. It's also talents. It's ZFNs. It's base editing. It's prime editing. There's so many different ways to edit our genes and so many different types of proteins. There's CRISPR CAS 9, CRISPR Klover, CRISPR Kast 14. So the space has grown.

We'll see another company that just filed to go public. Confidentially, they did their S-1 and they did all their placeholders. Hey, what do you mean? Confidentially? It's a public podcast. Well, yeah, you can go out there and look at the S-1 and you can look at a lot of this stuff. But everything's public. I don't know anything that the public wouldn't know. But they file a lot of their stuff and have the placeholders, but they'll go public.

But here's the best part about what we're trying to provide. 70% of our portfolio is the CRISPR and gene editing technology companies. 15% is the development solution companies. And then another 15% is the genetic sequencing companies. So we're giving you 70% pure play to the technology companies. We're giving you the entire ecosystem. So what's nice about the ecosystem is if you look at a company in the development solutions subsector, you've got Regeneron, which is the premier partner with Intellia on a lot of those

in vivo applications I was talking about. You've also got vertex in there. And so these are companies that help the technology companies go through clinical trials and help them with the wherewithal to get through phase one, phase two, phase three. But more importantly, they also give them the capital to do it. So I alluded to Pfizer before. We don't own Pfizer, but it helps get them cash on their balance sheet. So if you look at a lot of of these companies that I'm talking about, the technology companies, their enterprise value is actually less than their market cap because they have so much cash on their balance sheets because their development partners want them to get through every clinical phase. So they're carrying like $1.2 billion in cash

so they can make it through the next three years. So I would imagine that these companies generally do better when the cost of capital is low as it has been in the past, where there was a huge appetite for speculation and investment. And we are definitely no longer in that environment. Am I making that up or is there some truth there? I think you're speaking in generalities about biotechnology. A lot of biotechnology stocks would do exceptionally well when cost of capital was lower. But what this is is actually platform technology companies that are operating in the healthcare space. So, for example, their cost of capital is probably going to, in a higher interest rate environment, cost a little bit more, but not to the extent of other companies in the biotechnology space.

And the reason being is because traditionally in biotechnology, what would happen is you would come up with one drug and then you kind of had a patent on it. And then there was a patent cliff. And that's why you saw some biotechnology companies sell it like valuation multiples of like eight times or 12 times because then generics are going to come and hurt them. That's not the case here because with these companies, they can apply it to this rare disease. And now that they know that works, they can apply it to another rare disease in the same. area of the genetic sequencing. And so they've got the manufacturing and prowess as well to apply it. So one of our companies even said, hey, listen, the hardest part that's going to happen within CRISPR and gene editing is the manufacturing and quality control and scale and getting it built up. It's very, very hard. You won't see old guard health care or big pharma get into it because then they've got to come up with new manufacturing processes and figure it out. The lead time is too hard and it's too costly and expensive. These companies have already done it. So it's really a scale situation that they have. So the valuation is around the

technology, not necessarily just one drug. So you don't have to rely as much on the FDA like biotech companies do. Is that correct or not? Well, no, they do rely on the FDA. Anytime you're in therapeutics, you do have to rely on the FDA for phase one, phase two, and what have you. But what's interesting about this is that the results are so good that once you apply it for this, you're going to start to see faster acceptance and approval of the next drug and the next drug and the next drug by the FDA. That's the interesting aspect is that they are relying on the FDA, but because they have the quality control and they also have the success and the results are so high that it gets through approval, like the committees that look at the trials are

like, yes, go to the next one quickly. Because you had an 87% efficacy rate. I mean, that's unbelievable. So what does drive these stocks? Is it earnings? Is it revenue growth? Is it new patents, like regulatory stuff, stories? What is it? The interesting part about this is it's the clinical trials and successes that really drives it. Because all these companies are, is a bunch of scientists and a bunch of patients trying to cure a disease and then cash on the balance sheet. So what you're starting to see is what drives these companies is that the more successful they get in clinical phases, the more the companies are worth. And so that is the important thing to take away here because it's idiosyncratic risk. The way to think about these companies

is that they're public equity venture capital. If you look at the venture capital space, they're actually putting money to work in these publicly traded companies because they've had such a lead and they've been out there for five, six, seven years that the best way to put money in a venture capital type of investment is in these companies.

And so I'll give you an example. This past weekend, Andreessen Horowitz's, general partner was interviewed by Barron's. And Barron said, where is the best opportunity in health care today? And it was pretty interesting because I've actually got it right here because I read Barron's pretty religiously in every weekend. Are you still reading a physical copy over there? Oh, I love it. Boomer alert. I've been reading physical copies of Barron's since I was in college and Alan Abelson wrote up and down Wall Street. He was great. He's fantastic. I've never seen such pros from a guy, and he called everybody out, and he commanded

such respect. It was unbelievable. So I have the physical copy, and that's really how I learned, but I can't find it here. But basically what he said is he said, we're investing in the new healthcare, and that is companies that are in the gene editing space, and we're looking at Verve, and we're looking at Intellia. And that's what he said. So, I mean, it's unbelievable to have a venture capitalist at one of the most respected premier places, even say, we're going into the best opportunity in healthcare, it's CRISPR and gene editing, and it's these two companies that we're looking at. How big are these companies right now? Like, out of the, I think there's 23 companies in the ETF. I'm not going to hold you to it exactly, but is this a big number? Or like, is it tens of billions,

hundreds? What are we talking about here? No, you're actually getting in the smaller end of the biotechnology and technology space. I would say the weighted average would probably be around, four to six billion, and some of them are up to 10 billion, and some of them are as low as like 500 million. And the reason why is because there's been a big decrease. If you think about what's happened from year to date to now, you've seen valuations and share price come down pretty significantly. How susceptible are these businesses, companies, stock prices to a recession? I hear what you're saying about them being platforms and very idiosyncratic, but that being said, these are stocks at the end of the day. So talk about that.

In a recessionary environment, it's everything, asset correlations go to one, whether, I mean, we're seeing it today with bonds and the 6040 portfolios been blown up. So the way to think about this in a recessionary environment is you're absolutely going to get hit. They're going to come down. We've seen that happen already today. What's nice to know is that these companies, have the cash on their balance sheet to make it out of a recessionary environment. And we've seen management of these companies, even talk about a recessionary environment where they're actually able to go out and get more talent to work on new clinical trials for them because if other companies go bankrupt, they're able to go out and get talent to work

on these. And a lot of what happens in a recessionary environment in the healthcare space is kind of financial. It's not scientific. And so that's what they talk about. They continue progressing forward on the scientific endeavors that they have. So it's really just financial. It's not actually applicable

to their actually operations of their business. One more thing in the portfolio management side I think's here. How do you even start that process in terms of adding and removing companies? Are a lot of these companies just buy and hold forever because they are on the smaller end of the opportunity scale? Like, how do you weigh adding and subtracting companies from the ATF? Yeah, so this is an index-based methodology, because a lot of times what you can see in

the healthcare space or in any other space is managers sometimes fall in love with certain names or they're supposed to go into genetic or genome and then they're an active manager and they add like teladoc, which I still have no idea how that has to do with genome or genetics or anything like that. But what this does is there's a screener that goes across developed countries and it looks at the actual companies and where their primary business line is and where their primary revenues are going to come from. So that's how it filters out and gets you the actual CRISPR engine editing companies.

And so what can happen in the space, and we've seen this happen recently, is that you've had companies that actually have had both gene editing and gene therapies, and then they split their company apart. And so then we'll own the gene editing company and we'll reconstitute out the gene therapy company. And so the primary way to think about it is this scrubs all the public filings, the 10Ks, the cues, and it sees which companies are actually CRISPR and gene editing and which charm. Last question for me. In terms of like the life cycle of these companies, are they pre-revenue or where exactly? I know it's probably not a one-size-fits-all, but where are these companies? A lot of these companies are pre-revenue is the way to think about it, but some of them actually

generate revenue because what they do is they actually license their technology out. We discussed that before, okay, where these are licensing and they're looking to get into the licensing space. So you can have a company like Beam license the CRISPR technology out to a company like Verve. And so they're both CRISPR companies, but they're actually licensing back and forth. So they're actually getting some of that. But the way to think about it is all pre-revenue. We have not commercialized the first CRISPR or gene editing application yet. They're all sort of phase one, going into phase two.

There's a lot of catalysts. But what's interesting to note is some of these companies are actually not even focused on rare diseases. They're actually focused on agriculture. So we actually had the first gene edited crop and going out for mass adoption in Japan earlier this year. So what's going to happen is they're all pre-revenue right now, the way to think about them, but over the next five to 10 years, they're going to be generating a lot of revenue as we get through the clinical trials. And so we're at that tipping point. Kevin, where do we go to help people learn more about this fund? The best way to learn more about this fund is actually to go to Kellyetfs.com and you can actually

go to the XDNA page. There's an investor presentation that I spoke about a lot of the points here today on the podcast. Or you could just email me at Invest at Kellyetfs.com and I see every email that comes through and I'm passionate about this stuff. So you'll probably be hearing a reply for me at around 11 p.m. at night. All right. We'll put all of that stuff in the show notes. We appreciate you coming on today, Kevin. Thank you. Awesome. And thanks for having me. All right, thanks to Kevin.

I like this stuff about, we talked about a couple weeks ago investing in venture capital in public markets. And I said, how is this possible? Kevin kind of made the case here. This is the space. Maybe this is the idea. So thanks again to Kevin. Go to Kellyetfs.com to learn more and send us an email, Animal Spiritspod, d'emal.com.

Thank you.