Excess Returns with Justin Carbonneau, Jack Forehand and Matt Zeigler | S07 E35

Summary

• Investment Philosophy: The podcast emphasizes the importance of having a strategy you can stick with, as highlighted by Ben Carlson's advice that a good strategy you can adhere to is better than a great one you can't maintain.
• Behavioral Finance: A recurring theme is the impact of investor behavior on returns, with insights from Pim Van Vliet on the importance of character over IQ in achieving long-term investment success.
• Market Analysis: The discussion includes the concept of base rates, as explained by Michael Mauboussin, which involves looking at historical data to inform investment decisions, contrasting with the typical inside view analysis.
• Portfolio Management: Paul Tudor Jones' advice to view every position as if you put it on today encourages investors to regularly reassess their holdings, ensuring alignment with current market conditions and personal investment goals.
• Investment Strategy: The conversation touches on the flexibility in investment approaches, with Steve Romick's advice to remain adaptable and not dogmatic, using examples like Buffett's pivot into tech stocks.
• Life and Investing: Mike Green's perspective that your portfolio is secondary to your life highlights the importance of aligning investment strategies with personal life goals and priorities.
• Technology in Investing: The role of AI in investment processes is discussed, with varying opinions on its current utility and potential future impact on stock selection and portfolio management.

Transcript

and we're live. This is Tobias Carile joined as always by my by my co-host Jake Taylor. We're doing value after hours special edition with the guys from Excess Returns. We've got Justin Carbono, Jack Forhan, Matt Ziegler. Welcome Jents. Thanks for having us. >> Oh, how's today? Good to see you, boys. >> Excited to be here. This is going to be a good time. >> Let's start with Justin. Tell us a little bit about Excess Returns and then we've got some uh some thoughts from your guests over the years. >> Yeah. So, Excess Returns is a podcast that uh the three of us are all part of. Uh Jack, Matt, and myself. I think we started I don't know, maybe like five years ago, something like that. Actually, Toby, you had a big I've shared this story before, but you had a big influence in in value after ours had a big influence in actually us starting excess returns. And so, and you know, the podcast is content. It's a long long tail game and we've just stayed on it and we've done it over the years. And a few years ago, we came up with this idea of asking all of our guests sort of a standard closing question. And now we actually have two standard closing questions. But one of the closing questions we wanted to ask and we ask all of our first-time guests is what's the one lesson you would teach your average investor. So it's like trying to really capture like what is the one thing that they would teach someone not an expert on investing some you know your average investor that watches us on YouTube or whatever. So, and so over the years we've accumulated hundreds of these responses and you know it ranges everywhere from you know portfolio management investing type of stuff to behavioral finance to lessons about life and just a a very wide range of um great responses. And so that sort of gave us the idea to start the process of I guess aggregating these thinking about these and then thinking about a book that we hopefully uh will write in the future. We have some ideas. We have a proposal around it. And so and so that's kind of what we thought we might do with you guys today that might be fun is kind of the three of us. We each kind of went through and picked some of the ones that stood out most to us. And then we thought we would just kind of share that lesson, who it's from, and then um you know, we can kind of riff on it if we if we want to do that. >> Awesome. I'm excited to hear it. Do you want to you want to take it away with the first one? >> Sure. You want me to? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, um and a lot of these are like they they sound so like basic and obvious, but you know, and that's probably what makes them good because they they're sort of going to stand, you know, they're going to be true today, tomorrow, or whatever, 5 years from now. So, so the first one that I picked um was from Ben Carlson. Ben's been on the podcast a few times. People might know him from Animal Spirits. He's at Hills Wealth Management. Those guys are producing tons of content. Anyway, so um Ben's uh lesson was a good str a good strategy you can stick with is better than a great one you can't. And then he kind of went on to say, and I'm paraphrasing here, there's probably no perfect way to save and invest. You just have to kind of pick a strategy and stick with it come hell or high water. The good strategy you can stick with is vastly superior to a great strategy you can't stick with. If you find a strategy that works for you, don't worry, everyone else is uh doing it. So, you know, >> Toby, how's that going so far? >> Well, I like the idea. I think it's a great idea. Hasn't worked for me, but I like it. I've seen it for other people and I want >> this does apply to value investing a lot though because like I'm a huge fan of value investing too but it's not the right strategy for a lot of people um because of because of the volatility of it like a lot of people I've learned I put a lot of clients like early in my career in these focused value strategies and the number of people that can stick with those is is not huge so it does it kind of relates to the whole value investing thing. Do do you think it's a value versus momentum type? Like there are people who just they want to see that their stocks have been going up. They don't want to buy them if they haven't been going up. They want them while they're going up. When they stop going up, they don't want them anymore. And there's nothing wrong with that. Like that's a that's a strategy that has got some pretty good quantitative backing. But you you you know there's sort of I'm contrarian. I want to I want to buy I want to bargain, but some people want the stocks going up. Is that the main distinction, do you think? I mean, I think it might have to do with maybe how, you know, when you're looking at finding a strategy, you know, people obviously go the first thing they place they probably go is performance. And so, yeah, I mean, you're probably if you're looking at trailing like returns over the last year, you know, and you're looking at the top stuff, that's going to be the momentum stuff. No matter what part of the market that the momentum is coming from, that's going to be the best performing stuff. But maybe the the key there is is you know if you have a strategy that has let's say over the past year even three years like a 20% annualized return versus a strategy that has a 12% annualized return but the 20% annualized return has like you know a crazy standard deviation of like 30% a year. You know that's not a strategy that most people can stick with. So, I think that's kind of the my big takeaway is like sometimes, you know, you're better off with just finding a strategy that sort of fits with your risk tolerance than sort of trying to chase the best performing one. And by the way, like I was thinking about a past examples and you guys remember like remember the CGM focus fund with I think it was Ken Heber that was like the best performing fund like from 2000 to maybe end of 07 or something like that. But like the annualized return might have been something like I don't know I'm this don't quote me on this but something like 16 or 17% per year and you know what was effectively like almost a lost decade for stocks but yet the vol the volatility of that was so was so um significant that you know no investors could really hang in there and everyone was piling in after the periods of good performance. So >> yeah, the average investor lost money in it. >> The average lo 13 positive and like -10 for the average investor. >> Oh wow. Yeah. >> Which is not not something that he can control. It's not something that the manager can control. Like you kind of get what you get. But it's one of the things that uh I've heard Cliff Asesses refer to value as streaky. So it seems to like it works in short bursts like right when you think it's not going to work >> and then everybody piles in and stops working. It's been my experience anyway. >> Must be due for some working because it hasn't worked for a while. Oh, like 10 10 years, something like that. >> Was counting. >> Um, do you want to try do you want to try the next one? >> Sure. Jack, you want to go? >> Yeah, sure. Um, this is actually the one we we've we did a draft chapter of the book uh because if we don't start doing something, we're just never going to do this thing. So, uh, we put this up on our substack, but the one we did was Michael Mobesin um, and the idea of base rates. So just put simply, it's just the idea of looking at the past and seeing what happened under similar circumstances. Um, and he he would call it the outside view. And it's the opposite of what most people do because most people will analyze the situation. They they'll look at all the details now and they'll say, "All right, here's my conclusion as to what might happen." So if I'm looking at say like a growth company that's growing 25% a year, I might look at what's going on the company and its prospects and everything like that and say, "What are the odds that growth can continue at 25% for the next decade or something like that." If I'm doing if I'm using base rates, what I might say is let's look at every company in the past that grew earnings at 25% a year. How many of them were able to sustain that rate over the next decade? And the answer to that would be not that many. And so I don't think it's one of those things where it has to be the only thing you do, but I think it's it's a thing where a lot of people don't use it at all. So a lot of people say here's my inside view and they don't even look at the base rates to say does this make any sense based on history. So that was that was one of mine. Do you think that the hyperscalers or mag 7 or whatever we're calling them now have sort of like broken that that model? >> Yeah. Well, to some degree absolutely. Uh but but that's that goes back to what I was saying like definitely if you looked at the growth rates they were able to sustain at their size. You if you had looked at base rates before you would have said no like they can't do that. But I think that gets back to the whole idea of marrying the two things together which is I'm not qualified. I mean I'm a value guy. I thought there was no chance they were going to sustain any of that whether I did the inside view, the outside view or any other view. But there were people who looked at those businesses and said like something is different about these businesses and they may be able to sustain these growth rates for longer. And so I I think it's it's an issue of marrying them both. And I think when people look at Mobes and stuff sometimes they think like just use the base rates. I mean you can't just use the base rates because the world changes. Things are different sometimes but I think it at least can inform what you're doing. >> What do you think JT is that you know those base that base rate stuff better than I do? What what notable sort of breaches in it have there been? Well, certainly the the size of the companies. Like if you had looked at 2015 and you look backwards at base rates and the starting revenue size of the business and then can they sustain that that clip of a keer uh you were definitely betting against the base rate if you and yet they they did it and and there's good reasons for it like you could you know Brian Arthur's returns to scale um you know those like network effect type of businesses there they might be a different breed which which is to say that you know from a a basian reference reference class kind of mentality like you didn't have the right reference class by just sort of assuming that what a uh you know whatever like an oil and gas company from 1980 which would be in the data set right which is creating the base rate was maybe an apples to oranges comparison by the time you got to Google in 2015 so you just you just need to be mindful of how you're applying them but I agree that what Jack said that they're no one's really looks all that hard at those for the most part um and so they end they end up um and instead what you ends up happening often is that you remember very loud data points about something like Amazon, you know, I should have bought Amazon way back when, right? Like but it's defied all kinds of different base rates over the years. Um and of of course it, you know, you almost have to have something that defies a base rate in a big way for it to turn into a huge outcome. Um and so it's easy to remember those that you didn't do. Uh, but maybe there's a thousand other ones that look very similar from the same reference class that were zeros and therefore it actually wasn't that good of a bet. So anyway, it's just Jack had it right. >> It's still a good approach. Like it's I I wrote it in this in this new book that I have coming out, Soldier of Fortune, coming out in a few weeks. I had this line in there that said um you remember like we remember events by the spectacle. So, like everybody's afraid of getting eaten by a shark, but you forget the stuff that's much more likely to kill you, which is like just overeating a little bit every meal. Ultimately, that catches up to you. That's more that's more dangerous than shark attacks, clearly. >> Well, you're making me hungry. I mean, come on. Like, let's get a sandwich. It's it's well the other other thing that's you know I look at a lot of 13F filings for advisors and funds and and it is like it's these large cap tech stocks that are at the top of everyone's list and so it's like they've defied the base rates and everyone and their brother has been buying them. So it's like ev investors in the last 10 years like they've it's worked for the most part and so there's this maybe bias of to the point to your point like you're not seeing all the stuff that doesn't work because in most people's portfolios is a lot of the stuff that that worked and so you kind of get tricked a little bit maybe. >> Matt, you want to give us your your first one? I'm gladly going to give you that. First, I have to ask you though, Toby, for a piece of advice. So, Soldier of Fortune. We've got some art of war. There's all these angles you're working in this new book. >> Yeah. >> Jack was trying to convince me that the Kama Sutra of excess returns was a good idea. I was like, I think you're getting the wrong lesson here. >> I think someone's already >> someone's already written the joy of compounding. So, >> the karma sutra and excess return sounds good. All right, Jack, I think your uh your votes gonna carry on this one. >> Okay, we'll go with it. It was just funny though because we're Toby, you're gonna come on the podcast soon to talk about the book and like I was like when I saw that I'm like there's no way I can do this topic justice. Like I know nothing about Sunzu. I know nothing about any of this. So Matt and Bogamill are going to do the interview because uh they they've like thought deeply about this stuff and they'll be much better at it. >> Awesome. Well, speaking of things we haven't thought deeply about, I'm going to share a quote now. I'm going with Chris Davis. And I love this concept of when you own something, you should think about it like you own a business. I I want to qualify this and just shout out the buttons that we have on Jake Taylor's sweater. So, if you're not looking at this, you should screenshot and zoom in. The buttons on this, despite the bathrobe neck cut, those buttons look chunky. And I like this sweater even more. >> Got one button done. That's That's all you're getting. >> That's all we get. So this Chris Davis idea of you own a business. What I love about this one I think the most is because especially in advising families on their money and businesses business owners, families who own businesses on their money is they don't think about it like something they're going to trade or flip. And there's this awareness of not just what it means to be a shareholder, but what it also means to be a stakeholder in something you own. And that might mean you take this really long-term view and you really appreciate the values of the company. Or it might just mean, you know, something lives in your IRA for three or four or five years. But that mindset shift to like what's the whole community around this? How am I aligned with the investment I have? If we know that we're all our own worst enemy at the end of the day, why not be reminded that you're owning a piece of a business and that you should be looking for alignment on lots of levels, not just the right valuation, entry point, whatever else. I think that's really underrated in that um it would be quite easy for me to be disconnected from the world and just shrink into my own little world. But the fact that you're learning about businesses, you're you're it makes you forces you to be actively engaged a little bit more. And so I, you know, I can't help it now when I go into a restaurant, I think about like I wonder how many customers they need to get per hour to get to break even here. And I'm looking around. >> What's the table churn? What's turnover look like in the Yeah, I think about this all the time too. And I think it's really valuable to train yourself to think that way because a lot of people go through the world and like the ultimate trader mindset is everything is just a piece of paper and the bastardization in the other direction is like the worst of the worst ESG fund >> where it's like, oh, we only think about align. No, you don't. You don't actually think about alignment. I saw your bank stock and who they're lending to. Like, let's read the whole filing. But somewhere in the middle is a really healthy thing and it makes it fun to talk about because you can go to a restaurant and be Yeah. How many of these high tops are they turning over? I don't think the volume's right here. >> Yeah. I don't This might not work as a concept. >> Do you do you guys feel like there's less and less of this going on in markets these days? I mean, it seems obvious to me that it probably is, but I just want to ask the question anyway. Like, >> wait, I want to check the couch odds on if people are doing this less. Let's find out. >> Yeah. Can we can we do live couch odds on here? That'd be great. Um, but but anyway, yeah, I just think it's like it seems to me like less and less people I know that own businesses necessarily have any idea what the business actually does. Um, and or maybe just looking at it as something that's going to go up. >> Sorry, you were breaking up there. I didn't uh >> uh >> that was that was Mark MVY right when they asked him. I I didn't mean to criticize my category. >> Sorry. Sorry. >> He should have just said that's not how I do it. I just look for the I look at the line number go up. >> Nothing. There's nothing. >> You see afterwards he did like the he did like the thing where his like wife filmed him like slow rolling in his Ferrari or something like to show how much money he had or something like that. >> So if if we fall apart here, we'll do that like in a 1982 Honda Civic as like value investors because that would be our flex. I guess >> I'll be purple samurai Suzuki. That's what you're doing. Yeah. >> Uh have you read the Davis Dynasty, Matt? >> I have. I have. >> Yeah. I really enjoyed that book. I thought that was excellent. >> It gives you a lot more appreciation for again just there's a life and an identity around building these portfolios and thinking through this stuff and that's part of the joy of investing. That's why it's fun. That's why it's fun to read like you Toby like highlighting like the investor letters and even the hostile stuff where you're like this is this is sports. This is life. This is theater and it's engaging and it's business building and that's worth being engaged with and aligned with across our portfolios. >> I mean I love the strategy element of I love it when there are two competitors who take totally different strategies and it's not clear from the outset who's going to win and ultimately somebody does and then they they decide that you know it was more important that we build long range subs than short range subs. I don't know if you guys ever read the Gulag Archipelago. That's one of the things they talk about there. That's a really dark book. But one of the ideas is that they're talking about um different strategies in a cold war type scenario and if they build the short-range subs or the longrange subs and if they're one guy's right then he's he's a hero and the other guy's wrong and he's completely forgotten about. That's that's this is the same as every middle school class election for president too. And it's just the more places you can see that and I would equate middle school to the goolog in my own personal experience. But yeah, it's worth it's worth studying these lessons and thinking on these levels. >> To go back to Jack's question about u amount of work being done perhaps in market participants. I do have some concerns about if too many people are focused on trying to win zero sum games rather than play positive sum games. I don't think that's good for your civilization. So all this gambling instinct that's really being like tapped into and made incredibly convenient. I I'm I'm not a big fan of that. I don't think we should be celebrating it either. >> And there's fewer and fewer between the people who are actually pushing that like all the I don't know are you up on the Jonathan height stuff and what he's been doing like Freya India and there's a lot of great pro-social stuff coming from earlier generations that I don't think we've seen yet. So seeing like Gen Z, Gen Alpha, and below now saying, "We don't want to be on apps. We're looking for pro-social community engagement, >> it's like the first wave of very reassuring >> kids from just screen zombies and >> yeah, Freya, >> she's hosting some giant like delete event or something and it's a global event and it's like pick one app on your phone that we're going to talk about why and we're all going to delete it." And not like they're picking on a company, but like you pick the app you want to delete, not telling you what to delete, but just like giving people a platform to express this. And that is a big swing in the pro-social direction. Borrow a term from our friend Ben Hunt on this stuff. Instead of the prisoners dilemma zero something, looking for those stag hunts where you're going, what's the best way to move the community forward altogether as opposed to in a competitive environment. >> I love it. Justin, you want to hit us with your with your next one? >> Yeah. So, the next one that I pulled was from actually a guy out near you, Toby, Steve Ro from FPA and uh he's kind of like a value quality guy. Um but his kind of big >> message too, isn't he Toby? He's good. >> Good looking guy. Um guitar player I think. Uh yeah, his his thing was like, and this is gonna sound it's he was just like, you know, be be flexible, don't be dogmatic, and that, you know, don't just assume that your point of view is always the right one. Um, always be looking for reasons why it might not be. And it just, you know, I I kind of reminded me Toby in rel relating to the book and your, you know, sort of Buffett and Apple and his pivot into that. That was one sort of example I was, as I was thinking about this, that obviously is the very top one that comes to mind just because that's was such a great trade. And obviously Buffett came out of his uh, you know, non- tech investment sort of stance and um, and that's something I think you talk about in the book. Um, but then I was thinking of like David Einhorn and sort of moving away from and I'm not saying this is it's just this was his sort of thing like trying to get a return not of capital but return on capital or maybe I have it looking for dividends and things like that getting instead of trying to wait for the market to recognize the fundamentals as a value investor you know he wanted to sort of be paid while he was waiting. So, those are just like some things I was thinking about that sort of jumped out at me that I was like, "Okay, like this this Roman quote is something that I think is really important." >> How do you how do what's the difference between like stubborn and disciplined? >> That's a good question. Um, I think disciplined is right, stubborn is wrong. >> Yeah. Disciplined is when it works and then stubborn is when it doesn't work. >> You're supposed to ask your spouse that question, right? >> Yeah. like some of the, you know, there's still guys out there that, you know, are using just they use price to book in their valuation, you know, and there's people that have argued for a whole host of reasons why that might not be the best anymore or might not be that useful because of intangibles. And so I think like maybe everyone's different when presented with different points of like evidence. And it's tough when you're building like if you're a quant and you build I mean although Shaughnessy I think even though it's not a Shaughnessy anymore like Jim had talked about times where you know they would modify they had a set strategy with set criteria but then if the evidence you know presented um that it was there was a better way to do it you know they would they would integrate that change into their into their factors into their criteria. Um but it's a good question Jake I don't know >> guess the problem is uh separating out cyclical and secular and that's hard because price to book has been a good you know it has generated alpha for a long period of time but looks like it may be waning but then also then you have other factors like the size factor small has outperformed large like since the beginning of the data but there's definitely been a big cyclical upswing of large over small since 2015 and so That's 10 years. That's a long time. At some point, you got to start. Is there really a size factor? Does bit does do smaller stocks really outperform larger stocks? I think they do. I think there's still evidence there that they do, but there's some point where there's no positive gain over, you know, 100 years of data. You got to start wondering. >> Yeah. It's interesting on the price to book thing. We just had a guest arguing in favor of price to book recently. It was Matt Zens. Um, and I I think the argument in favor of price to book is it's maybe a more pure value. So like some of those other metrics pick up quality at the same time. And so for people who want to use value and then put their own quality metrics together with value, they like like the raw value of price to book. >> Um, and then they put it together with other stuff. So that's not necessarily what I believe, but if I was going to make the argument for price to book, I think that would be it. I think I think Cliff A has made the point that it's worked best over the last decade because it's um the the worst the worst value factor. >> We all know it's going to start working. >> Yeah. Like as soon as we stop using it, it's going to like go crazy and have like multi-deade run of uh you know of like the best performance of all time. That's just the way it works. >> So we should declare it dead right now, right? So then we can all take counter credit for it. >> Yeah, it probably it probably would be good for all of our performance if we did. >> There you go. it's over. >> Um, Jack, you want to hit us with your second one? >> Yeah. So, so my initial reaction we had this idea was that I need to suck up to the host. Um, and so, so that's what I decided to do here. Uh, and I actually think it's it's a really good idea you had and it's also a really good idea like with what's happened since you came on the podcast and you did this because you were one of our first guests. So, this has been years since you said this, but you talked about the idea of writing it down um, and writing everything down. And I think that the reason I want to bring that one up is first of all it's a great idea but like when you came on and you said that I was like all right I'm gonna start writing everything down and I literally did not write one thing down between you know after that but now I do all the time and the reason I do is because of AI and and I think AI makes that an even more powerful lesson because now I can write my thought process down all the time and I can have like that running thought process that I can see that that I've I've had over time but also I can get feedback on it and I can get feedback on maybe where my blind spots are. So, I just think like in terms of not just in investing, in terms of business strategy, in terms of stuff we do with the podcast, like I'm trying more and more to write my reasoning down for things I'm doing and keep it as part of a thread because I think I have a better like mechanism to analyze it. Now, >> where do you write it down? Where do you record it? >> I write it I just write it into chatbt or claude or any of those places. So, I kind of do the same thing you would have done on paper, but I'm I'm just writing it in there and I'm trying to write like stream of consciousness or what I'm thinking or or anything like that. And then I've just got this huge thing it can remember about what was I thinking because the big part about that lesson is what was I actually thinking the moment I made that decision because it's impossible to go back and think what was I actually thinking the moment I made that decision. And so like I think when you put it in AI AI is going to remind you of what you were thinking the moment you made that decision as I build up like accumulate that over time. So I actually am following your lesson now. >> Well JT's got a JT's got a product that does that too. the journalytic engine. You want to pitch it, JT? Give us the give us some of the data. >> I mean, Jack just pitched it. For the most part, it's uh investment specific recording of your thoughts, feelings, decisions, run checklists, record preconviction uh or like conditional like uh pre-commitment contracts, you know, like if this happens, then I will do this. Um, yeah, it's it basically tried to operationalize all of the the behavioral best practices and put it into a software. >> That's really cool. You should check it out, dudes. >> That's good. >> Um, >> and even more things coming to be uh down the pipe. >> You want to hit us with yours, man? >> I'll hit you with mine. I want to thank you again personally for um booking this call so that I could make sure the contractors came to my house. So, >> enjoy. Well, let's give him time. >> We haven't really heard it. >> The wall vibrating in front of me says, uh, "Any minute now, it could get real." All right, my second one is I went with Mike Green. I know what you're thinking, Matt. You and Mike Green have so much in common. You both consulted Peter Teal. You've both been at the center of many a Twitter drama. You've fought academics tooth and nail. And I want to say we do actually have a lot in common because we have very similar tastes in the sourcing of our spouses. We we both married women from the same armpit town in northeastern Pennsylvania. And I'd like to think about this as a it's kind of a quality plus value factor because you want like a really high quality thing at with a really frugal value set. And there's one thing both being from northeastern Pennsylvania and selecting a spouse from northeastern Pennsylvania has taught me. Life is so much better when you have really high quality with a low value set in the sense of like we don't need extravagance. We don't need super fancy things. We can go to Napa and have a really nice dinner, but then we can come home and go to our neighborhood bar. Mike Green and I definitely have that in common. So, shout out to Mike if he sees this and his lovely wife. So, he said, "Your portfolio is secondary to your life," which I I I just love the rep prioritization of this stuff. In my financial planning practice, everything is about and it's this is straight out of asset liability and corporate finance. What's the calendar of events that's going on? What's the cash flow, the money in, money out, and then what's the balance sheet look like for where those cash flows or liabilities have accumulated? And then how do we map that stuff all the way back to that calendar at the front end? And when you start to think about your portfolio of what's on your balance sheet as it is secondary to all other things in your life, it really helps with decision- making. It really helps go, you know what? I could put more money into whatever you're buying this week or we could get the house resided because spoiler, the insurance company, they found out it's his best deciding. They don't want to renew the policy. Going to get that done before the annual premium's done and get that reinstated. But the idea here is like you have to have this priority stack for what you own and that your portfolio is secondary to your life. And to hear somebody as smart as Mike be able to step back and say that, it's super obvious to Justin's original point. It's a very basic apherism here. But it it goes so far uh to be be able to remind yourself of what that priority stack looks like all the time. >> It might be also just um not focusing on the financial stuff all the time helps you sort of do a little bit better because it's I think TB makes the point that if you check minute by minute, you're like 50% up, 50% down. probably that's true day by day as well. But then if your if your lens is month or quarter or year to year then you're probably positive like many more often much more often. So it makes you feel like you can stick with the strategy rather than getting lost in the noise. >> And if we you know that loss aversion it's 2x down feeling relative for each 1x up. So you're guaranteed misery by checking too often if it's a coin flip. And then you can turn that around and put that mental energy into other capitals around your life too. Because now if it's not just I'm living or dying by if I made money or lost money on the brokerage login on my phone. Now I can start think of what's the positive thing that I did today. What's something I actually enjoyed that I put in the bank with my spouse or my children or my dogs or my family, my community. and understanding that those time investments, those attention investments are as important, if not way, way more important because of the loss aversion and all the behavioral biases. They're way way more important than the financial ones when it comes down to health, happiness, and well-being. >> One of the uh one of the cool things about this question, I think, is it brings like the most advanced investors back down to basic principles. And so Justin and I just did a podcast earlier today where we were talking about something like in-depth about macro and like the lesson was just stay invested at the end. And so I think it's kind of cool like when you and same thing with Mike here like Mike talked on that episode we were probably talking about passive investing and all these detailed things but then it came down to just you know your understand your portfolio in the context of your life. And I I think that's a that's a cool thing about this question is it brings everybody down to maybe like more of a basic level. I I wonder though too if like and I love this point Matt, but I I I also wonder if you know given how well stocks have done for the most part over the last 15 years if like that if this is easier like if we go through a period where you know we're in some prolonged bare market, a bad recession and and the guy we had on earlier was talking I thought he said 30% of all Americans now have over $500,000 in their investment accounts and It's doubled over the last I think 24 months or something like that as the market has something something like that. But you know and because we were talking about how how much in uh investors have in the stock market today relative to maybe like you know 30 or 40 years ago with 401ks and everything like that because we were kind of talking about the Mike Green thing too. But I wonder if like this idea of you know because portfolios are elevated and the market's done so well that and I think it's a great way to think of it. It's just everyone's done so well. So, so they can think of it this way. You know what I mean? They can kind of think of their uh, you know, portfolio being being secondary. But, I don't know. It's just interesting to think about. >> Arguing for a new wealth effect where all of a sudden instead of only the wealthiest of wealthy people care when their accounts go down, like everybody who's made all this money on >> 3x mon ETFs is going to just be >> the worst. Oh boy. >> It could it could be. I mean, hopefully not, but >> there's your bearish YouTube cover take right there. That one gone. >> So, somehow the the chat is back and it's f I'm so glad that it is. Um sh couldn't get it back last week, but it's good that it's back. So, I got to give a quick shout out because it's been a little while. Uh Senator Domingo, Dominican Republic, what's up? Goththingberg, Sweden, Toronto, Tombal, Texas. How are you, Tyler? Tampa, Florida. Bendigo, Dubai, Kennaur, Georgia, Madira, Portugal, Screwston, Texas, Charleston, Cromwell, New Zealand. This is good spread. Max and Valpareeso Barthela, thanks for the spelling. I appreciate that. Toronto, Tmacula, Lan, Switzerland, Jupiter, Florida. Oam, Sweden, Dead Cat, Gully, New South Wales. Me too. Belly of Mullen Island, Les Wynan in How You Going Australia, The Wizard of Wateroo and London. I think we've got all the financial centers that are awake right now. So, we'll take it. Um, Lorraine a higher last one. JT top of the hour. It's 11:04. It's 4 minutes past the hour market. Here come the veggies. >> All right. Well, you know, I uh I heard David Crackour, who I'm a big fan of, uh he was talking about this term hyper objects and Polynesian navigation on a recent podcast. And so, you know, in no time, I found myself down this rabbit hole. And uh very fascinating. So, today I wanted to give you guys a brief guide uh tour of that that rabbit hole. Uh so, bring you down here with me. So, across the Pacific Ocean lies a story that's so audacious it almost sounds like it's a myth. Uh, so picture it. It's like a double hold canoe about 60 ft long and it's carved from wood and and it's, you know, strapped together with with rope and it's throwing off this thin wake into a vast totally indifferent ocean. No compass, no sextant, no GPS, just a man, the stars and the pulse of the swells beneath him in the ocean. How can someone, this guy, sail across the Pacific Ocean, no technology, and hit a speck of land after weeks at sea and not like close enough like but and you know directionally correct, but like right on the money. Uh, and that sounds like fantasy to me until it wasn't. So yeah, just to back up a little bit, like in a bit of what was probably likely racism, uh western his historians, they doubted whether ancient Polynesians had like had intentionally uh explored the the Pacific and like settled places. They basically were saying that it was they drifted, right? Um they and you know, they claimed that these migrations were just kind of accidents, like basically brown people drifting uh in a boat until they hit the next piece of land. Uh, but in 1976, uh, a man named, uh, Ma Palug, I believe it said, I mean, I'm probably getting that horribly wrong. I apologize, but he's from this tiny Micronesian island of Satai, Satal, and and he wanted to prove otherwise to these, you know, historians. So, he guided his canoe from Hawaii to Tahiti, which is 2500 miles in 31 days without a single modern tool. And how did he do that? That's like the That's the That's the mystery of this whole thing. It wasn't luck. A drift doesn't deliver you on schedule. There's too much randomness. Uh and and it was not repeatable to be able to do to just drift your way from Tahiti to to Hawaii or from Hawaii to Tahiti. It wasn't magic. Uh these Satawal boys like this guy were trained for years as kids. They lie in their canoes with their eyes closed and they feel the swells and they they're they're taught to memorize the star paths. They decode like birds and ranges the birds have as far as where land is. Uh, and this knowledge is culturally imprinted and shared with them in songs and phrases that every Satoal boy learns. And so it's like this kind of muscle memory. It's not a mysticism. It wasn't a single north star. You know, he wasn't just be able to go off of one particular northstar. Um, you know, you as soon as it's cloudy, that's out, right? So any single method that depends on one lone metric is not going to work. And then the instruments that he was actually using was was his nervous system. Like he was a living filter that fused all this very lowfidelity input into a highfidelity course that he was setting. And this this the Pacific, let's like back up to this this whole idea of hyper objects. I hadn't heard this term before and I think you guys might find it kind of interesting, but the Pacific is not easily observable in one go. And that that's what makes it a hyper object. That term came from this ecologist Timothy Morton and it it's it describes phenomena that are so vast, so distributed, so so smeared across time that you you can't you can only meet them in little fragments. Uh and you never get to see the entire ocean. You you're just kind of sampling the signals of it. Long period, you know, swell that was a memory from a distant storm or a bird's arc that indicates the distance to land or a cloud underglow that signals where a reef is. you know, each one is this little partial pattern that you can pick up on and there's a relation amongst them that's really important and it serves as a map. So Mao was was quite comfortable with this hyper object of the Pacific Ocean because he was continually updating his feel for it. So it's like basian and updating like we were talking about with like base rates. Um so and of course he had many voyages and he was able to hone this which is really important part of being able to trust your intuition, right? Um, so we all operate inside of hyper objects whether we know it or not. Like the stock market is a hyper object. You can't wrap your mind completely around all of it. All these businesses, the economy, climate, culture, all these things are hyper objects that we're just kind of sampling like we're just getting we're never observe them fully directly. Uh, and so, you know, we only touching local effects almost like like touching a part of an elephant, you know, and then trying to describe it. So, and you can never really master a hyper object because it there's never about perfect information. There is no perfect map of these things and it's always changing and they're too big and they're too viscous and molten to use Morton's terms. Uh so it's really about building flexible schema that that weigh these multiple signals and and then updating those without ego which goes back to that base rates, right? Um, so you know, I think the best investors really treat businesses like hyper objects. You know, they're reading about their culture, the incentive structures, switching costs for the customers or raving customers, uh, supplier dynamics, regulatory tides, all these things are little like touch points on a hyper object that you can't ever really fully map your round mind around what does it mean to be the whole company. Um, you know, so you know, Buffett's patience and like just like the these sail these uh navigators learned from their ancestors, they would actually call it like sailing with the ancestors. That was their term for like how they they they knew this stuff. We have our ancestors as well. You know, Buffett's patience and Munger's lattis work or Fischer's focus on quality. And we're we're all navigating by some of these sort of inherited stars as well. Um, and so, you know, the the goal really is to try to to be in flow with the hyper object and not fight it and not think that you can completely map it out. Um, I think true mastery really comes from like being able to take this analysis and and realize that that intuition and analysis are not they're not uh they're not at opposites like that when you can blend them into a single sort of framework. I think that's where you get the best investors. like they just have this intuition. It's from deep pattern matching, picking up on little signals. Uh, and you know, this is where Buffett's appceptive mass that he's talked about before, like one little thing that he learns like sort of causes a bigger picture to like click into place and you understand it. Um, and so that's I think there's some interesting um, crossovers between like the very best investors are navigating things that are these hyper objects that they can't really you can't understand all of it, but they they have just enough intuition to to understand how to work with it in a way that's successful for them and they're able to get from from, you know, the financial equivalent of of Hawaii to Tahiti uh, with by by using that intuition. So, I thought it was kind of an interesting correlation there. >> That was incredible. I think I want to go back and watch Moana again from like a whole new set of eyes. That's wild. Are there is there a modern application or is there I feel like I've seen this term thrown around in the wake of AI and all the other stuff going on like how did you where did hyper objects come from in your awareness to look that up? That was David Crackour in an interview and he was talking actually about um he was describing a lot of actually his interaction and what Car Mc McCarthy was like as a person and this was a topic that came up and so then I like I said I went down the rabbit hole >> today in serendipity I have my John McI survival of the bark canoe which have you ever read that? No, >> I do like John McY though. >> It if you've never read that one, it should be the most boring book he ever read and it's or wrote and it's like the best book, but I'm pretty sure we have uh Oh, it's almost there. I have Corm McCarthy is right next to it. So, it's they're sitting on top of each other right over here today. >> Vacation reading. >> I'm a big Cormack McCarthy fan. And I just read this the other day that he didn't start writing until he was 40 and he bought an old typewriter and then when he he blew up when he was like 70 or something. He was he was quite old before he got famous and successful and he sold his old battered typewriter that he'd written these things on for like $100,000 and then he just went back and bought a cheap version of the same thing that he he just sold for like a hundred grand which I love. >> This is the plug. If you don't follow Aaron Gwyn on Twitter, do you guys know Aaron at all? >> Is that that's probably where I stole it from? >> Uh yeah, he's adjacent to everything, but Aaron is like one of the preeminent Corvette McCarthy scholars. So, if you're into that stuff, I get all my Cormarmac news. Yeah. From it. >> There we go. >> Super fans. >> Well, David got to spend a lot of like time with him as they were both at the Santa Fe Institute forever. And so that, you know, that's I'm sure that was a pretty special I I loved one thing he said. He was he said that Cormack like would he'd literally have time like he'd just have nothing to do. He was never like overwhelmed, busy, or anything. He was just like, I'm just going to go like eat an ice cream at BaskinRobins. like that was what he did every day. >> The stuff that came out with the the woman that he had the long-term relationship with and the whole >> That's interesting. Yeah. But there was lots of stuff like that inside of there. It's like just such a regular dude and you're going >> and somehow in the middle of this you're conceptualizing the most awful characters and the most I don't know. That's some wild stuff. >> Split split him to the thrapple. That was one of the lines from one of his books. The judge I think hit someone with splits him to the >> th had to go and look up >> thrapple. So worth looking up though. Come on, take that to your kids' karate classes. >> Uh Justin, you want to hit us with your Is it back to you? >> I think so. Yeah. I was just going to ask though, Jack, can you sail with the uh the stars? >> Yeah, you know, I've got like a GPS and a compass and I still cannot hit the point that I'm trying to hit. So, I was I didn't have much commentary on that because I am basically the opposite of that. >> Well, that's probably because you had a few beers when you're out there. Nice. >> All right. So, the last one was um by Pim Van Vallet. He's a Rubiko guy over in Europe. Um kind of a big quant guy. And uh his thing was character is more important than IQ. And so he said when it comes to long-term investment success, character is more important than IQ. Character meaning sticking to your philosophy, not giving up at the wrong moment. There's a big gap between the investor and investment returns. That's purely due to adverse market and adverse style of timing of investors. So his point is, and it kind of reminds me of that famous Buffett quote that, you know, it's not the guy with 160 IQ that outperforms the guy with 130 IQ. It comes down to like temperament and your ability to stay disciplined and stay unemotional and and I think that's sort of an important characteristic of good investors. And I think that's this, you know, something that a lot of investors can try try to learn from. Yeah, I couldn't agree more. I think temperament is I think he means temperament as a rather than character there. I think that's what he's referring to. He says character. >> Mhm. >> But I think with all with the three of mine, I mean, you know, I was thinking about it and I think they're all like in this behavioral finance sort of like, you know, discipline, decision-m, good investor behavior. That's so much of what you know can lead to good outcomes. I think um and I think a lot of that gets kind of missed. >> It's kind of throw >> it. It is like I put these uh I put like all the hundred lessons into chat GPT at one point just to say and it was basically like that they're all they're all rooted in behavioral psychology. Like not all of them but the vast majority of them are in some way or another. Um, Jack, you want to hit us with your your last one? >> Yeah, I went in the trading world this time. Uh, so, uh, we had Jack Schwagger on the podcast and we we did like a lightning round at the end where we asked him like the the greatest lesson from each of the various traders, you know, Steve Cohen, who whoever he's talked to and he his lesson from Paul Tudtor Jones was view every position as if you put it on today. And and I think that's really good like if if you carry that to a broader level because obviously I'm not trading. I think you can start like in individual stocks and you can work your way all the way up to like an asset allocation with that which is we we always just because we have it we think it's like the thing we should have but if we take a step back and say if I was doing it over today would I still have these same things would I still have the same asset allocation these same stocks whatever it is these same ETFs I I think that's a great way to look at things and obviously in the real world you know there's taxes and transaction costs and I can't just change my portfolio to whatever it would be but but I thought that was an interesting lesson that carries down from like the lessons of a great trader to something like anyone can apply obviously hasn't put any money in private equity. >> Oh, that is true. Yeah, >> it's a little bit like >> the bubble. The bubble no one can sell, Matt. Right. >> A little hard to get out of >> that was one of my better uh I that was one of my better titles we used on YouTube. >> The bubble The bubble that no one can sell. >> The bubble no one could sell. We used it for Dan Rasmusson because he was talking about private equity and uh that was like one of our better performing episodes ever because like that that title resonated with people. >> That was a great episode. I I really enjoyed that one. >> And I said I wasn't going to use the talk about titles and thumbnails, Matt, and I got to what? >> That's okay. That was an awesome bars on that title. Absolute bars. Jack, >> by the way, a little inside baseball with Schwiger. We um we're we're big like outline guys for the podcast. Like Jack does a lot of prep and we send all of our guests an outline. It just kind of works for us. It doesn't work for everyone, works for us. >> And Right. We didn't get your outline. We actually sent the outline for today. >> That is right. Um, but with Schwagger, remember Jack? We were like, "We'll send you." And he's like, "No, I absolutely don't want." >> Yeah. He refused it. >> He's like, he refused it. >> Only guest ever, uh, who's ever refused the outline. And he was like, he he just wants these to be free flowing conversations. Yeah. >> And so I I said like, I've got, you know, we've got this ready. We're going to send it over you. And he's like, no, I don't want it. >> It actually ended up being a great interview. So I was, he was probably right. >> I think the pros don't they don't need notes, right? They're they've already got it. >> Yeah. Yeah, we've had it's interesting like we've had a really big mix of that. We've had like really really well-known people who like were really really happy to have the outline. Um and we've had people who just don't want it. And I think it depends on what topic you're talking about. Like the stuff we were talking about with Schwagger was probably very good without an outline. If we're digging into like some macro concept, like it's probably better that we have some structure we're working off of. So it probably we always offer it if someone wants it, but it probably depends on the episode whether it's better or not. >> The Schwagger brand is that curiosity too. It's like we read the books because we know the curiosity he brings to the table. So, it's not like he's going to show up with his CNBC bullet points, >> right? >> And if he did, that would be weird if he was like citing stuff. Instead, you want Schwagger in a flannel shirt halfway through a cup of coffee just being like, I haven't thought about that book in 18 years. Why are you asking me that? And then you see where it goes and it's magical because it'll go anywhere. But >> how >> we asked him in the live interview um we asked him why in the live interview, why did you not want the outline? And he was basically saying like when he did his books, he didn't need it either. Um like he wanted to sit down with these people and just ask what was coming to his mind. He didn't want like a structured outline of what was going on. >> How long's he been doing that for those books? >> Long time. I don't >> Wizards was published 89. >> Oh, was it? Okay. I was going to say early 90s, but 89. There you go. >> He's got a new book coming out, too. Uh next year. >> What have you been doing with your life, gentlemen? Yeah, I >> I like I was I was a I was I was a child when that that book came out, right? >> I I like the uh I like the point that he makes though that we should talk about a little bit, but it's it's a similar to that one that we were talking about earlier where it's how do you when is it discipline and when when is it being stubborn like I I think that there's a good argument for you I I'm a big process guy. I like having a lot of process around what I do and make decisions because some days I wake up and I feel very positive and I want to be, you know, fully invested in very aggressive things and then other days I wake up feeling the other way and I want to be underinvested in aggressive stuff. Yeah. So I think >> I wouldn't want to be like making decisions every day on the portfolio based on how I feel. I want a little bit more process around that. >> This is a good thing about being a quant by the way is the quant kind of can ask the question itself. uh would I own the stock if you know if I were to make the decision today because it can look at the fundamentals it used to select a stock and it can use the fundamentals now um and then if you want it can also score it based on like tax considerations how long have I held it what's my gain and stuff like that and you you can kind of which is sort of what I do I just take the decision away from myself um with that >> let me play devil's advocate here and say imagine a future where AI is quite you know even further advanced than now and more and more things are in that model right and it's it's probably going to do a better job of optimizing that than than we're capable of. So what does that leave as the last bastion for humans to to have some differentiated better view? uh is it intuition and things that like can't be very easily modeled and maybe not even explained in words like you some you have some deeper pattern recognition within a business that might not even be able to you can't even really put into words but there's something special there that the AI would just it's not in the model for the AI and maybe I don't know does that like defy process you know your best version of your process as a human maybe pales in comparison to the AI's best process um And so what do you have left? >> I'm crow I'm crowbaring only because this is basically the last one that I have is this exact point. So Guy Spear who needs no introduction to this crowd at least. But so Guy Spear said be kind to yourself and forgive your mistakes. And inside of that this idea of there is there is no such thing as a sustainable practice that doesn't involve making mistakes. And so if all you do is beat yourself up, you will never build any sustainable practice. And that's hard. Like I I had to learn I still have to learn that lesson on a regular basis to remind myself of this. Don't just beat yourself up. But uh to the point that that you were just making on on this uh Jake is like you have to keep on doing this thing and then use feel, taste, intuition, all those all the things that AI can't do for you because those are the only perceptions that are actually going to tell you if you're still on to a track on something that's productive. And then you have to measure it outside of yourself, too. You can't just look on feedback and be horribly stubborn. I can go buy scratchy lotto every single day of the week and have a big pile of losers and my wife could look at me and say like this is not a good investment in our future. I don't actually do that but just making example. >> She says this is not working and you say but in back test this worked really well. >> I price these to the book value. Yeah, it's >> I would tell you that it's still a good idea even if >> Right. So, it's like that taste and that feel and then mapping it back out across your community or the people around you or the things that you're doing it for. Because if you hone in on both of those things, you do something that feels cool to you and then you have even one other friend like I imagine Toby as this went to you, you were like, I have one friend, Jake Taylor, and maybe Jake Taylor thinks this is a good idea. And that's how this spreads, right? Like you need one person of validation. I found Jack and uh Justin here. They're willing to put up with my shenanigans, but that's enough to keep me on the stubborn train in this community, and there's winning upside to identifying this stuff. What do you guys think about what what are your experiences with AI so far? Are you are you guys pro using it in your work or are you skeptical or where do you fall? >> I am AI. I'm not even here right now. You're talking to my chat program. >> I'm Chilly. Uh what's her name? Yeah, studios are mad. >> I'm not uh necessarily I'm not pro in investing, but I've been pro in pretty much everything else. Um like I haven't found a way to use like LLMs to create like better stock picks or anything like that, but pretty much everything else I'm doing is is getting better because of that. Um just its ability to review everything and the topic that I won't bring up that we were bringing up earlier that it's helped us a lot with. So um it's just yeah, I mean it really it really is like I think there's going to be as we look forward and to Jake's point, it can't do everything. Um, I was thinking when Jake made that point about growth investing because that's something quant is terrible at. Um, and that that's something where a human being like that pattern matching and looking at what's worked in the past is way way better. And AI may never be able to do like what a human can on the growth investing side. Um, but in in just general life, uh, yeah, I think I think there's going to be a separation between people who learn how to use this and learn how to optimize, you know, what they're doing with this and the people that don't. And I think five years from now, it's going to make a huge huge difference because it's just if you know how to use it right, it's just so powerful. Well, it seems to me too like on the investment process side like if everyone starts to go that way like the edge won't be there because the AI will be producing possibly the same output for a lot of people and so you know that's not where outperformance is going to come from in terms of like stock selection and things like that. Now there are people like we know we've had Doug Clinton on from um intelligent indexes but he's a he's a deep water but he has created like an ET you know his his strategy that he's running in an ETF is I believe a completely 100% generated like AI driven consensus where he's taking he's fed the models like you know Buffett and great in the strategies of great investors and then you know using like a consensus system across three or four of them to construct the portfolio. Um, but I don't know anyone anyone else that's doing it like that extent completely. Um, but maybe in the future people will be doing that more. >> You can tune it up to whatever strategy you like. But that that's why I don't think that it's it's not going to eliminate competition because there are still going to be momentum investors. There will still be Buffett types. There will still be very growthy early stage. >> You'll still have your >> Yeah. And they still have to buy and sell to each others. Yeah. >> You just got your co-pilot there. that's helping you out a little bit. >> But in that cop, so I think specifically to the co-pilot point, the way I use AI a lot every single day. And I think you don't want it to replace you on the immediate level that you're operating on, but you want to step function and above you and below you at all point with points with your AI. What I mean by that is like if I'm thinking about hyper objects and now thank you, I'm in the rabbit hole. So, you just ruined part of my day and or weekend or weekend because I thought I knew what that word sort of meant and now, yeah, it's over. But, so like with hyper objects, I'm now going to go to perplexity or whatever and say, if I'm interested in hyper objects, what else should I be aware of or interested in, and let me pattern match above my current level of awareness for those things? But then inevitably, just like you did for your eloquent 10 minutes of talking about your passion for this thing, I'm going to turn around and go, "Okay, once I've gathered a bunch of these notes and I've started to formulate what I think about this or how I'm trying to process how I feel about it, now help me edit that. Help me summarize things. Help me put stuff together so I can have an articulate reflection on it so I don't show up at the bar while the Eagles game is on and I tap the guy in the shoulder. He's like, "So, what are you into lately?" And I'm like, "Hyper objects." And I don't want to get stabbed. and I also want to have a fun conversation. So I want that that just below level idea of like how do I frame this up in a way that's articulate that's interesting and I think AI both as an editor on a step function below and as an explorer on a step function above is I have never never used a tool that can do that. You know cocaine is a hell of a drug as the great poet philosopher once said. That's how I feel about AI. >> I like that framing Matt. I think that's really smart way >> good. just came up with that and I need to write it down now. >> Have the AI workshop that a little bit, but it'll be good. >> Can you send me a transcript, guys? Can I get a transcript? >> Yeah, there will be one. >> I've I've had pretty good luck so far with um building special custom GPTs of my own desire. And really what I'm trying to do is like I found a lot of the conversations if you're trying to do like deep chatting with it, it starts to lose the thread faster than I want. And then now I'm like, h this is just not getting as helpful. So I've been much more like, can I create an instruction set that I know will produce a a consistently decent outcome and then I feed it the input and then I get the output that I want right away. So there's not a lot of back and forth. So for instance, um I built one that is trained on all of Malosen's white papers on base rates. So now I can plug almost anything into that and it will try to like reference match the from the tables. uh the base rate of what is being proposed in the content that I give it and try to find the closest match and then give me like you know 25th and 75th percentile um like how reasonable is this is this a stretch case is it like super long odds never happened in the history of the universe um and it's so it's it's quite good for that like little specialty things like that I've I've had a lot of luck so far >> can we borrow that for our chapter >> on base rates thanks Jake appreciate access that >> JET. Uh we're coming up on time. Um tell us a little bit about how we can follow along with what you guys are doing or get in contact. >> Yeah. So I mean you can you can uh follow us on YouTube at Excess Returns. That's the name of the channel. We're obviously on all the audio platforms um as well. In addition to the podcast, we all have like real jobs. Um I work with Perth Toll at Life and Liberty Indexes and we run um the Freedom 100 Emerging Market Index which is the index that sits inside an ETF. So people can if they want to learn more about that they can uh you know tool around on that. Jack, what do you got going on? >> Yeah, the only other thing I would mention is excess returns pod.substack.com is the new Substack we just started. It's got the Mobison chapter there. Um we're doing this we're basically going to do this book in public. So what ends up in the book may not be what's up there now, but we figured the best way to do it is just put stuff out there in the world. It'll hold us accountable and you know, people will give us feedback. So it's it's up on that substack. >> Sunpoint Investments with an E because we're fancy. That's the RAIA. That's the planning and investing work. And we do lots of I mean all the stuff that we were talking about on this just helping people align that for themselves. That's the that's the real job as Justin would put it and my mom would probably put it that way too. So we'll do that. And then all the personal stuff's cultishcreative.com and the panoptica.ai, the popup, this joint collaboration with epsilon theory for people who are into the ways that these narratives show up in the space and using all sorts of cool AI AI tools to track them. I cannot wait. That's like end of this month. We'll get that up in public too, which is >> cannot wait. It's really cool. >> JT, you want to plug Journalytic folks? >> Good enough. We already did it today. It's >> plug it. Uh Justin, Jack, Matt, thanks so much for joining us today. Excess Returns is a podcast. Um you guys did a great job. Folks, we'll see you uh next week. Same bet time, same bat channel. And with any luck, the chat will be back on