ETF Edge - Politics Behind Energy: Taking Aim at ESG 9/7/22

Episode Date: September 7, 2022

CNBC’s Bob Pisani spoke with Arne Noack, Head of Systemic Investment Solutions, Americas, at DWS Group and Todd Rosenbluth, Head of Research at VettaFi – along with Mona Naqvi, Global Head of ESG Capital Markets Strategy at S&P Global Sustainable1. They discussed the politics behind energy – which are heating up as states like Florida and Texas are taking aim at ESG funds. Our panel of experts delved into the impact on ESG ETFs and how the industry, including major issuers like BlackRock, is responding to accusations of boycotting oil with its greener approach to investing. Plus, they talked about the latest push to standardize ESG criteria – and what the SEC’s take on it might be. In the Markets ‘102’ portion of the podcast, Bob continues the conversation with Todd Rosenbluth from VettaFi. 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, exchanged traded funds, you're in the right place. Every week we're bringing you interviews, market analysis, breaking down what it means for investors. I'm your host, Bob Pisani. The politics behind energy are heating up as states like Florida and Texas now have ESG funds in their crosshairs. Today on the show, we'll discuss the impact on EFSAB.

ESG ETFs, and how the industry, including major issuers like BlackRock, are responding to accusations of being anti-oiled with its greener approach to investing. We'll also get an update on the latest push to standardize ESG criteria and what the SEC's take on it might be. Here's my conversation with Arne Noak, head of systemic investment solutions. America's at DWS at DWS Group. Todd Rosenbluth is the head of research at VETify and Mona Knockby is the global head of ESG Capital Market Strategy at S&P Global Sustainable. One. Arnie, I want to start with you. BlackRock says it's not boycotting oil. They made a statement. We're not boycotting oil. Now, you run several large ESG funds. They have small positions in oil with stocks. I mean, how do you respond to this? Are you boycotting oil? And what are you trying to do here with your ESG funds? Yes. So Bob, it's actually relatively simple. The answer to that is no, we are not boycotting energy companies. And in fact, the ESG funds that you reference, the ticket. symbols SNPE and USSG are the most prominent ones they have between 4 and 5% of a stake in

energy companies which is in line with the SNP 500 standard index so no we still invest in an industry group neutral kind of way and that does include energy companies well how do you respond to this though it's a little it's a little baffling I mean I look at your funds USSG is one of them here's a big fund you manage screen out it specifically screens out alcohol tobacco gambling and weapons, but I look at the list here of stuff you own. It's got some oil stocks and it's small positions in Schlumberger and Marathon. Isn't the point of ESG to say that profits matter, but it's not the only thing that matters. And you're saying what matters to you right here. Correct. You're absolutely right. Profits do matter. And it is not the only thing that matters.

USSG in particular is a great reference because USSG is largely sector neutral compared to the MSCI USA benchmark, but only invest in those companies that perform well from an ESG point of view within each sector. So we do not boycott any energy companies in that portfolio. We still hold them. We just hold the ones that do better than the average from the ESG angle. You know, Todd, I want you to help me explain what's going on here. This politicization, politicization of the ESG process is a rather disturbing to me.

We've all been following this for many years, but this is a new wrinkle. Now, you've got a new piece out called, ESG is not the dark lord we do not speak of. This is a Harry Potter reference, folks, in case you don't get it. We used to argue about how ESG indexes are constructed, what waiting to give E versus S versus G. And Bone and I have been doing this for a long time, what should be included or excluded.

But this is different. This is an attack on the very concept of ESG itself. What's the overall industry's response to this? Well, this is just ludicrous. simply, ESG stands for environmental, social, and governance, and the focus has been on the E part of it, the environmental aspect, and whether companies are too focused on climate change and what's happening related to that. But what you have is broadly diversified strategies that are giving you the best according to not just climate change, but also related to fair pay practices,

gender diversity, a whole host of factors. There's 30 different sub-factors that are used by MSCI, many that are also used by S&P as well. It's really important. I wish we could go back to the days of arguing what is inside the portfolio and whether ESG is really the dark lord. Yeah.

You know, you have noted the ESG business is very multifaceted. It's got a lot of different aspects to the whole thing, a lot of different approaches. Some of the largest ESG funds out there have very meaningful stakes in the energy industry. You know BlackRock's the ones who's been to close of boycotting. Their ESG funds, two of them, have essentially above average weightings for energy stocks compared to the S&P or about equal to them. I'm looking at two of them right here. ESGU has 4.8%.

SUSA has 3.8%. That's the waiting of the S&P for energy stocks. I'm not sure this argument is true. In other words, what I'm saying is they're boycotting energy stocks. They're actually not, it seems to me. That's right. The argument falls down once you dive into it because Exxon and Chevron and Slumberge are part of the portfolio here.

So people either rail against ESG because they think it's taking, it's focusing too much on climate change or they rail against ESG because they believe that it has too much exposure to energy. So how can you be favoring ESG and some? still have exposure to these large-cap multinational energy companies. You can have both. These are intended to be broadly diversified products. They're not the devil.

There are nothing wrong with them, but you can either invest in them or not, and that's up to you. We don't need the government weighing in on that. You know, Mona, one thing that's amazing to me, Todd's pointed this out before, is for all this brouhaha, the ESG industry is actually pretty small compared to the overall business, even the ETF business. Todd points out there's 186 ESG ETFs. That's only 6% of the ETF universe, and it's about $100 billion.

That's about 1.5% of the dollar value of the whole ETF business. This seems like an awful lot of attention for a small outlay. You're right, but I think the challenge is it's still unclear how we exactly define ESG. So I've heard some measures say as much as one out of every $3 of professionally managed assets. are in some ESG fund or another. That's actually the crux of the issue. It's how pure are you being in terms of your definition? What is the perception, your expectation about what you want these funds to include?

And that's why I think there's so much confusion, because we're talking about funds that have different objectives that are all valid. It just depends on the individual investor. Some want to divest completely. That's fine. Some want to engage companies to work with them to improve. That's also fine. But I think to paint all sustainable funds with the same brush and to expect the same

outcomes and then to end up, you know, calculating the AEM based on those definitions is actually doing a disservice to the many different individual perspectives that investors are valid, that may have that are valid, and the choice that we should be giving investors in a free market. You know, you and I and we used to debate this endlessly. Prior to this new wrinkle in ESG, we used to talk endlessly about standardizing and codifying what ESG means. Can you update us on those efforts? There's been some global efforts to sort of make it clear what's going on with the ESG overall, why can't we still seem to agree on what ESG, not agree on what ESG is? Where are we in that debate? I think the question itself,

and it's a reasonable question to ask, but it's a little bit flawed because we're still sitting here, still to this day, talking about ESG is if it's one single thing that we can boil down to a single definition, and it is not. For some people, it's a process about incorporating different metrics. They might not otherwise. For others, it's about the out. outcomes and the sustainable impacts that a fund may generate, both are two ends of a spectrum, all completely valid. My point again and again is that there are many different flavors of ESG, so it's almost impossible to define it. I mean, we wouldn't be sat here saying, why don't all growth funds look the same? Why should ESG be any different? Yeah, and go ahead. Do you

see? I was going to say, to just give more specifics to that, you can slice the S&P 500, and it is being sliced that way. In broad ESG, so S&PE is one of those products. and then there is a Global X Catholic Values ESG. Those two products are not intended to be the same thing. They don't perform the same. Understandably, they're not the exact aspect, but yet we put them under the same ES and G aspects. So it's really important that investors understand what they're getting

and that are not boycotting ESG in general. They're choosing the fund that fits their objective and ignoring everything else. I think the institutional investor mostly understands. understands this. They're sophisticated, they're technical, they know that they need to look under the hood and know what the specific investment objective of fund is. I just think we're at this critical mass of adoption when now everybody's talking about it. And not everybody necessarily is as initiated or at least used to having to look at the very specific objectives of a fund in terms of the perspectives. It's an emotional topic for some people and that's totally understandable. So I definitely think we need as an industry more transparency and clarity about what different. products and funds are supposed to be doing, so that we can all be sure we're talking about the same thing. But it's disturbing that all of a sudden has become politicized. We used to have intellectual debates about where to go with ESG, but nobody ever stood up and said,

you know, this is all a bunch of nonsense, the whole thing. We shouldn't be doing this at all to begin with, and we don't want and nobody wants it. And actually, the evidence is that people are very interested in sustainability. And the industry goes where the interest is, just like there were potstops. that came out seven or eight years ago, the industry has seen people are interested in sustainability, and that's really what this is all about. And why I find it so puzzling that all of a sudden this has become an issue.

I certainly think it's certainly fair to go to energy companies and say, let's try to do this, or are you doing something to improve your carbon footprint, for example? This is why Occidental shows up on ESG scans because it ranks very high on certain ESG metrics. So Occidental has a very strong overweight and a lot of ESG funds that to show up. And maybe Marathon does too. That's fair to ask that kind of question.

But to say the whole thing is a bunch of hogwash, it seems kind of strange to me. I completely agree. And honestly, the perception right now is that the entire ESG industry is in a major state of flux. But the reality is that the dollars in these products are holding strong. And there is still very much a market for this. So it is worth talking about. What about some other sub-assadmast? What about some other sub-aspects of this moment?

How about like green washing? So green washing is when a company promotes a green agenda, but it isn't really green. It's sort of not phony, but they're not what they really say they are. Is this a big problem in the ESG space or anybody else want to... From my perspective, and obviously I'm biased, so I would love to hear the views of my colleagues here. But with regards to the ETF industry, I wouldn't say it's a big problem. All of the ESG ETF said I'm aware of, they very clearly label not only the fact that they take into account ESG factors, but they're very clearly

outlined the underlying methodology and therefore make very transparent, very clear in how far the ESG scores are being used, how they're not being used, and the fund manager of the ETFs, we don't have, as a fund manager, we don't have a discretion to deviate from that. So we will always fully stick to the rules as they are published in our prospectuses. So I don't, I wouldn't say that in the ETF industry, that's a big problem. But if sustainability is a hot issue. You know you're going to have people making outsized claims. In a way, that's what greenwashing is to a certain extent.

I mean, here's the challenge. As a concept, it's very easy for us to all agree on the definition. Greenwashing is when you overstate the sustainable impacts of a fund. But in real practical terms, what does that mean? And how do you know when you see it? Okay. Is it when any time an oil major is included in a low carbon fund? Okay, maybe.

Is it when that oil major, what if that oil major happens to be diversifying and is moving more renewable year on year? What if it has more green to brown or gray revenues, whatever the industry is calling it these days? I mean, the fact is it's not even, okay, we're having issues defining ESG. Defining greenwashing is even harder in many ways. We can't all agree on what it means and totally agree with you on it. As long as the products do what they claim to do in terms of the prospectus is, that's one thing. It's another thing whether the market's expectations and perceptions about what ESG or at least what they think it should be versus what the product does.

That's that area where I think we're seeing a lot of the push and pull these days. And I don't, it's, I mean, it's a bit of a tricky situation. But it's happening as much, is more relevant in the active space, because active managers have long used governance, for example, as something that they've filtered through the individual companies that they're focusing on. And so they decided to put ESG within their label or make it more visible within their perspective. In index-based ETF, tracking an S&P, an MSCI, a Futsi Russell index, is just doing that. It's tracking the index that's filtering specifically on ESG characteristics

as opposed to ESG plus valuation or ESG plus quality attributes. So that's among the differences between the active and the passive space within the ETF and the mutual fund world. Yeah. Not just that though. Also, you know, sometimes you'll look at a fund and you'll say, okay, this is supposed to be ESG, it might contain a name you wouldn't expect. But actually, if the rules-based selection process of even a passive fund is such that it's, penalizing companies or rewarding them depending on their ESG credentials, that actually made you more to move the needle than if you just excluded them altogether. So it's really tricky to say just on the face of it whether a fund is ESG or not based on that point. Now, Arney or anybody,

Gary Gensler from the SEC has said he wants more specific rules around naming a fund. This is an issue. He's brought it up several times. He wants them to explain, for example, if you're a carbon neutral fund, explain to us why you're carbon neutral and explain the standards that you're using. Is that a reasonable demand? And how is the industry responding? Yeah, I would say sort of as a representative for the industry, that's a very reasonable demand. It is very much in our interest that our clients, our investors, very clearly understand what they invest in. That interest is fully aligned with ours. And therefore, having naming conventions, having standards that everybody has to adhere to, from my perspective, makes total sense.

We've seen a similar dynamic in Europe with SFDR. And that dynamic, coming here to the U.S. from my perspective is very welcome. That levels the playing field. It addresses some of the concerns that Mona was talking about in relation to undue expectations in relation to what is ESG and what is ESG not. So level that playing field makes total sense. It makes sense that what he's saying, but do we want Gensler to go out and start saying, oh, no, this is not really a carbon neutral fund or how do you, obviously you've got to say what you are, right? Truth in advertising, right? And you can't exaggerate and you can't do green watching and you can't have a phony metric if you say a carbon neutral.

Everybody agrees on that, right? Yes. But how do you implement that aggressively against somebody who's not adhering to those simple principle-based standards? I think it's a good thing to at least ask the question and have asset managers have to answer what is their criteria and be more as transparent as possible about what it is that was behind the scenes that led to a company or, companies in general being included in it. But that shouldn't be where we stop because there's ESG ETFs that perform quite broad ESG ETFs that perform quite differently from one another, and they do so because of what makes it into the portfolio. Is Tesla part of the ESG index or not? And that's something that we've debated in the past. Tesla being such a large company,

it's going to drive the performance if it's in or outside of the portfolio. Yeah. And of course, this was a real point of contention. I mean, This was the point where Elon must sort of split from the whole thing, where he came out and said, what are you guys throwing me out of the ESG fund? I'm like the most ESG guy out there. As a matter of fact, on other criteria like social and governance, Tesla had very significant problems. Based on the criteria that SPP was using, you know, you can understand what, if you read what they said, you can understand what was going on there.

So I'm sympathetic to Elon because I think very highly of the guy, but based on the way, but based on way i looked at the way they had that e s d fund set up i understood exactly what they were talking about it wasn't a mystery to me i want to move on you know this whole esg debate had um from texas and far it hearts back to milton friedman's old arguments the 40 or 50 years ago that the role of a company is to serve solely its shareholders and its purpose is purely to make profits for its shareholders and there should be no other considerations um is it fair to say esg is coming up out of a different mindset, that the stakeholder concept that there may be other interested parties. I'm trying to broaden this out philosophically.

What is ESG? Where does it come out of? Well, so many of the factors that are part of ESG have an intermediate or long-term impact. So how diverse is your workforce? You're likely to be more profitable if you are diverse. That's what the research says. Are you being sued and do you have labor practices? That's probably going to hurt you from a lawsuit.

something that happened with Tesla. That's why it was removed from the S&P 500 ESG index that's behind S&PE and a couple other products. So it's part of it. People are looking at more than just how profitable a company is in the upcoming quarter. And that's a good thing. A long-term shareholder-friendly approach is something what ESG is doing. But I also find it crazy that we're saying that we're only investing in companies based on how profitable they are. We've got valuation-driven products. There's an S&P 500 value ETF. We've got strategies.

The triple-Qs excludes financial companies because that's the criteria that they have. There's no boycotting of the NASDAQ 100. ESG is just getting the spotlight often for the wrong reasons. Yeah. You want to add anything to it? Yeah, I mean, the challenge here is that when we're talking about ESG, again, it's so complex. This is a very complex issue. I understand the criticisms that some people

may have. If they want an environmental fund, those exist. If they want a social fund, those exist. The challenge comes down to when you're trying to balance different objectives, there are very real interconnected trade-offs in the global economy. It might be the case that if you pursue low-carbon emissions, you might end up creating sort of job losses, or you may end up creating some other economic fallout. So the purpose and role of ESG is to try and counterbalance many of these different questions that are very legitimate and valid. And how one index provider or one data provider does it is just a starting point for a conversation. No one is claiming that their approach is the be all and end all solution to these very complex social questions.

It's really up to the end investor to take that as a starting point and to layer in whatever additional considerations they find important to themselves. Speaking of ESC, we had I watched very carefully the STRIVE ETF that came out. And, of course, Strive launched an energy ETF to push back on what a claim was stakeholder capitalism by asset managers like BlackRock. And it's interesting. We've been paying attention to it. And it's sort of, it's basically the S&P Energy Index.

It tracks closely, but has a higher cost than the S&P Energy Index. And they have obviously a different sort of approach. They want to influence the proxy votes. which is completely in their right, and everyone should have a right to do whatever they want on that front. But from your point of view, watching the ETF industry, what do you think of companies on the other side of that who are trying to argue that we want to influence proxy voting in another direction? Right. Well, I think we have choice. Investors have choice if they care that their energy company is going too far in their mind towards clean energy, and they want to be able to be part of a strategy.

now offers that, but you're right. It's a more expensive version of the energy sector. It's decided they've made Black Rock into the villain in this case. And that's a hard argument. You've got to convince people to buy your ETF because they, you don't like the fact that the parent company of your index based ETF is voting a certain way. I don't think people fully appreciate how Black Rock is voting and are concerned about it. So they're buying XLE or they're buying IYE because they want broad exposure to the energy sector, I don't think they're going to put a political slant on this. That's what Strive is trying to do. They're referring to this as capitalism in a different way. It's an ETF investment. It should perform the way

you want it to ultimately perform. Yeah. My take is very simple. Some are saying investing should only consider how much profit each company is making, and that's it. But ESG itself implies profits have to be made on a sustainable basis to work, even from a fiduciary standpoint. So there's nothing in ESG that says you shouldn't make profits or that ESG is necessarily punitive. It just asks companies to have considerations beyond short-term profits. We can all agree on that, right? I love that. Why the industry is suddenly on the defensive about this, what seems to be a very clear statement of fact,

just like a technology company wants to invest in companies sort of that are, improving their profits on technology, for example, but may have other issues. They may want some other aspect of investing important to them. That's why this is here, to give people choices. And the idea of boycotting energy seems kind of amazing to me. In fact, obviously, we hope that these big energy companies turn into more sustainable energy companies. I'm pro-energy.

Who's not pro-energy? Well, we definitely need life. Occidental. Get bigger, get more important, get more sustainable. Yes. I vote yes. I think you're hitting a really critical point on the head, though. Time horizon matters, right? So if you're looking at a very short time frame, maybe certain things appear to be more profitable. But once you take that longer term view, things like reputational considerations and what society thinks more broadly, potentially impending carbon taxes and pricing that make it less profitable to invest in certain types of companies, these things matter. So really time horizon is the thing that's separating all of this discussion in my view. Final point?

Yep. I just want to underscore highlight everything that both you and Mona just said. The time horizon is critical and sustainability of profits is important. You can buy an ESG-ETF. You don't have to buy an ESGETF. The choice is up to you. But we really don't have to have politicians to join this. The beauty of the ETAF business is that we are already seeing other kinds of ETF products

in response to ESG, like Drill, for example. And those are, you know, that's the beauty here. If you have an idea and you think there is a market for it, there's an ETF for that. We used to joke about that years ago. There's an ETF for that. And there really is. And that's one of the things that I love about this business

because, well, they don't always work out folks. Many of them don't, frankly. And some of them long-term are not great investing ideas. But the public does have a choice. That's what the ETF business is all about. 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 Todd Rosenblu from VETI.

And Todd, thanks for joining us. We had a very spirited discussion on ESG and how politicizes become. But I wonder if you can just give us a perspective about what the rest of the ETF industry is looking like for the rest of the year. I see still new companies coming in. Morgan Stanley announced that they're the, they're the, they're the new. next big entry, five years late, perhaps, but they're coming. What is that announcement of a big company like Morgan Stanley coming in mean? Well, they're perhaps the largest of the asset managers that doesn't have a current ETF presence. They, of course, have the wirehouse part,

the brokerage part of the business. They're big buyers and owners of ETFs from everybody else. But Morgan Stanley has filed to launch ESG ETFs, coincidentally with what we're talking about on the show under the brand of Calvert. So Morgan Stanley bought Eden Vance, which previously had owned Calvert, and they're going to be launching among their product lineup is four index-based Calvert ESG ETS. Broad in nature that is going to go through the broad, the traditional Calvert methodology looking for companies that have strong environmental, social, and governance characteristics. Calvert is a strong brand name within the RIA.

community, many advisors have been using Calvert mutual funds to build their practice. They use Calvert index-based funds. And so ESG fits very well. So yes, Morgan Stanley actually is a little bit later to the party, but the party is going to be going on for a while. ESG is going to be gaining traction. And so Morgan Stanley has a good fighting chance to be a player within the ESG ETF space. Do you see them bringing out big plain vanilla? ETSs like Schwab did. They were a little late, but they came out with some very big plain vanilla ETFs and their client base was so large that they ultimately were successful even with plain vanilla ETFs. Is Morgan Stanley going to do something like that? I think that after ESG, I think

they're going to tap into other actively managed attributes of the business. So what they offer within the mutual fund world, they'll offer some version of that in some cases in the ETF space. But I don't know. I think you mentioned Schwab, but J.P. Morgan is perhaps a good reference point as well. JP Morgan started with an index-based lineup. They then offered some of these low-cost, very cheap beta-builder products. B.B.U.S. is the U.S. version. B.B.E.U. is the European version. And then they've had the most success in offering actively managed ETF. So they have the two largest, they being JPMorgan, are the two largest actively managed ETFs with JPST being the largest of those that's the fixed income products. So I think that's probably the path that Morgan Stanley

is going to follow. But the ETF industry is growing. We're going to have perhaps the second best year ever in terms of net inflows, considering we're in a bare market for equity. Where are the flows going this year? So we're likely to be over $600 billion of net new money going into ETFs, over 300 billion thus far. We had a really strong August, particularly with equity ETFs. They gathered $30 billion of new money despite the volatility in the market. Is there a theme here? I mean, is more money going into particular segments of the market or segments of equities coming out of bonds? Just give me a sense of the overall flows. Sure. So we've seen most of the broad S&P 500-based products like IVV and

VLO from I-Shares and Vanguard, those building block kind of products continue to gain traction. But this has been a year for dividend strategies. So products like HDV, which is the I-Share's core high-d-dividend ETF, or VYM, which is Vanguard's High-D-D-D-D-F, or we mentioned Schwab, Schwab's dividend-E-F, SCH-D, dividend-EFs, given the interest rate environment that we're in, where we're seeing the Fed continue to raise interest rates, advisors, investors, are looking towards alternatives to get income exposure, and thus they're looking to dividend strategy. So this is going to be a record year for dividend ETFs, which is pretty impressive,

given, again, the bare market environment we're in. Bond funds, today I was looking at LQD, which is the largest corporate, the I Shares corporate bond fund, essentially at a 52-week low. Yeah. I can't help but think that must be engendering some outflows. It is. So corporate bonds, and in particular, investment-grade corporate bonds, have shifted out of favor. We've seen investors flock towards Treasury products as a flight to quality.

They are also focused on being able to just manage their duration, so the short-term products. JPST, which is a fund I mentioned earlier, the largest actively managed bond ETFs pulled in a billion dollars during the last week of August. people flock towards cash-like securities, and they're using ETF. So that's what's encouraging to me is that money isn't moving out of the ETF marketplace and a flight to quality to go into actual cash. They're going to cash-like fixed-income ETFs. In terms of what's hot right now, I can't help but think single-stock ETFs are the hot product out there. As chagrined as I am, and I've said this several times, I find it it's a tough product to sell.

to the public. It really is. Because the public cannot wrap their heads around the daily reset at all. And I just foresee problems down the road with them. And yet, I keep hearing more and more new products coming your way. Your thoughts on this? Well, Direction just launched

I guess six new products tied to Microsoft and Alphabet and Amazon. Today is earlier, both a bullish case where it's, I think, one and a half times, and then a bearish case. where it's the short version of it.

These are trading vehicles. Today, when Apple is going to be announcing their new product lineup, that's a day to perhaps take a more aggressive, bullish, bearer stance if you are inclined in the extremely short time horizon towards Apple. But the longer you hold this being tomorrow or into next week, the more risk you're taking on.

So I'm nervous that investors are going to not fully appreciate the risks they're taking on. But I like, again, that we've got choices for investors consider. At the same time, formerly popular thematic tech ETFs, you know, social media, for example, robotics, they've been moving down all year. I see some outflows in some of these sectors. Anything else is going to capture the public's attention? Well, clean energy, which is tied into the ESG theme that we're talking about, but clean

energy and things like lithium battery related, as we've seen the government spending that's going to be happening, that's going to be happening into the next couple of years, those are themes that are likely to benefit more than what we saw with cloud computing or social media that are fallen out of favor in recent. Okay. We're going to leave it there. Todd Rosenblu is the head of research at VETify. And thank you, Todd, for joining us for the whole show.

And thank you, everybody, for listening to the ETFA podcast. InvesQQQQQ believes new innovations create new opportunities. become an agent of innovation. Invesco QQQ, Invesco Distributors, Inc.