The Compound and Friends - The Bet

Episode Date: June 16, 2023

On episode 97 of The Compound and Friends, Michael Batnick and Downtown Josh Brown are joined by Ted Seides and Shana Sissel to discuss the FOMC meeting, how investors are using alternatives these days, the venture capital market, what's going on at Goldman Sachs, the Vision Fund's $32 billion loss, quiet luxury, and much more! Thanks to Kraneshares for sponsoring this episode. Be sure to check out Kraneshares on Animals Spirits: Talk Your Book next week. For more information on KLIP, visit: https://kraneshares.com/klip/ Check out the latest in financial blogger fashion at The Compound shop: https://www.idontshop.com Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Michael Batnick and Josh Brown are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. Wealthcast Media, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. Any mention of a particular security and related performance data is not a recommendation to buy or sell that security. The information provided on this website (including any information that may be accessed through this website) is not directed at any investor or category of investors and is provided solely as general information. Obviously nothing on this channel should be considered as personalized financial advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any securities. See our disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So last week we were here when it was orange outside. So the purpose of this, I know you're a broadcaster, so that you can hear yourself actually. Oh. And so that you can hear yourself. I don't usually do it well. Yeah, because if you go away from the Nike, you'll hear that you're fading.

Oh. So I want to get your guys' take on this. You guys are probably frequent. Your inbox is probably full often. If somebody sends you an email and wants to set up a meeting and then proposes a time that's like three weeks out,

are you impressed or turned off? Like, are you like, because my is like, you're not that busy. I'm not impressed. Is it a meeting that I want to take? Like, did I want this? Just in general.

If somebody reaches out to you to set up a meeting, they put out like three weeks and why is it three, four months? I think it's really smart because I tell people I am always free three weeks from now.

Interesting. But you look at my calendar, there's never any time in the next three weeks. Ever. Not to brag. Okay, good for you. It's been that way

for like 20 years. It's just, it's easy to fill up your days. Okay. I'm not Warren Buffett with the empty calendar. So I have the opposite. I don't think I hear myself, actually.

Somebody sent me an email the other day, a connection, and the guy was like, I could talk at 3.15. And I was like, that's the sign of somebody who's busy. Like, let's go. I want to do it quickly. Really? It was great. And the guy was like, I'm back to back to back to back to back.

And there was only 15 minutes left. How long do you need for an intro? I literally could never do that. My day has never got anything. It's either packed full or wide open. And I'm like, Ted. You're a three weeks out person too? Yeah.

Well, the bigger question is, if today you don't want to talk to that person, and then you say, oh, yeah, like I can do it in three weeks, that's like classic time management 101. If it's not hell yeah now, don't take the meeting in three weeks because three weeks come and you're like, oh, man, I just wish I could. All right, so I'm talking to the wrong people. You guys are very busy. I mean, I'm busy too, but I can always take a call.

You know who has a really great – is it a rubric? You know who has a really great rubric for that harrison ford yes danny meyer said somebody taught him that before you say yes to something ask yourself if it were tonight would i still want to do it that's good would i be excited and he's like very gracious people you could imagine like people ask him to be part of stuff all the time be on a podcast go to this event etc it's so easy to say yes to things that are in three months so he's like before i say anything i'll just say like if i had to do this today would i be as excited as i think i will be

if i have to do it in three months and uh when you do that, you could very graciously say no to almost anything. Because I don't want to do anything. By the way, is this on my head on purpose to cover this? I would say the elephant in the room is Ted's killer head. What is it? It's from playing tennis. Tanline. Tanline.

Oh, tanline. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, you're fine. Is that a shout out? No, it's a tanline. Hello, hello, hello. Oh, there we go. I'm a shadow? No, it's a tan line. Hello, hello, hello. Oh, there we go. I'm back.

You're playing a lot of tennis outdoors? Yeah. Okay. There's a whole, like one of the little leadership things is pre-committing your calendar. What does that mean? It means like if you look at my calendar, if I'm writing something, like I'm working on a book now, there's twice a week where there's three hours that just says writing time. I won't take any meetings in that time. But if I don't do that, by the time that day comes,

you won't have a block or reading time. That's how I was. I had to write a module for the CHI Association. And I literally got to the point exactly what Ted was saying, where I had to block off hours of my calendar because my team was booking me for stuff when I was trying to write. And I just got to the point where I realized, unless I actually completely book it off my calendar, I'm never going to be able to sit down and do this. You know what the alternative is? Nobody wants you for anything.

Yeah. And I have been there. Yeah. So I try not to bitch and moan about my schedule, first of all. It's very lame. First of all, I do it all to myself anyway. Oh, I'm so busy.

No, I know. So I don't do that. Ted, what are you writing? I'm doing a Rubenstein-type book on the Private Equity Deals podcast series. So it's going to be called Private Equity Deals. And it's 12 to 18 case studies of individual deals that are the podcast transcript. And I'm writing intros for all the chapters in it. So it's all private equity.

Are you going to be interviewing people? I've already done it. So I started another podcast last year called Private Equity Deals. Every episode is with the GP talking about one of the deals in their portfolio. And then are these like deals that went well, deals that didn't go well? I mean, look, there's always going to be a bias towards doing something that's either going well or has gone well. Yeah.

But it's not massively cherry-picked. So I say it has to be in the portfolio or an exit in the last year. And then they pick the deal. So who did you talk to? Is that part of the surprise? No, it's like, it's a podcast. It's adapted from the podcast. They're all out.

Yeah. So you're turning the podcast into a book. Yeah. But like the easy way to do it, the way David Rubenstein does it, which is like 80% of the book is the podcast transcript edited, and now I'm just writing interest. That's the right way. Because the reason like this, one of the things I realized, I was doing it all ad hoc.

Like the first season was a bunch of well-known sponsors. The second season was all companies. So there's a Yellowstone Club episode. There's a Fenway Sports episode, TaylorMade, Yahoo that Apollo bought. And not by design, but like you start adding up 10 deals and there's one distressed. There's one turnaround. There's one corporate carve-out. There's one fifth-time private equity owner.

And when you layer them all together, you're like, oh, this is how private equity works. And each one has their own nuance. So I was like, it's just repackaging it in a different way. Who do you think is going to buy the book? People that work in private equity now? KKR. People that want to understand it better? Yeah.

It's the audience of the podcast. I mean, it's like the two books I did are 10, 12,000 copies. It's like the podcast audience who wants the book. Any RIA, private equity people? No. Oh, yeah. It's all institutional stuff.

Yeah. No, no, no, no, no. You mean? Like people buying. Yeah. You know how many RIAs get bought? Investing in. Oh, it's huge. No, no, no, no, no. You mean? Like people buying. Yeah. You know how many RAs get bought. Investing in. Oh, it's huge.

Oh, yeah, yeah. So what about that? We're not good enough here? For an audience, you mean? No, for the podcast. For a chapter. Yeah, for a chapter. Or for the podcast.

I hadn't thought about that. Like a Mariner or like a Carson or like these guys? Doing deals of, yeah. Do you want to do Edelman Financial Engines? No, I'll do it with you guys. No, we never,

we never, we don't, we never took any private equity money. Yeah, but you're buying RAs, right? No,

never. No, no. What about like a Carson? I mean, I could do it with Rockefeller. Yeah, Carson,

Mariner. Carson, you could have Jamie Hopkins is great. Yeah. Yeah, do it with Carson. They have private equity.

Yeah, I haven't, like, yeah, could easily do that. See, you're already, you're already, you're already getting something out of this.

There you go. All right. Good. You sound good. Are your headphones up to speed? I'm good. I'm good. Yes?

Yeah. All right. Are you still futzing with the camera lens? I'm just focusing. I know you're a perfectionist, but let's get the show on the road. So, market is ripping again today? Wow. All right.

We're going. Are you guys excited for this? Yeah. Are you sending texts right now? The market's ripping. I want to see what's going on. Don't multitask me. What episode is this?

Episode 97, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to The Compound and Friends. All opinions expressed by Josh Brown, Michael Batnick, and their castmates are solely their own opinions and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon for any investment decisions. Clients of Ritholtz Wealth Management may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this podcast. Today's show is brought to you by Craneshare. Check out our Talk Your Book episode. That's on Monday on the Animal Spirits feed with Craneshare.

We're talking about Clip. I call it Calip. That's their China internet and covered call strategy. That was a very interesting conversation. Thank you to Crane Shares for sponsoring today's episode. For more information on Clip with a K, visit craneshares, also with a K,.com slash Calip. Welcome to The Compound and Friends, everyone's favorite podcast about investing, finance, business.

What else do we do on the show? Romance. Romance. We are going to have an amazing show today. Thank you guys so much for listening and joining us. We have two very special first-time guests here at The Compound and friends. And I'd like to introduce them in no particular order. But, Ted, you're going to have to wait. That's fine.

All right. Shana Sissel is here. Shana is the founder, president, and chief executive officer of Bannerian Capital Management. Wait, did I do that right? You did. Okay. Do people get that one wrong, too? All the time. Okay. did I do that right? You did. Okay. Do people get that one wrong too? All the time.

Okay. Is that an Irish word? It is. It's Gaelic. It means queen. Wow. I know, right? That makes sense.

It just totally makes sense. All right. Banrian Capital Management, where she helps advisors with alternative investing, platform development, and portfolio construction. Shaina is a constant contributor on both CNBC and Fox Business. That's not going to last long. One of them is going to make you exclusive. Where she offers her insights

on the current state of the markets. Shayna, can I start with one question? Sure. How did you become the queen of alts? Okay, so Cynthia Murphy from... Did the last queen get their head cut off? I don't know. And then it was you?

I don't know. Is it self-proclaimed or somebody gave it to him? Somebody gave it to me. The queen of alts, ladies and gentlemen. The queen of alts media. John is clapping. Let's show some deference. All right, how did you get this nickname?

So Cynthia Murphy from Tidal gave me the nickname. I was on their show, their happy hour show, like a year ago, right after I started Bonroon. And they asked me where the name came from. And I told them, Bonrorin means queen in Gaelic. My mom's Irish from Ireland. And so, you know, I was looking for something cool that sounded cool. And queen capital management sounded incredibly lame, but was also taken.

So I just threw the word into a translator and then that came out. And I thought that sounds cool. Home run. And so she was like, oh, that makes sense that you're the queen of alternatives. And then that's how it came to be. Now, do you have any official duties as queen? Are there things that you have to do in that role? I do not have any official duties other than running my company, which is the queen company.

But you are like 24-7 alts. I am. Okay. Okay. Yes. So even if you just like randomly got the nickname, I feel like you're going to grow into it. Yeah. And you will be the acknowledged queen of alts.

So Cynthia is my Paul Pierce. Okay. The Shaq to my Paul Pierce. I'm the king of all balts. There you go. Michael is the king of all balts. All right. And we have the king of alts.

No, I'm just kidding. And we have Ted Sides is in the house. Ted is the king of vaults. No, I'm just kidding. And we have Ted Sides in the house. Ted is the founder of Capital Allocators, where he is the host of the Capital Allocators podcast. Ted launched the podcast in 2017, which has since reached 16 million downloads. That's a big, for people that don't know, that's a big number.

Across all platforms, Ted has also written two books. So you want to start a hedge Fund and Capital Allocators, both of which have generated high reviews. He will publish a third, which we were just talking about, private equity deals next year. Ted, welcome to the show. Thanks, Gus. So happy to have you.

Fun to be here. Your podcast is awesome. I know you know that I feel that way. Was I on it a million years ago? You're the only episode of the 300 or 400 thus far marked explicit. Attaboy. All right. I'm very proud of myself.

Thank you. All right. So what is it? What is the – give us like the format of the podcast for those that haven't discovered you yet. You're – how many times a week are you putting out material? Yeah, one or two. Okay. Interview, show, I interview. It's all in the institutional investing world. So the money managers and the client side. Okay, very cool. And you love it. It's awesome. It's kind of the same thing I've done for 20 years when I was investing before doing the podcast. Depending on how the mic is on. But now the mic is on. No,

but you become much more public. You come from the hedge fund world where nobody says anything. Yeah, that's right. So that's a very big difference. Yeah. But you have a lot of hedge fund people on the show and they want to talk.

The thing is, I don't think they want to talk to just anyone. They want to talk to somebody that can actually be on the level. And I think that's what you come to the table with. And it's really unique and people love it. You going to keep going? That's the plan. Okay. All right. Very cool. Welcome to the level. And I think that's what you come to the table with. And it's really unique. And people love it. You going to keep going? That's the plan. Okay. All right. Very cool. Welcome to the show. We're going to start with where I think we kind of have to start. I'm going to play something. Since early last year, the FOMC has significantly tightened the stance of monetary policy.

We have raised our policy interest rate by five percentage points, and we've continued to reduce our securities holdings at a brisk pace. We've covered a lot of ground, and the full effects of our tightening have yet to be felt. All right. That was the line that people didn't seem to love, I think, or one of the lines. But we had an FOMC meeting this week. The Fed did not raise rates. That was the expectation, right? Okay. There was an instant, there was an instant sell off in the market, which then repaired itself a few seconds later. Not that big of a deal. I wanted to hear from you guys what your thoughts were, if we learned anything new this week, and if markets are kind of like just

over the whole idea of whatever the Fed's going to do or not do next. I totally thought this was a posturing thing. In that it's kind of like the parents telling the kids, like, you behave or, you know, or this is going to happen. I really felt like it was their way of saying, look, we're going to pause. But if you guys don't get out of hand, because if you do, we're going to break everything. That's how I felt it. What surprised me the most was-

Wait, the Fed said, put that NVIDIA down. Or I'm coming in there. I still own some, so. Okay, all right. But yeah, so that's kind of how I viewed it. And the thing that surprised me the most was that there were so many people on the committee that are predicting two more rate hikes. Like, I thought two was possible if the employment markets didn't break. But I thought that was low probability.

But like the vast majority of the people on the committee were like two hikes are coming before the end of the year. Don't ask me. I thought they were done three hikes ago. So I don't – Shana, you just said something interesting about them breaking something. I think the expectation from the market was they're going to go until they break something. Well, guess what? Yeah, I guess you could say that regional banks broke.

But the thing that they wanted to break specifically, I think, is the labor market. And they didn't break it. They paused. Yes. Because nobody wants to be the guy who is, like, trying to get people fired off. Which was, which was, that was the narrative a couple months ago. They want people to get fired. The Fed wants you to lose your job.

Well, they paused. Yeah. But the market is still expecting another 25 basis points in July. So it's not, it's not done. If Invitity goes to $2 trillion, they're going to f**k it up again. But for now, they're pausing. Ted, how do you see it? You know, the Fed, when they speak and talk about two projections, I think of it as a meditation. They're only talking about what they see in the moment right now. So a month from now, that could change if the conditions change.

So people in the markets don't think that way. The markets are predicting in what they said at this moment in time. That's not really how their process works. But you had unprecedented QE going in 15 years ago. You've got this unprecedented, intractable problem of you've got the banking issues on one side and you've got to tame what's going on in the economy on the other side. I have no idea how they navigate through this, but I don't really watch each month after month because I just don't think it matters. Also, unprecedented contraction in money supply. 4% in the last nine months in M2, a little over 4%.

Which I think has happened once. Yeah, but we also had like an unprecedented rise. So of course. But that's actually where I think the opportunity is in the market right now is you have to think about if we're going to be pulling liquidity from the system. Maybe they don't do it with rates, but maybe, you know, before the financial crisis, QE wasn't a thing. But now they can do things where like headline rates stay up and they can say they're being tough on that. But then they can do stuff on the balance sheet. Right.

They could stop. They could stop letting as much mature and go. Or I want to share this from Peter Bukvar, friend of the show, as to what the Fed statement said yesterday and confirmed by Jay Powell and his presser. I'll just repeat my belief again that at this point, keeping rates at current levels for a while is more relevant than whether they hike again or not, which I don't believe they will. As it is a continuous form of monetary tightening every single day for someone, business and household, whose loan is coming due and isn't being paid off and replaced. I'll also add that QT, quantitative tightening, becomes more of a focus with the rate

hiking period, taking a breather. That's interesting. So now it's almost like, all right, one more rate hike or no more is not really the thing. It's how much longer are we staying tight and how committed are they to continue to shrink the balance sheet that's going to have a bigger impact? Peter talks about mortgage holders and how they're doing in the current market. And I think one of the big issues is you've kind of turned the housing market upside down in Peter's framework. Nobody wants to sell. So here, highlighting how locked in mortgage holders are with the spike in rates and how upside down the Fed has turned the housing market, Redfin updated its stats of where today's homeowners fall on the mortgage rate spectrum. How many homeowners would you guess have a mortgage rate locked in below 3%?

60? I was going to say more like 75%. 23.5%. Really? Below 4%? Oh, that is much higher. 62. All right. That's the sweet spot. With three, I can nail the bottom half percent. That's it? Really? Below 4 percent. Oh, that is much higher. 62. All right.

That's the sweet spot. With three, I can nail the bottom pretty much. Below 5 percent, 82.4 percent have a rate below five. That's down from 85.7 one year ago. And then below 6 percent, that's 91.8 percent. So 91.8 percent of U.S. mortgaged homeowners are below six. The record was 92.9% a year ago. Well, they broke the housing market.

The existing housing market has been frozen for a year. They froze it. Yeah. I don't know that they broke it. No, they did. Well, what's the difference? Well, the difference is existing home sales. Are broken.

But no, the difference is prices. Yeah, prices have not budged. No, and they're not going to budge because there's not— They're not going to. It's supply-demand. Where I am in northern Chicago burbs, like Wilmette is one of the suburbs that I like border. The median home price in Wilmette is like $900,000. And not dropping.

And these are not big, huge houses. These are 2,500-square-foot, three- foot, three bedroom, two bath kind of things. Same with us. And they are not dropping. And the thing that I find most interesting is that they're on the market for like a day. I think the average time on market's like 20 days at most. And there's houses I'll see like coming soon, and then they never come on the market because they sold as a pocket listing before they ever went on the market. Don't you think this is part of the irony?

The Fed can't build houses. Nope. So scarcity is keeping prices high and high shelter costs are a big source of the inflation the Fed is trying to fight. We're not going to show this on the show, but this is mine and Josh's neighborhood. 825. Now, this won't sell. This won't sell for 825, but it's, you know, it's probably a 2,200-square-foot house.

It's a fine house, but this should legitimately sell for 550. Because there aren't 50 of those on the market. No, there's like three. Right. The other part of the dynamic is coming out of COVID, particularly in suburbia like where we are, the inventory got gutted by people moving out from the city. So anytime you're in suburbs around the city, inventory got shot, and then you had the rate hikes.

So now no one's going to move. So if you're the Fed, you know you can't build houses yourself, but you kind of need there to be less housing scarcity. You need more houses. But if you raise the rates at which builders borrow, you're not going to get them. So to me, it's almost like I understand why you have to raise rates to fight inflation. You're just not going to be able to fight housing inflation that way. If you want to turn into what you do about it, right, there are, in the alt space, this booming market of single-family rentals.

Yep. The queen has already informed me of this. I actually rent a single-family home for that very reason. I actually rent a single family home for that very reason. And the reason why is because during COVID, we were looking buying or renting. And even in the rental market, people were saying, I'll give you six months rent. And they were like bidding wars to rent houses. It was crazy because it's a good school district and people wanted their kids to be in person.

And the scarcity of- Oh, the renter was saying, I'll pay you six months in advance. Six months in advance. And there was like bidding wars. Bidding wars to rent. Unbelievable. So this is the thing that maybe interest rates, maybe you need interest rates at 15%. It's structural. People need houses. People might need houses.

This seems like a problem that the banks can do some financial engineering on. I just feel like this is Why can't you take your mortgage This seems like a problem that the banks can do some financial engineering on. I just feel like this is— Say more. Why can't you take your mortgage with you? Well, here's the thing that I think is going to happen. You know how everything has unintended consequences, right? Yes.

You know, Wall Street loves to create product to solve a problem, but then eventually whatever they created creates a new one. I feel like that's inevitably what's going to happen here, where some exotic types of mortgages or something to like what you're saying. You take your mortgage with you or you pass a mortgage through to whoever your buyer is, your rate, something like that's going to happen. And then it's going to blow up. I think the UK has that portable mortgages. Yeah.

Because everyone's stuck. If you want to move, you can't afford to move. Right. And even the people who like are traditionally like, you know, the empty nesters who want to downgrade, like they're not going to do that. They've got the bigger house cost them less than if they sold it to buy the smaller house. And they have to go somewhere. And renting is not exactly attractive. Exactly. Here's one more thing that rates have done. This is so I got a new credit card this week and they said the APR is 28 percent on an Amex, 28 percent. The average interest rate for all credit card accounts from 94 to today. Look at that.

On an Amex, 28%. The average interest rate for all credit card accounts from 1994 to today, look at that. If you are falling behind on your credit cards, you are so screwed. 28%. That's crazy. How does anyone pay that off after a year? Think about what that compounds to. Yeah. Little Chris.

All right. I want to pivot. And Ted, I want to tell the story. And I know you've told the story a lot, but it is the 15-year anniversary of the bet. Do I have that right? Yeah, try. Okay. So 2007, I'm not going to tell the story.

Well, I'm going to ask you questions, and you're going to end up telling the story. 2007, you make a bet with Warren Buffett. Yeah. And this is the thing that I think you became the most known for, like in terms of the media. That's the podcast. But, you know, before that. No. I mean, originally.

Originally. So you make a bet with Warren Buffett, and the gist of the bet is that what? The gist of the bet. So the bet started in January 1 of 2000. How drunk were you and Warren, by the way? Was it like a drunken bar room? No, I'm kidding. Wait, what was the genesis?

How did this even happen? Yeah, we don't even know that. Okay. So in fall, summer 2007, I read something that he had said to a group of students. So he had said in one of his annual letters, the whole had rocks, got rocks thing about fees, just generally.

And somewhere along the way, he made some comment that a group of hedge funds could never beat the market. So there was this transcript, and someone had asked him about it. And he said, well, no one took me up on it, so I must have been right. Oh, he rhetorically made a bet to himself. Yeah, exactly. Okay. So I read it in the summer of 2007. So keep in mind, in ARF, I was running a hedge fund of funds at the time.

We were short subprime mortgages. It was before it all really collapsed. But hedge funds for a long time had beaten the market. It was a good decade for hedge funds, up to 2007. Great decade. Yeah. And the S&P 500 was trading at historical highs. And so I just read it and said, look, he's a very smart guy, but he just made a bad bet.

So I wrote him a letter on a computer, but I didn't have his email or something. He doesn't have email. So I just sent it to him and he responded. It became this back and forth email exchange about what this thing was and what it was going to be. Wait, you read him, you wrote him physically and he emailed you back or somebody's assistant emailed with a little chicken scratch note from him oh that's hilarious um and there was a letter exchange it's pure cat and mouse game sort of um one of my partners said when he read it at the time he said it's pretty clear to him that he's the patsy at the poker table but he has the most chips okay so we consummated this bet which which ultimately was 10 years.

Call it a group of hedge funds. It was actually five hedge fund of funds. There's a whole reason for that against the S&P 500. Isn't that too many hedge funds to start with, though? Five funds of hedge funds? Yeah, I was going to say five hedge fund of funds. Why not just pick global macro or something? So let's go back. We could go to your childhood. So let's go back. Okay, you're in 2000.

We could go to your childhood. Ted was nine years old. I'm honestly riveted by this story. So the question is, what do you think the bet is? So let me ask you that. What do you think you're betting on if you're betting hedge funds against the market in January 1 of 2008?

You're betting on more volatility, I suppose, and having enough hedge funds that are capable of making money. Yeah, dispersion of returns. Okay, I think that's completely wrong, all of that. I'll just leave. So most of the time, hedge funds are boring. You could say they're boring and they don't make a lot of money these days.

Then they were boring and they made 8% to 10% a year, but they're boring. Right. The market's generally not boring. So if the market's trading at all-time highs, and you look at any historical metric, you say, what do you think the projected 10-year returns are going to be? If you thought that was going to be bad, you would bet on anything but the market. If you thought it was going to be good, you're going to bet on the market over anything else. And if you're not sure, it's like, OK, fine, historical averages. So I viewed the

bet as a referendum on the S&P. For that particular 10-year period. For that particular 10-year period. Go forward from 07. Right. And it sure looked that way in year one. Well, you looked really right a year later. Yeah. And it looked that way for four or five years. Fed comes in the next year, and you had nine years of the S&P up like 18% a year, which is way above historical averages.

And sure enough, the S&P won the bet. That's it. Okay. But how did it become public that this bet existed? So we agreed that Carol Loomis would come in and write about it. Okay. So she wrote a piece that came out in the middle of – Is that Fortune or –

Fortune. I think it was the middle of 2008. Maybe it was the middle of 09. I don't remember exactly when it came out. One of the great lessons in the media. So Carol writes a, really, I was shocked. I was like, how are you going to write an article about this little bet? But she wrote this great piece about how it all came about.

She's amazing. Well, a good sign of the media, that was the only piece written based on facts. And it was very simple what she wrote. Everybody else wrote about it. Ninety percent of what everybody else wrote was factually incorrect just about what the bet was. Because they didn't talk to either of you. No, because they didn't read her piece. Okay.

Oh, it's hedge funds. No, it was actually fund to fund. It was – they were betting against Warren Buffett. No, it was against the – all these like little factual inaccuracies, just a little thing about the media. Warren Buffett knows against the mark. All these like little factual inaccuracies, just a little thing about the media. So she reported on it and then Warren announced the results every year at his annual meeting. Oh, you must have been thrilled.

It was fun. Yeah. Especially what he used to do is every year right before lunch, he would announce the results. He said, I told you I'm going to announce the results of the bet. As you can see, I'm losing. Let's go have lunch. Okay. The first year he got ahead, he wrote two pages in his annual letter. Shout out to Warren. All right. Did you ever get on the phone with him and just like,

you got closure on the whole thing? So he wins in the official result is what? End of 16 or end of 17? It started in end of 17. So end of 17, what are the actual results? Just let's clear up like all the misconceptions people have. Yeah. So I don't remember the exact numbers. The market was up, let's call it 7% a year during those 10 years, as it turned out. And the hedge funds were up like two or three. So the market won by a lot. Okay. But the hedge funds were still positive returns.

Yeah. Okay. Was there a lot of turnover in the five funds of funds that you selected, which means that the thing that you were betting on originally had changed, whereas the S&P really didn't change much other than some stocks getting smaller or larger. Was that like a big factor? So I would say two things.

Part of the reason you do fund-to-funds is so that you don't have that turnover, right? You don't have a fund that goes out of business. So the funds that we picked were the same. I don't know a fund that goes out of business. So the funds that we picked were the same. I don't know exactly what was going on in them. Obviously, like Ashton said, one of them was ours that we were running. I'll tell you some fund turnover. The largest position in one of the funds. Berkshire? Lehman? No. Keep going though. Bayer? No. Ted Weschler's fund. Apple? No, the guy that ended up getting Buffett. The guy that Buffett hired.

Yeah, yeah. And so that was the largest position, but then he gave all the money back. So Warren was losing. I guess he became an activist investor because he started pulling out the talent. Okay, got it. Oh, he pulled Ted out of the fund that was competing with him. Yeah. Oh, here's what I wanted to ask you.

Interesting. Out of the fund that was competing with him. Yeah. Oh, here's what I wanted to ask you. How did the other four funds of funds feel about being thrown into this very public bet with Warren Buffett? Did you like get their consent beforehand or? Absolutely. So part of the reason, the main reason we never announced who the funds were is number one, it doesn't matter for the theory of the bet. Oh, I didn't even know that.

Oh, so you didn't say who the funds were. No. Warren knows and we get the audits and since it was all verifiable. Warren definitely knows because he started recruiting the people who are beating him. That's hilarious. Two of the fund to fund said they would participate, but they didn't want it to be known. So we just made it anonymous for everybody. Okay.

I think that was the right decision. But people don't want to be in a horse race with the greatest investor of all time if they don't have to. I mean, you wanted to be. But they were in a horse race with the S&P. But be that as it may. JP Morgan does this great guide to alternatives. And the dispersion on hedge fund returns,

it's all over the place. People think of hedge funds as a category, but I know you know better than anyone. It's all over the place. And there are actually liquid alts, like ETFs and mutual mutual funds that do a lot of the same things hedge funds do without leverage, which affects their returns. But there's so much in there. And to your point, my favorite chart in that guide that they do quarterly is basically their version of the Iverson chart. Because I talk about this all the time, but we teach advisors how to build equity portfolios and fixed income portfolios.

But you have to build an alt portfolio, especially with those hedge fund diversifiers, in the same manner where you don't pick one. You don't like all bets on global macro, all bets on market neutral. Okay, so you're right. Advisors have no idea right now how to do that. Yeah, so that chart is fantastic because it points to exactly what you're talking about. Yeah, people talk about hedge funds as if they're one thing. But there's long-only hedge funds, and there's market neutral hedge funds, and there's global. I mean, there's a million.

Yep. So is that changing? How do you see advisors evolving to incorporate hedge fund-like strategies or alts or whatever you want to call them in their client portfolios. Well, see, now you're just teeing me. I have to promote myself. Well, no, because I don't know a lot about this, frankly. There's definitely more interest. You know, the 60-40 is dead narrative that we've been hearing. I've always said it's not dead. It's just evolving. You know, liquid alts have made it possible to invest in hedge fund-like strategies. Let's define that for the audience.

When somebody hears the word liquid alts, what are they hearing? So two different definitions. When I say it, I mean like ETF mutual funds and interval funds that any investor can buy. Some people mean it as invest in liquid underlying. But when I refer to it as ETFs, mutual funds, and interval funds. So it's strategies that don't require all the paperwork. Right. You can buy it in a TD account.

You don't have to have a K-1, but you can have a strategy that's not long-only an asset class. Exactly. There's some constraints to it because the SEC says if you register under the 40 Act, you have limitations on leverage and things of that nature. But you can include those things in your portfolio and improve risk-adjusted returns. But you can include those things in your portfolio and improve

risk-adjusted returns. But you have to kind of understand that they are low correlation, right? For better or worse. For better or worse, they are low correlation. I actually got in a really interesting Twitter debate about a fund in this space where somebody was like, well, the 10 year returns are negative. I'm like, this fund is either up 25% or it's down because of its correlation. But like just a small percentage of it and like a traditional 60, 40 actually substantially improves your shop ratio, like substantially. So your ride is no longer a roller coaster and it's a lot smoother. So the end investor should want to hear that from an advisor because why? Because risk adjusted returns, meaning less discomfort. Compounded over

time. Compounded over time. Like it's not sexy. In the JP Morgan Guide to the Markets, they have a chart in there that talks about like a 30% allocation to alts and then it shows like how it improves returns and reduces risk and so they do 30 percent and they're using hfr so they're using private funds but i have a similar chart in the deck we use that uses liquid all products like the model that i run so my numbers aren't nearly as sexy as jp morgan and i'm only suggesting a 20 not 30 you got to get advisors at like four right now so like we got to move them there a little bit. Is that where it is? Yeah, it's about 4%. So I do 20%. So it's not sexy. Over 10 years, it's like 15 to 20 basis points and improvement in annualized return. But think about that on a

compounded basis. And then also think about the fact that your standard deviation of a portfolio drops by like 100 to 150 basis points. It's even more dramatic if you look at the J.P. Morgan. As an advisor talking to people from the alts world, the first question that I would ask is, should I try to time which strategies I choose to use? Like, should I represent to the client that I feel now is a good time for long short

because of elevated market valuations? Or is that not the right thing to say? I would suggest you would do it. And Ted, correct me if I'm wrong here because you ran a fund to fund. I worked for a fund to fund. That's how I got into the business. But you wouldn't do that with equities, right? Like if you were building a portfolio.

Some advisors would. Some would. But you would kind of say like I have large growth and I have large value. And maybe I tweak it at the edges like I'm slightly overweight value. But you're never not in growth. And I would suggest that in the alts world, you kind of have to think of it the same way. Now, I do sometimes add something into the portfolio that I would not hold over the long term. But there's foundation, a foundation that like never changes, might tweak around the edges. Okay.

And that's kind of how I focus on it. You build it the same way you'd build equity or fixed income. It's just nobody talks about that. Do you see it the same way? I do. The return drivers in a hedge fund strategy are much fuzzier than say, like if you own a stock, it's beta, it's small cap, large cap. So you think about long, short, there's a component that's interest rates. And then most of the rest is the spread of the long performance versus the short performance for an individual. That's manager skill.

It's manager skill. So it's really hard to time. Within the different hedge fund strategies, the one place where you do see people come in and out a little more is just based on what's happening in the credit markets. So would that be macro allocations or credit opportunities? No, it's if there's a lot of distress. Like arbitrage, like a muni arb or something like that or distress securities. Yeah, when yield spreads are wider, you might see more credit exposure. And when yield spreads are really narrow, people might dial that back. But it's really hard to predict

what strategies will do well. I have a question about risk-adjusted returns. Like, how much do they matter? Like, if you're looking at your account four times a day, yeah, smoothing it would probably be helpful, although you shouldn't be looking at that often. But if you're looking at a statement, you know, four times a year, twice a year.

So I might be the only person who's ever come on the show that would profess to have learned something from Josh. This is really a big moment. Years ago, Josh came on the show, and this is in the early years of Ritholtz, and I'm talking to him about, like, do you use alts for your clients? And he kept saying the same thing. Doesn't matter.

Doesn't affect them. Doesn't matter for them to get the outcomes they need. So this question of, well, risk-adjusted return, does it matter? What are you optimizing on? Are you trying to optimize for the results of someone to grow their assets to retirement over some time horizon?

You might not need it. If you're trying to be more sophisticated and you say, okay, you already know the core of what you're doing is 70-30, 80-20, and you want it to be as good as it could possibly be, then you do care about risk-adjusted returns. And you have to think about, like Ashan said, how much of that should be in hedge funds or something else. So the 20% is not a catch-all for everyone. No. Right, so the 20% is not a catch-all for everyone. No, 20% is kind of like the—somewhere between 20 and 30 is kind of the optimal where you can get the best risk-adjusted returns.

Anything less than 10, it's not going to have much of a difference. Anything more than 30, it could hurt you. So less than 10, like almost like why bother? Right. Okay. But I will say this, kind of to—why does it matter? Okay. So if I'm an advisor, my goal and the reason I'm being hired by clients is to help them reach some goal in the future. Right? So if that future time period happens to correspond with a really big market drawdown, like you are not.

So having that smoothing is actually good so that you don't potentially have the risk of a drawdown. If it works. Yeah. Well, I'd like to say it works. My portfolio does. But the point here— No, no, no. If the managers— Right.

If the managers work. That you pick to their job. Yeah. But if you diversify and those kind of things, like that matters. But yeah, there's a risk that you could have a massive drawdown right before whatever that endpoint is. Sequence of retirement. Yeah, so you have that problem.

And then I always say this all the time. No one is going to get overly excited. Like, your client doesn't care if you beat your bogey by 5%, 10%, or whatever. They definitely care if you miss it. You will definitely get fired for missing your bogey, but they, honest to God, if their goal is to be able to pay and live a comfortable retirement with a certain number, like if you meet it, slightly exceed it, really, they don't care. They just want to meet whatever the goal is. One of the problems with alts on the end client side is people have a tendency to line

item all of their investments. So you could say to your blue in the face, no, no, no, this is part of the whole portfolio. But if they see managed futures underperform for 10 years, they're going to get rid of it probably at a bad time. Exactly. We're going to insist that you get rid of it. But that's why I started Bondman is because we wanted to help advisors be able to have those conversations and be able to talk about those things. And then I talk about this all the time. And this is kind of a nuanced way of doing alts for advisors. It's a little different than the institutional way is I like to encourage advisors, you know, to build a

traditional alts portfolio to be able to scale and have alts be part of the conversation all the time. But when it comes to alternatives, the coolest thing about it is the universe is very broad and you can invest in a lot of things. And so I like to say that advisors should look for ways to build and deepen their client relationships

using alts by creating opportunities to connect with your client through an alternative investment solution. So like... How does that work? All right.

So if... Like this appeals to me. It probably appealed to you guys. And I listened to one of your shows where you talked about this sports rights. Just one. Well, I do like that. That was a good one. But like sports rights, right?

Like how excited are you to call a client and say, I have this opportunity in this fund and you're going to own a piece of your favorite sports. And they don't care. It's a liquid. It's not ever going to come up on the line item. Right. Because it's an ego well but no we're talking about fifty thousand dollar minimums accredited investor hurdles

things that normally you wouldn't be able to get into but that's exciting and that's what i'm talking about like there's a real opportunity here to grow and build a relationship with your clients like whether it be what i like to call ego investing, or I also say impact investing, where like we were talking to a firm earlier this week who is doing like some, you know, residential real estate in a place where it really needs affordable. And like 25% of everything they build goes to housing for heroes. And so you feel like you're doing something good for your community. Now you're connected with it. And now you're deepening relationship with client, and they're invested in something that they now feel emotionally connected to. So the mathematical returns should not be the entire story of why you're looking at

alts. Exactly. Even though you want good returns, there are other benefits. I think Scaramucci figured that out like 15 years ago. And look, I've talked to the advisors that used to sell SkyBridge. And they're like, dude, don't you understand that if I have a $10 million client, and I can give $250,000 of that to Steve Cullen in some way, shape, or form, I can't do that myself. Anthony's platform can do that. The client isn't worried about, is it up or down more than the S&P.

The client just wants a piece of their money managed that way. Yes. And that's what I'm doing. And, you know, the Bogleheads forum would explode listening to that shit. But, you know, I understand it as somebody that deals with clients. They sometimes do want to hear that there's something interesting happening with their capital. Well, not only that, but if you think about it, individual investors are emotionally attached to their money. So why not provide them with an opportunity to be emotionally attached to their investments?

Okay. I totally agree with that. I like that as well. So hedge funds were the stars coming out of the dot-com bust, certainly coming out of the global financial crisis. But it seems like they were replaced with private equity, whether it's venture or more traditional buyout type stuff. Well, it's beta to equity. Without the daily marks.

Yeah, that's all it is. I always like to tell people, there's alts that aren't diversifiers, so they don't belong in an alt bucket. So private equity, venture capital, that's equity beta. It's a different mousetrap, obviously, because it's not public markets, it's an information edge and you can get more alpha,, that's equity beta. Like it's a different mousetrap, obviously, because it's not public markets. It's an information edge and you can get more alpha.

But it's still equity. And like same thing with private credit. It's still credit. It should be part of – it's just an illiquid slice of your traditional equity and traditional fixed income. So I want to ask you guys about this. There was always this idea that there was an illiquidity premium, which made sense, right? If you can't get liquid, you should pay a lower price. You should have high returns. I totally intuitively make sense.

However, and I've said this and, and, uh, Cliff Asness has said this much better. I think there should be almost an illiquidity premium where I would sacrifice returns. Let's just use the S and P let's say I can get eight, 9% of the S and P I would take seven, seven and a half percent. If I don't have to have any volatility, even if it's bullshit. Even if I know this volatility, I don't see it, I would pay for that.

But, yes. And that gets back to the earlier comment about do risk-adjusted returns matter? You asked if risk-adjusted returns matter. I would. I would. So what you're unraveling... With part of my portfolio,

not the whole thing. But, Michael, what you're unraveling is the difference between the underlying investment and the behavior of investors. Yes. The beauty of locking it in a box for 10 years is nobody can get in the way. You want to get in my back?

Tough shit. Hold on. That's why real estate families are rich. Because behavioral finance says you always try to get your money out at the worst possible time. So no one's figured this out yet, but it's possible that the best private equity strategy is taking the S&P 500, leveraging it up, and locking it up for 10 years and seeing what happens. I saw an interesting proposal where somebody was trying to do this. I know this is a legal

structure where there's a pool of money that invests in the S&P. And if you want to take your money out, you have to pay everybody else to get out. And everybody who stays in, it's like a- Oh, that's like a tontine. That's a tontine. But it's somebody has to die. That's a tontine. But it's somebody has to die. But anyway, my bigger point is that I think investors would be happy to give up some returns in order to have the illusion of stability.

How about I just change your password? Come on. Come on. You're talking about a lock, a physical lockbox. I'm saying I'll just bar you. You sign a contract with me and I'll borrow access to your account for 10 years. It's not crazy. I mean, if you talk to the people in the institutional market, one of the reasons why people embrace private equity is just that, right? They're reporting to a board.

Maybe they're only in their seat for five years. So if they think they can make good investments and other people can't get in the way, there is value to that. There shouldn't be. Like, it's value to that. There shouldn't be. Like, to Josh's point, you shouldn't pay for that. Everybody behaved perfectly, which, of course, they don't. Right. Yeah, but it's also a lot easier if you're an endowment to not behave that way because, like, it's not your money. It's 100-year money.

It's not your money. But it's a career. You'd think. Their job is a lot. Job risk is the biggest risk in institutional investing. The alternatives represented more than $20 trillion. This is a big queendom you have going. $20 trillion of global AUM as of year end 2022 and accounted for half of the industry's global revenue.

That's more like 13. The marks are wrong. Right. And accounted for half of the industry's. So half of the asset management business's revenue is coming from alts, generating more than $190 billion for the firms that offer them. So it's a $200 billion a year business with $20 trillion in AUM. So alts are enormous. I think the liquid alt part is the part that's really growing, though.

Yes. Interval funds are changing everything. And the original stuff that came out in interval funds... Can you tell the audience what interval funds are? So interval funds are like an evolution of closed-end funds. That's the only way I can explain it. It allows for product to be offered that's illiquid by having only, like, quarterly

ability to get partial liquidity. Put money in and out. Yeah. And it's partial liquidity at those quarterly. It's not like you can go get everything, but it will say you can take out up to 10%. But you could also put in. Yeah, you can put in as much as you want. It's just how much can you take out at any given time.

Hotel California. Yeah, but the cool thing about it is the original interval funds that came out, I didn't love. I was not a fan. Why? Because it was like long, short equity with a lockup that was worse than like a traditional hedge fund that still had an accredited investor hurdle. And I'm like, why am I doing this? Interval funds still have

some constraint by the 40 Act. I'm just go to the LP, better liquidity, more options. Who are the biggest asset managers here? Is this still like Blackstone and those? Yeah, it's Blackstone. What's the biggest interval fund? Like for people that want to like look it up. I don't know. Who's the bigger provider in that space? I don't even know the answer to that question.

Like the ones that I've looked at, there's been some stuff that's come out like in the VC space that's like interval. I'm trying to remember the name of the one that I looked at in the long short space that was interesting. But a lot of it is like hedge fund companies, not like traditional asset managers that are coming out with this. But like Blackstone has a lot, like B-REIT was an interval fund. And B-CRED is big too. Yeah, yeah. So those are examples. And B-REIT, and those are probably the biggest ones now that I think about it.

But the more interesting stuff's coming down the road. There's a lot of venture capital firms and a lot of private equity firms that want to launch interval product, which will make those illiquid markets that have never been accessible for the average investor accessible to the average investor. So it gives them access to more capital? Yes. I can't imagine that not being a hit in the wealth management channel. If like hypothetically, like A16Z or Benchmark or somebody with a great brand and great portfolio companies was just like, all right, here's how your clients can not buy the scraps, the bottom of the barrel, you know, private companies, but the best ones. Yep. In a way that they don't have to be locked up fully for seven years. And if they need some of their capital back, we can make it available.

I will tell you personally, I'm not going to name names because it's not appropriate, but we talk to venture capital firms all the time because we're raising capital for the firm. But a lot of them will come to us and ask us if we can help them with their interval fund. Like, there are big names out there right now that are launching interval funds in the VC world that are going to make a huge splash. I agree. I think it's going to be a big deal because people, A, want what they historically haven't been able to have.

B, it's an important asset class. It's like a maturing but it's an important asset class. It's like a maturing but now very well understood asset class. Venturous. Yeah. And in the last five years, everyone's nephew launched a company. And most people's sons and daughters are working for stock options at a startup. That's just what's going on.

Did you guys see the chart of SoftBank, the number of deals? Who put this out? This is – John, will you throw this out, please? PitchBook. Yeah, PitchBook. I guess this is – I'm drawing a blank. Which company is this again? Whose logo is that?

I get their email every night. Oh, I believe this is FTX. Go on. Anyway, we're looking at the number of deals and the amount of money deployed. And obviously, 2020, 2021, it's a blow off top. What is that? $60 billion of funding. How many deals?

200 deals. And year to date. You may never see that again. You think you'll ever see 2021 levels of deal funding? If you go back to 99. I don't think the dollar amount was the same. It's going to be a long time. I think we always have these fits and spurts. There's always speculation

that happens and that typically corresponds with... So it's 200 deals, $60 billion in one year for SoftBank. That's CB Insights, by the way. That's the chart that I was looking to. Yeah, it's crazy. There was a big article in Bloomberg a couple of years back, like a feature piece on, I'm jumping around in the dark,

on the Vision Fund. Do you guys remember this? Masayoshi Shun, SoftBank, and the $100 billion blitz on Sand Hill Road. I tweeted this in 2018 and I said, I have a feeling this won't age well. The gist was he was trying to raise a new $100 billion fund every year. And that was, I mean, it went on for a while. That was 2018. The party went on for a feeling this won't age well. The gist was he was trying to raise a new $100 billion fund every year. And that was, I mean, it went on for a while.

That was 2018. The party went on for a while. Here's the problem. $100 billion having to deploy that. How? You have to, you're going to invest in bad deals. Right. It's just too much money.

You can't be selective. So we saw their pizza company. That's what it was called. But he had a 300-year plan. So you can endure a lot of bad deals in 300 years. Yeah, but then hopefully it's only institutional investors. There's not enough companies to soak up that amount of capital. Let me read this so you guys get your reaction.

And I understand this is not representative of most venture funds. When SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son launched his $100 billion Vision Fund over half a decade ago, is that an increment we're now using? Half a decade? Five years ago, the economy was sunny, startups were being sprayed with money,

and a new tech-led era was on the horizon. He claimed to have a 300-year plan. Blah, blah, blah. A lot of shit happened. WeWork, Robot Pizza, dog walking. On Thursday, this is now, the Japanese conglomerate's technology investment unit reported a seismic $32 billion

loss for its full year. I mean, that is a lot of money to lose in a year. Especially when you don't have to mark to market and you can make up the prices. Yeah, so it's probably worse. There's a little more to it than that. If you go back to what he was trying to do, you could mark when Amazon went public, it went public at like a $400 million market cap. And now it's a trillion dollar company. There was a thought that there was an arbitrage between the private markets and the public

markets. And if you could provide a lot of capital, you could capture it. If you went back two years, that vision fund was up mark to market $60 or $70 billion. It was probably more than anyone had ever made in that space. Because Alibaba was a big holding. They had a lot of things that worked. And that was after WeWork blew up. Oh, Arm Holdings, I think, was successful. Coupon went public, huge valuation. Part of the problem wasn't – I mean, that was a first mover.

But then you had Tiger Global doing the same thing. You had KOTU on top of it. That $100 billion became like $150 billion, became like $200 billion. All the deals got inflated. And ultimately, it didn't work. And they were the ones giving the term sheets. So they were the ones – they were the conductors of the musical chairs, and everybody was dancing to their sound. And they had to, right?

They were doing deals. I think Tiger was using Bain as their consulting to do the due diligence. And then it was just like term sheet, term sheet, term sheet, term sheet, term sheet. But they also had this idea that if you overfund the startup that you're investing in, then that startup could dominate a market

faster than any competitors could arise. That's back to that Amazon concept. There were problems with the model. What they were trying to do was capture a beta that the public markets used to capture. It wasn't irrational to try to do that. You say $100 billion, that's crazy, that's too much money.

Maybe, but how much would that have gone public in the IPO markets? Hard to know. It didn't work, things rolled over, it's been a disaster. But it was kind of an interesting, this is one of the things that happens in alternatives. You have people who spot some type of opportunity that the public markets, the public credit markets aren't normally going to see in the normal course. And he's mostly gambling with his own money and with Saudi oil money anyway. So nobody's like upset about it. It also would not happen if interest rates were not at zero for as long as they were.

Just period. Put this VC investment fall sharply. Nobody's like upset about it. It also would not happen if interest rates were not at zero for as long as they were. Just period. Put this VC investment fall sharply. This is from PitchBook. Yeah, just what we're looking at is just the number – again, same thing as a soft bank. Just the number of deals and the amount of deals. And 2021 was the blow-off top and deals are dead right now. There's just not a lot of activity.

So this is Q1 2023. I can personally attest to the deals are dead right now. There's just not a lot of activity. So this is Q1 2023. I can personally attest to the deals are dead part because it's been a grind trying to raise capital right now. Okay, you're not going to get zero percentage rates back, but the IPO market is starting back up again. How do you pronounce that? It's CABA, and I was down at NYSE, and it was awesome. They were, like, giving away. It's like a real IPO.

Yeah, it was a great IPO. Yeah, so you can great IPO. Yeah. So you can do deals again. And now that we got a couple of big ones done, this one can view. All right. Don't you need that to come back before you see venture deals? Like it's, it's, it's cause and effect. Yes. If there's no exit, then there's no entry. Yes. Okay. So that's the good news that, you know, uh, the past couple of weeks, I guess, right? Yeah, and the Kava deal, I think it came in oversubscribed because I think the original price was $22,000,

and I wasn't there when it finally opened. But when I left, the spread was $42,000, $43,000. So I'm holding up my computer for the audience. But this is a chart, and it's going up. It looks like a breakout. You know what that is? That ticker is IPO. Oh, that's actually a fund I really like, the Renaissance IPO fund.

I do like that fund a lot. People are coming back. Can we talk about Goldman for a sec? Ted, did you start your career there? No. Okay. No, I never stepped in tight in investment. Okay. So there was a lot of pieces on Goldman this week. One came from Semaphore about they're getting rid of Green Sky, which makes loans through middlemen. Okay, that was a customer acquisition play, I guess. Didn't work well. Puck had a hit piece about all the executives jumping ship. And then yesterday, the day before,

the Wall Street Journal had like a pretty big one. Goldman Sachs is at war with itself. And this was the lead. Blank fine, holding court at the hotel bar before a gathering of Goldman partners groused about a successor, according to people familiar with the matter. David Solomon, Blankfein said, was spending too much time away from his day job,

jetting around on Goldman's private planes and DJing at nightclubs and festivals. Blankfein wasn't the only one complaining. Partners fought to Solomon, who wasn't present at the bar, for presiding over a money-losing expansion to the consumer lending that Goldman is now unwinding. The consumer business, they said, didn't make partners money.

That stood in contrast with the bank's other units. Cracks are forming in a Wall Street institution. The vaunted Goldman Sachs partnership. So there's 420 partners, and they're talking on the press. Well, the problem is you're not going to get 2021 back. So 2022, everything was cut in half or worse. Right. No matter what you were doing.

So, well. I never understood why Goldman wanted to go into the consumer. Like, Goldman was the, like, creme de la creme on the institutional side, right? So why? I almost feel like that's, like, going into the consumer and the retail market to them is kind of like below them yeah totally like it it almost tarnished the brand in some way which is why they why this bank holding company 2008 oh that's true they became a bank to survive oh right just like morgan stanley yeah but this is kind of an inevitable thing when your brand was never about that and to some extent the prestige factor goes away when

anybody, you know, it's not. But so they hired a lot and they had 50,000 employees now and they laid off 4,200 and they're probably not done, but it's a lot of mouths to feed out of the same bonus pool. And that's why all these hit pieces are surfacing because people are calling Bill Cohen and saying, hey, I don't know if you heard about this. Or, hey, Lloyd Blankfein is sitting at the pool in Miami talking shit about DeSalle. You're getting these hit pieces because the profits were cut in half. How much of that is his fault? Of course they're cut in half. What did 2022 have to do with 2021?

It was night and day environment for banking, for IPOs, for M&A. But think about who his peers are and how they come across. You have Jamie Dimon. Morgan Stanley looks great right now, though. Right, JP Morgan Chase. Jamie Dimon is the preeminent king of that space right now. And he's not going around DJing and stuff. Michael, put up the stock price. Look at the scoreboard.

Stock price has been okay. Stock price has been fine. Goldman stock, stock price. If you circle back to what I was talking about with the bet, don't believe everything you read. So this is since Solomon took over. So Morgan's in the lead. Morgan Stanley's—

Wait, since late 2018? So October 2018 is when David Solomon started. Okay. Morgan Stanley, who is crushing it, is up 90%. Goldman is up 52%. XLF is up 21%. And so that's just the thing. But we're acting like it's so bad.

Over the last year, it's not that bad. Yeah, look at it since 2021. This is just internal drama, though. You know what I'm saying? But I think it's about the bonuses. That's it. Yeah, but you know, the cool thing about this is investors is when people are distracted by a bunch of noise, it can be a good entry point.

But guess what? Yeah. Goldman's actually outperforming Morgan over the last year. That's news to me. Morgan Stanley went down market. How about that? Morgan Stanley went down market and it worked. They bought E-Trade.

It's not the only thing they did. They've made a lot of really good moves. They've added to wealth management in a substantial way. Eat advanced parametric. Right. So they went down, I don't know if it's that far down market. They didn't buy Robinhood. But their stock price is better.

And the perception is also better. But Morgan Stanley had Dean Witter. I mean, that's where I started my career. I was a retail financial advisor. So that wasn't so far outside of what Morgan Stanley did versus Goldman. Goldman going to consumers is very odd. It did not work. And if you look at, yeah, the stock has done fair, like in Solomon's defense, the stock has done fair. But if you look at their investment bank activity, which was their business, they're getting hosed. Like JP Morgan has taken all of it. Goldman bought United Capital, which is a retail RIA, gigantic firm built by Joe Duran.

Yes. Legend. Who is awesome. Yes. Is Duran speaking at Future Proof? I don't know. All right. Joe, you're invited.

Goldman did that deal. I think people on both sides of that deal scratched their heads. I was working at Orion when that deal happened, and we were working on a deal with – I think I was in the office with you. I said, holy shit. Yeah, yeah. I was – so the United Capital people were like, wait, do I have a Goldman Sachs email address now? Because these are retail RIAs.

They are not Goldman people. Not that that's good or bad. I'm just – I just pointing it out. They wear khakis to work. Okay. If you're lucky. Internal Goldman has wealth management. And they were probably like, what the f*** is this now?

Wait a minute. I'm sharing clients with, no offense, these schlep rocks? I didn't start. So that deal made everyone scratch their head. And I'm not saying it's good or bad. Then they went and started about custody. Right.

So I wanted to ask you about this. So now the new thing, if you talk to Goldman people on the wealth side, the new thing that they're really investing in, and I'm sure they'll do a great job, is building out custody. That is a, I don't want to call it down market, but that is a nuts and bolts, mechanical, non-Goldman-esque bit. That's like not a type of business that you think a high-flying Goldman Sachs executive would be excited about. So when you put all of these things together, you can understand why all these reporters are getting juicy shit about, quote, turmoil inside Goldman Sachs. And maybe there is turmoil. We don't know. No, I mean, there definitely is because they're talking.

A lot of them are not using their names when they talk to the reporters. So guess what happened today? Apple and Microsoft closed at a new all-time high. XLK was in like, I don't know if it was quite, like a 35% drawdown, and it's just about at an all-time high. What a ride. Unbelievable. Ted, you want to make another bet?

Wow. Maybe don't bet Apple. All right, where are we going next, Michael? What is quiet luxury? Please explain this to me. Who put this in the doc? I put this in the doc because I have questions. But I actually am a non-logo person.

You've been quiet luxury before it was cool? Yeah. I can't remember what happened, but I had a friend or I was dating a guy at some point in time like a decade ago who was like, it's so obnoxious when people wear logos. And me like wanting to like, you know, whatever, impress. I stopped wearing logos. I'm going to sleep over my wife. And to this day, I don't buy anything with logos.

So a quiet logo, she's like a $200 plain white t-shirt? New York Knicks shirt? Or like a $2,000 handbag, like a Louis Vuitton handbag that doesn't have the LVs. All right. Marked by expensive materials and muted tones, quiet luxury, also known as stealth wealth, is the complete lack of logos and anything too conspicuous, said Thomas Sadari, professor of marketing and director of fashion and luxury program at NYU. Quote, luxury brands rely on the quality of the materials,

and they have techniques that are very particular to them. Feel this. Such as the cut. This is quiet luxury. This is actually loud non-luxury. Such as the cut, stitching, or other small details only recognizable to those who are very familiar with a particular item. That becomes a differentiator for those in the know. So it's almost like if you don't know that my shit is like really fancy shit, then like you're not in the club.

And a lot of this, I think the trend setting here is from Succession. I'll take it from here. Shayna, do you know what this H stands for? I don't. Hermes. No. Homage.

Wait. So this is like the fashion trend of the moment, probably of the summer and maybe longer. I don't know if you know, Ted is wearing a $1,200 Loro Piana ensemble. There's a massive like weird- This is just proof that you can fool anyone some of the time. You are stealth wealth. You are the epitome of stealth wealth.

There are such extremes in here. You have the stealth wealth side, but then all of a sudden you also have Walmart got a new creative fashion director and like people on Instagram and the influencers going nuts for like Walmart women's fashion is through the roof right now. Yeah, but does it have logos on it? No.

And that's the thing. So then that's part of this. Right, it is, but it's Walmart and you paid $10 for a dress. Quiet discount. I love it. So I'm from Long Island.

We know. We don't do stealth wealth. If it doesn't say Givenchy, I don't want it. If it's not— Givenchy? What the hell is that? All right. There's not enough time on this show.

Michael Shops on Instagram. Like, I don't want Ferragamo shoes without the logo because I just might as well not wear them at all. So from where I come from, I don't think this is going to catch on. But in Manhattan, maybe in LA, this is what's going on right now. No offense, because you probably wear these. When I see the giant Ralph Lauren, I just think douche.

Well, how giant? Like big. Okay. Mine has really big horses. I saw a big horse at soccer the other day, and I just saw douche. I have one with a horse so big, we have to feed it.

That's a brag.. Not to brag. Not to brag. So what are your thoughts? Does this continue? Or does this just go in and out of, should I rip the logos off all my clothes? Well, you said you're from Long Island, and that would never fly.

So I shouldn't. So I'm going to go with no. No, but I want to improve myself. I personally think it will go on forever, and I actually think it's a good trend. Because quite frankly, if you're going to spend that kind of money on something, you want it for the quality and you want it to not go out of style. And having logos on everything is something that is going to go out of style and you're not going to be able to wear it when you're like 80. Or maybe you will.

Also, repeat wearings. Right. So if you have something that's understated and not logoed up and you don't have a giant Gucci emblem on your chest, you could wear it in like three or four situations. You could take your horse out like once a year out of the stable. Yeah, or some of my horses. No, this is true. Mike can wear his white t-shirt every week. That's right, Duncan.

That's right. Mike has been doing this stealth wealth for a long time. You know, that's true. Absent the wealth part. All right. All right. I was just curious. I was just curious on your thoughts. You know, that's true. Absent the wealth part. Alright, I was just curious on your thoughts. You're both dressed

lovely today, though, of course. You wanted to talk about Djokovic and Jokic and I did too. Serbia is so hot right now. What do you think's going on? It's just a coincidence? Or are they producing really stellar

athletes? Well, it's two different things, right? In tennis, you've had a long history of international players being great, back to Rod Laver, right? Lendl, the big three. Basketball, it's new. I mean, this is Jokic is effectively a descendant of Josh.

I mean, he's got the dad bod. Okay. He's got the chin. I mean, you could probably be a stunt double for him. He's seven feet tall. They can work on that with cameras. Okay. It's pretty amazing.

Yeah. But even with that body, he runs up and down the court and plays both sides of the ball. He's amazing. I just want to be fair. Like, this is, like, former Soviet bloc, like, athletes. So, like, I would— These are Drago descendants. Yeah, I would suggest, you know, there's always been a level of athleticism,

maybe not seven-footers or anything, in that area of the world. And, like, Serbia, that whole area, those countries have changed names a million times. Yeah, yeah. Like, my family comes from that area and, like, that— One time in Los Angeles, Josh and I sat next to Djokovic. Remember that? He was behind us.

Oh, who were at Catch LA. Yeah. Not to brag. Stealth wealth, Michael. No, that I wore my logos to that place. You had one and you wore it? Okay. But I would argue that part of the world...

That part of the world is now Lithuanian. They have produced good athletes. It's just Serbia's day in the sun. I think in the NBA, the talent pool is now global. Oh, the best players are global. The best players are not from the United States. Embiid, Giannis, Luka, Jokic. Remember, didn't they do the Rising Stars game? They used to, rest of world versus US.

And this year they stopped. That might've been a crime scene if they ran that. Oh, and Wemba Nyama. Yeah. So literally like the best players in the world, except for Steph, are all international. This is a crazy stat. The 2023 NBA playoffs were the league's most watched

in five years. Not quite sure why. I wonder what the finals ratings were. I loved it. The finals ratings were down 6% because the Nuggets were never on national TV the whole season. It's also strange because so many of the playoff games were

blowouts. Yeah. It's just a strange playoff setup. See, I'm a Celtics fan and this was like the most stressful, horrible playoff run. It's tough. I mean, you got far. It just sucked who you lost to. Well, not only that, but they managed to give you a heart attack through every series of whether or not they were going to make it through.

They should have been crushing people and they would let everybody hang. I felt like they lacked killer instinct. If they had gotten by Miami, how do you think they would have played against Denver? They would have lost. They would have been the same outcome. They would have got crushed. Yeah, I agree. Sweep or five, yeah.

Yeah, I think the finals were down. So, number one, there was no game six. Number two, last year was Celtics, which is a legacy team. Warriors. And Warriors, which has the most popular player. which has the most popular player. And so I, and it's obviously San Francisco Bay Area

viewership is way bigger than Denver. To Michael's point about the finals being down, but the rest of the, being watched, you had the Celtics and Lakers in there.

And it wasn't a great playoffs. It really wasn't. I thought, I thought some of the games were really fun. There was not a ton of drama. Actually, Miami was in all the best series. I was going to say Miami actually kept the interest. So Miami beat the show to really fun. There was not a ton of drama. Actually, Miami was in all the best series.

I was going to say, Miami actually kept the interest. So Miami beat the show to the box. And then, did they beat the Sixers? No, the Sixers. It was the Knicks. The Knicks series was a good series, though.

It was decent. And then the Celtics-Sixers was a good series. That went seven. And then Celtics-Heat. That went seven. That was a great series, especially the game six ending. I want to end on this.

Jack Dorsey has a $300 million bar bill, basically. What? How many Class A Azules did he drink? No, no, no. They're saying, like, he bought title. Thank you, John. He bought title, music streamer, just to make friends with Jay-Z. And he got sued for it.

This is real. Many people assume that Twitter was the reason for Jack Dorsey's impressive fortune. That actually isn't the case. When Elon Musk acquired Twitter in October 22 for $44 billion, Dorsey only held 2%. So he got like $900 million out of that. The true source of his wealth is in the friendships he made along the way. No, the true source of his wealth is Block, which he has 43 million shares. That's Square.

Excuse me. Well, they call it Block now. Block now. I don't. That's worth $2.75 billion. I'm not going to cry because you only get $900 million. He'll be fine. He'll be fine.

On March 4th, the world was taken aback when Block announced its agreement to acquire a title for $306 million. The news broke through a tweet from Dorsey that showcased him hanging out in the Hamptons with Jay-Z. Fast forward, a lot of people weren't happy, et cetera. A lawsuit brought by Block shareholders said the idea for Block's acquisition of title came while Dorsey was summering with Jay-Z in the Hamptons. It was an out-of-the-blue acquisition. That makes no sense.

Why would they own that music company? I was going to say, there's absolutely no, like... Well, the shareholders lost. So they sued and they lost. The recent legal battle ended in defeat for shareholders. The Delaware judge overseeing the case ruled against shareholders, emphasizing from a technical standpoint, doing a bad business deal doesn't violate any laws. And then somebody involved said basically this was a $300 million bar tab to hang out with Jay-Z. Your thoughts as somebody who's seen a lot of deals and read a lot about deals?

In the words of Charlie Munger, I have nothing to add. Good. There you go. Shana? I got nothing. You wouldn't spend $300 million to buy something from Jay-Z just so you can hang out in Hamptons with him for a summer? That's not stealth wealth.

No. That is the opposite. Would we say that's the opposite of Stealth Wealth? I would. Maybe if I had $3 billion, I would. Have you ever seen or heard of a title listener in the wild? No. Never ever, right?

Never. Okay. I'm convinced that there's really no audience there at all. All right. You guys have fun on the show today? I did. Sure. Yes.

Was it everything that you hoped it would be? Yeah. We absolutely loved having you. Thanks for having us. Before we get into favorites, what's next for the queen? What do you got going on? We're doing some cool stuff at Bondurant. Okay, tell us.

We have an amazing tech partner that has built all our technology. Is it Tidal? No, it's called Alphabot. all our technology. Is it title? No, it's called Alphabot. And our Dimitri, who's the gentleman who runs Alphabot, is helping us with an integration to do an end-to-end solution for advisors

from like the front end to be able to also do all that, streamline the operational compliance reporting and everything. And super excited about that because Alphabot already was cool because it's one of the only analytical tools available to advisors that can do optimization with private fund vehicles and traditional investments, which is very rare. So this optimization is going to be a game changer. I'm super excited about it.

When does that come out? Well, I can't talk a ton about the details, but I'm hoping at the end of the summer we'll have something to announce. Okay. Congratulations. Looking forward to checking that out. And, Ted, you have the book coming. And tell us what to expect on the podcast in the coming weeks. Oh, more of the same.

Coming weeks. Who are the best guests you've had on? Not the best. I don't want you to do that. Who are, like, some of the more interesting guests that you've had on this year? Chris Sacco was just on. He's the one who owned all the Twitter that Dorsey didn't own. I feel like I haven't seen him in the newsletter, actually.

Yeah, it's the first time he's done it in a couple years. They've been heads down in this environmental stuff. Okay. Who else? It's hard to ramble it off. It's been a good run. Yeah. I had Lazri on recently.

Oh, yeah. Mark's always good. Just a lot of great guests. When are you going to have Shayna on? I don't know. We're going to figure that out afterwards.

I've already told Ted that I have a client that he needs to have on first. Oh, look at you. Take care of our clients first. I've got to take care of my clients. All right.

Well done. All right. We're going to do favorites. We're going to ask you guys to share something with the audience that you think maybe they haven't checked out yet or might enjoy.

Michael, let's start with you today. Well, I can't do what you just said, but I enjoyed it. I just want to congratulate the Denver Nuggets fans. They have never won a championship. I had a lot of fun watching them beat the Heat as a Knicks fan, so I had a great time. I like when a city that's never won wins it. Yeah, it's awesome. It's great. I'm with you.

Okay, Shayana, what do you got for favorites? So I was thinking about this. One of the things I saw that I was super excited about is on Amazon prime. There is a documentary that just came out called all in a miracle at St. Bernard's. And the reason this is so cool to me is that St. Bernard's is in Fitchburg, Massachusetts. So that's around the area I'm from. My former high school, St. Peter Marion, is mentioned a lot in this series. What's it about? So it's about a Catholic school in Fitchburg

that was going to be shut down by the Diocese of Worcester. Worcester is my hometown. And that with 100 kids fielded a football team of 30 kids that won back-to-back state championships. Oh, wow. With 30 kids, 100 kids total in the whole school. And through the exposure that they got in the media, they were able to raise over $2 million and convince the diocese to allow them to privatize.

And now their enrollment's up like 60%. They've raised over $3 million. And it's an amazing story of how the football team saved the school. Yes. Oh, that's cool. It's a very cool story. And the funny part is when I was at St. Peter Marion, we used to absolutely beat the crap out of St. Bernard's. We had kids that, one of my friends, Jerry Azuma, went on to play for the Bears for 10 years. And we had kids go on to the NFL from our team. And we were the ones that was crushing everybody.

So the irony is not lost on me that St. Bernard's little, like, football team with 30 players was able to save their school. And St. Peter Marion doesn't exist anymore. Is it a movie or a documentary? It's a documentary. It's super cool. It's on Amazon Prime. When did this happen? When did it take place?

2000. They got their ability to privatize January of 2020. Oh, so this is recent. Very recent. Oh, very cool. Are you a Patriots or a Bears fan? I'm a Patriots fan. Born and raised, my grandfather didn't have a lot.

But the one thing he did love was sports. And so when the Patriots became a team, he got season tickets in the 60s. And so I lived through the burning my legs on the bleach receipts at the old whatever. I can't remember the name of the stadium. It was just Foxborough. Before Kraft, when we sucked so bad. You had Bledsoe. No, we had like Stan Grogan. That's before my time. I don't remember that guy. Yeah, we sucked so bad. You had Bledsoe. No, we had like Stan Grogan.

Oh, yeah, yeah. That's before my time. Yeah, we had Grogan. We had those guys. I've met Steve Grogan. He's a good dude. But yeah, that's what I grew up with. So I'm a Patriots fan.

I'm a Celtics fan. My dad very, very briefly played for the Bruins like for a hot second. And then he met a Rockette. And then he stopped going to practice and got cut. But it's a fun second, and then he met a Rockette, and then he stopped going to practice and got cut. It's a fun story, actually. I'm a huge Bruins fan. The only team I have given up allegiance to is the Red Sox, but I moved to Chicago in 2016.

And how could you not become a Cubs fan? Yeah, I'm with you on that. I'm with you. You got the fever. Ted, favorites? All right, more sports. Good. The one less known,

my friend Frank Montgomery, who created Pawn Stars, his most recent Netflix show. It's called The King of Collectibles. Oh, that's Golden, right? Yeah, Ken Golden. Sports collectibles. They did a whole series.

It's really cool. Who is the King of Collectibles and should we introduce him to the queen of alternatives? I haven't watched it yet. It's good? Yeah, it whole series. It's really cool. Who is the king of collectibles and should we introduce him to the queen of alternatives? I haven't watched it yet. It's good? Yeah, it's good. It's really good.

Did you see the Arnold doc? That just came out. It was great. I didn't watch it yet. It was great. And then the other one, I mean, this is like, I guess you have to say it.

So I've watched the season finale of Ted Lasso now three times. I don't think I've ever watched a Netflix show. Well, maybe the last season, maybe not. That's a little weird. Go on. It is one of the best finales of any series.

Why? I can't remember. Every segment of it set up or wrapped up one of the storylines over Force. It's just so, so good. I watched season two. I haven't started the new season. I have to watch the whole season. Finale of the last season, unbelievable.

Okay. All right. We'll check that out. I wanted to – what whole season. Finale of the last season. Unbelievable. Okay. All right. We'll check that out. I wanted to – what did I put in here? Oh, I don't really subscribe to a lot. I subscribe to Wall Street Journal, New York Times almost because, like, I have to. And then, like, a few sub stacks that are friends of mine that I just – I'm paying because I'm supporting them. I subscribe to Puck because I just think, like, they're doing the most interesting writing about just like power and who's like running shit and what's going on.

And they cover three verticals. They cover Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood. And I almost thought to myself like – oh, and DC. Excuse me. Four. And what else even matters? Nothing. Like if you're trying to figure out what makes the world go round.

So those are the four things. Sports. No, not really. They have zero influence on anything. Well, that's true. It doesn't matter, but it matters. It matters. No, but this is more about, like, they're writing about the people behind the big trends that are affecting all of us.

Like, sports is a diversion. I agree. So politics, sports, media. It's DC, specifically. Not just politics, sports, media. It's DC specifically, not just politics, like they're covering somebody running. All right, so DC. Washington, DC, Wall Street.

Hollywood. Silicon Valley, Hollywood. Yeah, yeah. What else matters? Named after a piece of hockey equipment. Puck, right. I think it's probably named after the, like the little cherub, maybe.

I don't even know what that thing is. Like the puck building in lower Manhattan, right? I don't know. All right thing is like the puck building in lower Manhattan right I don't know almost doesn't matter great writers great reporter like full time reporters it's not like somebody's hobby sub stack so anyway I can't remember the last time I pulled on my credit card to subscribe to something but

puck is pretty great and for free they have a podcast called the powers that be so if you just want to dip you you could dip. The second thing is another podcast, I'm sure you listened to Acquired, right? Yeah, sure. Did you listen to the Dara episode about Uber?

Yeah, not yet. Incredible. That's like one of the best CEO interviews ever and not because it's on Uber, which I'm a shareholder in, so I have like my own self-interest. The story about working for Barry Diller, getting the opportunity to save Uber, and then Barry supporting that. And it's just like stories that you don't really hear that often.

So I highly recommend the Acquired podcast, the episode about Uber. All right, that's all we have for today. Duncan, any announcements before we get out of here? No, I think we're good. We're good to go? Okay. I really appreciate it being 85 degrees in here today. They did it for me.

They did it for me. Were you cold when you walked in? I was. I bet you're not anymore. Not anymore. Hey, guys, thanks so much for listening. Make sure you subscribe. Very important.

Make sure if you have not already, write a review. Duncan loves to read the reviews. He reads them to us. We appreciate hearing them so much. Also wanted to mention, if you are a visual learner like I am, this show appears on YouTube every day about eight – what would you say, John? Eight hours after the podcast drops-ish? Yeah? All right.

So you know where to find us, youtube.com slash the compound RWM. Thanks so much for listening. Thanks to our guests, Ted Seides, and thanks to Shayna. Guys, where can people follow you? You're a Twitter guy still? Yeah. It's mostly capitalallocators.com. Follow Capital Allocators.

Old school website. I know I do. Shana where do you want people to follow your stuff. I'm on Twitter and Instagram. So Twitter I don't

have a fancy handle. What is it. Shana S 6 2 1. And on Instagram I go with my finance queen. That's right. I wear my crown. That's right.

You are the queen of all time on Insta. All right guys thanks so much. We will see you next week. All right. So we're going to take a quick break and then we're going to record. I just wanted you guys to get a feel for what the show is like.