ETF Edge - Macro Allocation Themes & Capturing the Night Effect 7/11/22

Episode Date: July 11, 2022

CNBC’s Bob Pisani spoke with Bruce Lavine, CEO of NightShares, and Jason Trennert, Chairman and CEO of Strategas Research Partners, a Baird company. They delved into portfolio allocation tactics based on major macro themes – addressing the question of can we get a soft landing and avoid a recession? Plus, they discussed how to capture how to capture the so-called “night effect” – including what it is and why two new ETFs are looking to capitalize on this well-known phenomenon in after-hours trading. In the Markets ‘102’ portion of the podcast, Bob continues the conversation with Jason Trennert from Strategas Research Partners. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The ETF Edge podcast is sponsored by InvescoQQQQ, supporting the innovators changing the world. Investco Distributors, Inc. Welcome to ETF Edge, the podcast. If you're looking to learn the latest insights on all things, exchange traded funds, you are in the right place. Every week, we're bringing you interviews, market analysis, and breaking down what it all means for investors. I'm your host, Bob Pisani. Just back from a week into Caribbean, with packed folks, believe me. Today on the show, we'll delve into portfolio allocation tactics based on

major macro themes. We'll address the question of, can we get a soft landing and avoid a recession? Plus, we'll talk about how to capture the so-called night effect. This is an interesting new ETF around this. We'll tell you what it is and why two new ETFs are looking to capitalize on this well-known phenomenon in after-hours trading. Here's my conversation with Bruce Levine, CEO of Nightshares, along with Jason Trenton, Chairman and CEO of Strategic Research Partners. Now, Jason, you're one of the very best people I know at the 30,000 foot. view of the world overall. Tell us where we are right now on stock prices and what side of the whole recession slash soft landing debate do you come down on? Well, as far as stock prices go, Bob,

I think the good news is a good portion of the multiple compression I think is behind us due to expectations for higher inflation. The bad news is that I'm not sure we've seen the earnings adjustment that people are anticipating yet. Right now, if you look at S&P 500 operating earnings, they're still still forecast we have about 10% next year. We think that's going to be more like 4%. That maybe leads me to the second part of your question, which is we're more in the soft landing camp right now, although I have to say history is not really on our side on that. Generally speaking, it's very hard for the Fed to pull off a soft landing once inflation has gotten away from it. And of course, that impacts the whole earnings outlook. If you're on a soft landing side,

maybe you're going to get 4% increase in earnings instead of 10, as some people expect. But if you're in a recession side, we could be down 10%. In typical recessions, earnings fall about reported earnings fall about 30%. So it does make a big difference. The good news is that you do have pretty tight labor markets. You still have a pretty easy fed, and you still have a lot of excess savings in terms of consumers and corporations. So hard landing is hard.

to forecast right now, it seems to be, and we're going to give the Fed the benefit of the doubt for the time being. You know, Bruce, you have been in the ETAF business for a long, long time. I mean, many, many years, decades even, even longer than I have. And what's amazing to me is the resilience of the ETF structure. We've had a rotten year. The S&B is now 20%, and yet we still get inflows into plain vanilla ETFs overall. It's the resiliency of the structure that's amazing to me.

You're a veteran. What do you see happening in the second half of the year in the ETF business? Yeah, I think the ETF structure has always been the gold standard for innovation and all the good ideas come out in the ETF structure. You know, that's going to continue. The investors have spoken they like the structure and so, you know, the markets, I sort of agree with Jason, they'll be kind of shaky for a little while. But when they respond, you'll see probably record flows in ETFs. Yeah. You know, I want to go back to you because you've got to into the ETF business this year, which I find very interesting. After all these years of being a big strategist, now you're getting back into the ETF you launched the Stratigus Macro-Thomatic Opportunities ETF.

This was launched in January, actively managed. You're looking to outperform the broader market by providing exposure to multiple macro-thematic. This is right up your alley. But tell me about what's the idea. So the idea, Bob, is all of our clients are institutional investors. We do written research. We visit them. But there was no ability for individual investors to access our work in any way.

We thought this is a way to do that. We are very thematic in our approach. And the idea is that we're actively managing the themes. So we focus on what we think are the biggest drivers of stock prices at any given time and do our own quantitative analysis to pick stocks to play those themes. So the themes now are, as you might suspect, higher inflation for longer, quantitative tightening. We want some cyclical defenses in the portfolio. And we also like the idea of de-globalization after COVID and after Russia invaded Ukraine.

So all those things taken together, I think it gives us an interesting portfolio, certainly pretty levered to commodities and oil prices, which worked out really well at the beginning. It hasn't worked out so great lately, but we're optimistic about the second half. So when I look at the main holdings, we always want to look at what your top five, seven, eight holdings are. I see a lot of commodity names. I see Occidental. I see New Corps. I also see the dollar, the U.S. dollar.

Yeah. What's the rationale here? I can understand why commodities, because all the macro guys are really into commodities right now still. But what's the dollar? Yeah, well, the dollar really has been right. But listen to the dollar, it's hard to see another, certainly Bank of Japan or ECB or way behind the United States. And they're taking a big gamble, it seems to me. A weaker currency on their part helps their exports, but it provides real risk to their consumers. But the Bank of

Japan and the ECB don't seem to be even in the ballgame as far as trying to fight inflation. Whereas the Fed, even though it's late, it's clearly fighting inflation. So their weak currencies are going to make imports very expensive for them. Exactly. It's remarkable how strong commodities have been, even though they've weakened recently. It's amazing how strong commodities have been, despite the fact that the dollar has been as strong as it is. One wonders what commodity prices would be like if the dollar weakened. And just as a tourist, I was just in France on vacation. I marvel it was $1.4 for the euro. It was $1.25.

Yeah, you're kind of through the IPO price. That's worth buying a couple of glasses of rosé. Yeah, you bet. You know, a few nice shirts overall. Bruce, you ran the ship at Wisdom Tree for a long time, but what's amazing is this new firm that you've got. You've got a new business going here. It's related to after-hours trading. Your firm, Nightshare, you've got this new firm.

You launched two ETFs in the last two weeks. The night shares 500 ETF, the 2000 ETF. Both are seeking to capture this effect. You call it the night effect, which is a phenomenon whereby, You say overnight markets generally outperform daytime trading sessions on a risk-adjusted basis. That's an important word, risk-adjusted basis. So explain how this works. What are you owning here?

And what's the rationale for this? I mean, the research that launched us was just incredible when I first saw it, you know, just how persistent and powerful this effect was, that most of the return you were getting over time was coming in the night session. So the night session is I buy at the close and I sell the next morning at the open. It's that simple, though. You're not trading in between you. And then I'm sitting out the day. You're buying at the open and selling it every day on a daily basis.

And what the research showed that was phenomenal was how poorly rewarded and volatile and noisy the day session is. That was the thing that really struck us. So, for example, in the case of small caps over many, many years, the daytime return is negative on the Russell 2000. So we have two funds, large cap and small cap that are trying to capture this effect for investors. Now, let's assume that this is correct.

I'm not disputing you, but I'm sure there's people would dispute this. But why does this occur? Why does this affect actually? You know, again, there's some academic literature, lots of it actually, and there's sort of a few reasons. One is news flow happens when markets are closed, whether that's earnings or M&A. M&A is very positive for the markets, earnings on balance positive for the markets. You have to be invested overnight to catch that.

And then there's a lot of structural reasons, sort of de-risking that happens at the institutional level. You know, people have this sort of desire to go home flat sometimes so they can sleep at night. And so they leave something on the table for the other investors. Yeah. So I want to make clear what buying at the start of the after-hour session. There's really three sessions in my mind. There's a pre-open that's 4 a.m. to, you know, in the morning that's out there. there is I guess 48, there's a regular hours, it's 934, then it's after hours, right?

4 to 8 p.m. Eastern time, right? Tell us where you're buying and selling. So our goal, all our research was done this way, and it's the goal of the fund, is to get as close to the 930 New York open and the 4 p.m. New York close. So this morning, the fund right around 9.30 got out of its position and it's sitting in cash. So, you know, it took a hit overnight with the rest of the market, but it's now down less. For example, our fund ends by is down less than spy because the market continued to lower today. So when are you buying?

And so that tonight at 4 o'clock we'll go in and buy. Four o'clock is when you buy. And so we're sitting sort of in cash and treasuries throughout the day. Jason, you have any thoughts on this? I mean, there are markets where it seems that there's an awful lot of activity. But in general, you know, my overall experience with professional investors, they constantly come on and say, be careful about in the after hours, liquidity is much thinner. The bid asks are much wider.

So it would seem to me to be cautious. Now, he's making a very important distinction here. We're not trading. That's what his distinction is. But still, the academic literature is very interesting. It is. And I would say it's somewhat counterintuitive, which makes the fund interesting, right? It makes it different.

And I have to say, I know in certain asset classes like Bitcoin, but as an example, I think almost all the action is really after market hours. But it's very interesting to hear this academic literature, particularly regarding small caps and maybe even less liquid names than maybe the larger cap names where there's probably a lot more that goes on that moves the stock, I would imagine. Absolutely. I mean, this thing we call the night effect exists on individual stocks, lots of smaller ETFs, but we wanted to start with the large liquid. where we could use the futures market just to deliver it very efficiently. Yeah. But this thing with the small caps, your contention is, we're talking about the Russell, right? Russell's too, yeah.

That overall it's a negative return during the day hours. Yeah. With a lot less, sorry, a lot more volatility. With more volatility, right. So you're even risk adjusted, of course, here. Yeah. And we still don't know why this effect actually happens. I mean, if, I mean, I'm trying to think of efficient market hypothesis here.

Why would this effect actually happen? Everything would smooth out in the long run, it would seem to me. It seems to be this sort of institutional derisking, this desire to, one of the professors called it an illusion of control, right? If the markets are open, I can trade out of any position, but if they're closed, I'm sort of a dead duck waiting for the open. And so there's a sense of leaving things on the table. Really?

Yeah. Okay, so let me just... Do you think there's a future doing this in an after hours? I mean, I had some people on who were seeking to start an exchange that want to operate 24 hours around the clock now. There's people seeking to do this. I know Robin Hood at one point wanted to have what they call hyper-extended hours. I think in Robin Hood you could trade until 6 p.m. But at one point, they were talking about it, about doing hyper-extended trading.

Is this, do you see this as a trend that's happening? Not exactly. I mean, I know, in a sense, you're agnostic. It doesn't matter to you. But if there was more trading activity, there would probably be less volatility. I'm wondering more of this would smooth out. It might smooth out, yeah. But, you know, until the New York Stock Exchange and the other venues really decide they're going to really extend,

and people's behavior changes and trading volumes shift dramatically, you know, once a day, the accountants have to come in and, you know, value everything and say, this is what a fund is worth. And it's a lot of that sort of structural things that go on at the end of a day. Things get marked to market, interest gets charged on position, capital gets charged up on positions. And that seems to be what causes the night effect. And so we don't see it going away, you know, even if volumes ticked up a little bit in after hours. This seems to be a phenomenon of the modern trading age in general. Everything is trading faster.

There's more of it. We see, of course, in Bitcoin, in crypto as well. Electronification has made all of this possible. When I came down here in 1997, there were 4,000 guys. It was all guys, essentially, sitting here. right around us that had 80% of the volume all happened on the floor with a bunch of guys yelling at each other in 19. It's hard to believe in our lifetime. And now the floor has, I don't know, 15, 18% of the volume. In the 70s, I believe they had to close the market twice a week

during the paper crunch just to keep up with the, just to keep up with the back office. Right. So now with electronification, I mean, there's really no, it doesn't seem like there's many constraints in terms of trading. Where did you come up with this idea? It's a curious Because looking at it to me, it's always been, you know, thinner trading, higher volatility. It seemed to me wider bid-ass kind of risky for people to trade. But you've seen what made an observation that, well, independent of all that, the market actually does this. Yeah, so we have a sister company called AlphaTray, and they have a great research team. They were running a hedge fund, and they were using this signal in the hedge fund.

And we just kept looking at it, and they kept showing me more and more how, it was one of the most compelling signals they had. And so I got excited about it. I realized no one had ever done this in ETFs. And then after that I found all this other academic literature that was supporting it. And so that really kind of sealed the deal that said, wow, there's something here. And then the question was just can we deliver it? So, you know, can you trade through it? And the markets have changed a lot since the paper base you were talking about.

You know, it's much cheaper to trade. We have a lot of different instruments available to us. So, you know, we got comfortable we could deliver it. I like the simplicity of it, buy it for sell at 930. It's very easy to understand. And there's not any real trading other than that actually going on. So you can be agnostic on this whole question about exactly how much volatility. As long as you can demonstrate that in the long run, there is some outperformings.

Just to give you an idea, like in the first half of the year, it was a rough first half of the year, as you know. If you were invested 24 hours in the Russell 2, you lost about 23%. If you were just owning the night portion, again, you know, this was not our fun, but just closed to open, open to close. You were down like less than 7%. Now say this again, what time period are we talking about? First half of this year. Okay.

If you own the Russell 2000, you're down 23%. 23%. Okay. And if you own only the night side of that, you're down less than 7. So it's pretty dramatic. You know, because what you see, and what you saw in the first half of the years, many of these very volatile days where the market would just pick up steam to the downside and, you know, close on the low. And those are, you know, our research show there was many more of these what we call left-tail events, you know, during the day than there are at night. And so that's...

Left-tail event being what? A really bad down day, essentially. So one of the professors we talked to said, you know, statistically, bull markets happen in the day. day and the night. But statistically, bare markets happen during the day session, which is interesting. They're just much more frequent. So the wide outperformance on the Russell would, I mean, we've seen trading volumes go through the roof in the last few years since COVID. We used to do seven, eight billion shares a day, total equity trades, all exchanges. And we're doing 13 billion now, 14. A lot of this is low-priced stocks that people are trading, Russell 2000.

type things. And I'm wondering if that might be one of the phenomenon where you get people trading in after hours. The Reddit crowd, it's sort of an outdated phrase, Reddit crowd, but that may be a factor here as well. I'm just trying to figure out why this happens. I know, I know. It's a strange thing, right? It's struck me as strange when I first saw it as well, but then I really watched it and it's just so persistent. You know, the meme stock craze is an area where you saw a huge night effect, actually, in mean stocks. Well, there you go. Yeah. Yeah. Because they wanted to trade after hours, right? Because the chat rooms never ended.

They're always working somewhere or another, right? Yeah, yeah. Now it's time to round out the conversation with some analysis and perspective to help you better understand ETS. This is the market's 102 portion of the podcast. Today we'll be continuing the conversation with Jason Trennick from Stategis research partners. Jason, thanks for sticking around. I wanted to get a little more thought from you on the earnings situation because we're

heading into earnings season. JP Morgan will be reporting on Thursday. You know, the SEP is down 20% this year, and all of us have noticed that the entire 20% of decline is a multiple compression. The P.E ratio has gone down from, you know, 21 and a half to somewhere around 17 or so. But there's been no earnings compression. We're still expecting the overall street, bottoms up guys, are still expecting roughly a 10% increase in earnings and almost 10% in 2023 as well. people are marveling at how this can be. I'm wondering what you are thinking right now.

It seems like CEOs are going to be fairly cautious in their commentary going into the... I would think so. Listen, Bob, I think you never want to say if someone's wrong. I mean, maybe the market knows something we don't, or maybe the bottoms up analysts know something we don't. But my experience has largely been that companies, most analysts get their cues from the companies, and the companies have yet to really throw in the towel.

on their earnings expectations. We're going to know a lot more about this over the next couple of weeks as the earnings start to come through. And I'm really more focused in many ways on the guidance than I am on the earnings. Inflation, oddly, because profits are in nominal terms,

inflation can actually lift profits. It's just that the quality of profits tends to be worse, which means that you're doing it on weaker margins. And that's another one of the reasons why, generally speaking, the multiples come down because investors aren't as willing to pay up for earnings that are really just off the top line.

We have seen these margins have been remarkable. You know, they historically, they used to be 7, 8, 9 percent. And then all of a sudden, during COVID, we were 11. And then last year we were 13 and a half. I think it was the second quarter. It was like all-time record. Corporate America proved itself remarkably resilient. They cut their spending dramatically during COVID.

They cut real estate costs. They cut labor costs. They cut transportation. They cut everything they could. They used technology to become more efficient. And then when the revenues came back, a lot of that money increased in revenues went back to the right to the bottom line again because they were operating more efficiently. This is classic capitalism in a sense. Yeah.

I mean, my own view, though, I would say, Bob, is I'm somewhat skeptical that that's, that's sustainable. Part of the reason why cost stayed relatively low is by Fiat. No company could really open. Certainly if you're a service-oriented company, it's pretty hard to keep, let's say, labor costs down indefinitely. And for most companies, about 70% of costs are labor. And as we can see just from Friday's report, payroll employment report, average hourly earnings are up 5%. So my own opinion is that margins are likely have peaked for this cycle and are largely going to come down. I do think there is some relief that's coming on the commodity side for more manufacturing-oriented companies, so that's good.

But labor, I still think, is a little bit of a sticking point. It wasn't too long ago where people were saying, gee, if we could only get the average hourly rate at $15 an hour, all of our problems would be solved. There would be no more income inequality. And here we are three or four years later. Everyone's making $50. You can't get anyone to work for $50 an hour, right? And you still have a lot of the same issues.

What about that fact? You know, I was just in France on vacation. It was amazing to me. The French are complaining that they can't get people. It seems to be a worldwide phenomenon, not just the great resignation in the United States, but the bartender at my hotel in Paris bitterly complained that we have no one coming to work anymore. Yeah. I mean, I think...

What is this phenomenon? Not to sound overly conspiratorial or get politics into it, but I think as a businessman, I think you get precisely what you incentivize. And I think in order to deal with COVID, a lot of governments have largely subsidized people to stay at home. And people got used to it. And they found other ways to make money. And there was probably some accumulated savings from some of the transfer payments.

And they started new businesses, too. Precisely. So, I mean, I think over. time that impact will wane and people will have to come back to work, especially if the economy slows. But I think in some ways it's not that surprising. In the U.S. as an example, we dumped $5 trillion into a $21 trillion economy in 12 months. So 25% of the economy, we just printed the money, put it into the economy, and in some ways not surprised you get inflation, it's also not surprising that you got very, very rapid economic growth out of that. The thing is that a certain

point, the hangover will come, the bill will come due. I think that's obviously started to come in the form of inflation. I think it'll also start to come in the form of slower growth as well. And this COVID thing that does not go away, no one wants to talk about it. It's like, you know, your batty uncle that's in the room. Nobody wants to acknowledge that he's actually there. But it's there. Right. And when I was traveling, I was in London, was in Heathrow. I was, in Marseille airport. I was in St. Martin a few weeks ago. Nobody was wearing five percent were wearing masks that were out there. Everyone seems to have ignored it, and yet we know it's not really going away. I'm wondering what if any impact that still has going into the fall. Yeah,

it's hard to say. I think it's impact on, it's true impact on people's willingness to go back to work. I don't think it, it may be used as an excuse. Yeah. And not to say that it's not, We know that there are very vulnerable populations, and for them, obviously, it's a very real and valid concern. I would say I think we've learned over the last couple of years that for most young, healthy people, it can be dangerous. You should take care of yourself, but it's not something that's going to prevent you or should not prevent you from going back into the workforce. One of the things that's been very difficult, as you know, is the labor force participation rate in the U.S. has remained very low. It is very hard to get people back to work. In my opinion, that has more to do, again, with the incentives, the financial incentives that we've set up than it has with the health impact.

But certainly, we have to live with COVID, and I think we've learned also with the benefit of hindsight that the costs associated with shutting the entire economy down may have been greater than some of the benefits, especially, again, for younger, healthier people. For vulnerable populations, obviously, that was a good trade. But for a lot of the rest of us, impact on our children, our families, all the rest of it, it's been pretty intense. The problem is you can't separate them. I mean, when you say the more vulnerable, you're talking about my 93 old mother is essentially. So how do I separate that out? I have an 86-year-old mother, too. And it's very difficult.

And maybe you, obviously, there's not much. I think particularly when it comes to a society, keeping the schools open, in my opinion, is a critical element. Based on our analysis, it's a critical element in keeping the wheels turning in a society. Once school's closed, a lot of things shut down,

just given the way most families operate. Usually, obviously, one parent asks to stay home to take care of the child. It makes it very hard for that person to go back to work. And so here, again, I'm praying that,

mercifully, we don't have another big outbreak of COVID, but if we do, we learn to figure out a way at least keep the kids back in school so that the overall economy can continue to move forward. And what about Russia, Ukraine? Here's the other third crazy thing that we've thrown into this whole mix. You know, it's amazing to me what's happened.

If you would have told me four years ago, you know there's going to be a global pandemic outbreak. And, you know, a million people in the United States are going to die. And some millions of people overseas are going to die, too. And we're going to shut down the global economy for a full year. and partially shut it down for another year, we would have said you were crazy. Right. Literally, this is a science fiction story.

And it actually happened. And it actually happened. And now it's sort of like normal. We're living through that. So that in itself is a seismic event. Right. Then you have China shutting down. Then you have the Russia-Ukraine war.

Everyone said you cannot have a conventional ground war in Europe anymore. Nobody's going to do that. It's gone as an idea. And it happened. And it happened. So the market would have been, had a cataclysmic time dealing, well, a difficult time dealing with any one of those three things, shut down in China, Russia, Ukraine, and, you know, the global pandemic. And yet we're doing all three

once now. And the S&P is only down 20%. Yeah. I mean, I think, again, though, Ra, I think that's partly due to the just the enormity of the response, both monetary and fiscal, that we've had to the to the pandemic in particular. So, but I think one of the things that those, I think, I think, I think both the pandemic and the war between Russia and Ukraine, one of the big impacts, and we talked about it in our ETF, the Stratigis macrothematic Opportunities Fund, is this idea of de-globalization. I think there was a, since the Berlin Wall came down, there was generally a hope and a bet, really, that the more trade we did with other countries, the more Western they would become in their values. And I think between the pandemic and China and the war and Russia, I think people,

are reconsidering just how far de-globalization or globalization can go. If we assume that globalization gave us real benefits of efficiency, lower cost, lower interest rates in general, less financial friction, it would be reasonable to assume that the opposite, de-globalization would be higher inflation, less efficiency. Absolutely. I mean, if you're going to have to replicate, you know, a fad point. in Texas that you have in Taiwan, that argues for less efficiency. Absolutely, on higher costs.

I would say also probably higher military spending, higher defense spending. Other things where there was certainly in the first, since the Berlin Wall came down, there was enormous peace dividend that we all enjoyed. And that slowly got worn away, but in my opinion, it's really going to get worn away now. Yeah, I think it's going to be tough. And I think that, number one, people are going to realize the benefits of globalization, and they're going to miss it, even though it's popular to speak against it. And I think it's just going to be a lot more difficult. I also think that everybody who's now claiming that the Federal Reserve are a bunch of fools because they pump too much money, the economy, and now we're going to have to deal with the effects of that, you know, where were they in 2009 when literally the world was falling apart?

And they stepped in. And the only thing they realized afterwards was they didn't do enough. Yellen said as much. Bernanke said as much. And when this new disaster happened with COVID, they really went all in with the $5 trillion you were saying. And save the economy. And now we were saying, what a bunch of fools these people were. Why did they move?

I might take a little bit of the opposite side of that. Because there was $5 trillion extra spending, fiscal spending. And then there was $5 trillion that was added to the, Fed's balance sheet. Right, went from four to nine trillion. Four to nine trillion. And so I, you know, my own, I'm very much behind what the Fed did during the financial crisis to keep us from going to the barter system. I, I, but in my opinion, at a certain point, the Fed should have exited zero interest rate policy and should not have continued to keep the size of the balance. And why do you think they didn't? Was it, the rationale is that the political sphere was too dysfunctional

to get anything done to actually help the economy. My rejoinder to that would be that the Fed is not a political institution. Those are decisions, the Fed, because it has this enormous power to create money, it should not be involved in decisions that should generally be left to people who are elected by the people. And so I view Federal Reserve Policy largely almost as bumpers on a bowling lane. They're there to prevent good outcomes or they're there to, excuse me, there to prevent really bad outcomes one way or the other. They're not there to get a perfect strike.

And I think in some ways the Fed got too involved in the economy. In my own opinion, it led to a lot more financial engineering as opposed to capital spending. I think there are a lot of other unintended consequences of it. It came from the right place, the right instincts, but in my opinion, that type of meddling should only be used in very extreme circumstances. Well, you could argue it was a pretty extreme circumstance, but those are very fair observations. I thank you. Folks, we've gone a little longer than we normally do, but I've got one of the big strategic thinkers with us and an old friend of mine.

So I took a little more of your time than I normally would. Jason Trent, a chairman of strategist research partners. Thanks very much for joining us. And thank you, everybody, for tuning in to the ETF Edge podcast. InvescoQQQQQ believes new innovations create new opportunities. Become an agent of innovation. Invesco QQQ, Invesco Distributors, Inc.