Chris Schindler: Hedge Fund Sorcerer Schindler Shares Secrets from his Spellbook
In this episode, Adam Butler and Mike Philbrick of ReSolve Asset Management have
an in-depth conversation with Chris Schindler, a seasoned investment
professional. They delve into a range of topics, from the intricacies of
investing in tech and the dynamics of the credit market, to the complexities of
portfolio construction and the impact of market forces on investment
strategies.
Topics Discussed
•The challenges of investing in tech and the role of analysts in creating
crowding effects
•The importance of understanding the dynamics of the credit market and the
implications of holding credit right through maturity
•The intricacies of portfolio construction, including the importance of
diversifying across strategies, assets, and time
•The impact of market forces on investment strategies and the role of
benchmarking in driving investor behavior
•The evolution of the volatility market and the influence of large players on
market dynamics
•The concept of 'netting' in multi-strategy portfolios and its impact on trading
costs
•The challenges of attribution in multi-strategy portfolios and the importance
of understanding the underlying strategies
•The potential pitfalls of short-term investment strategies and the importance
of a long-term perspective
This episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in gaining a deeper
understanding of the complexities of the investment landscape. Chris Schindler
provides valuable insights into the nuances of portfolio construction, the
dynamics of the credit market, and the impact of market forces on investment
strategies, offering strategies to navigate the ever-evolving financial
landscape.
This is “ReSolve Riffs” – published on YouTube Friday afternoon to debate the most relevant investment topics of the day, hosted by Adam Butler, Mike Philbrick and Rodrigo Gordillo of ReSolve Global* and Richard Laterman of ReSolve Asset Management.
*ReSolve Global refers to ReSolve Asset Management SEZC (Cayman) which is registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a commodity trading advisor and commodity pool operator. This registration is administered through the National Futures Association (“NFA”). Further, ReSolve Global is a registered person with the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority.
Transcript
Like in 10 years, if you had to build a portfolio and say,
2
:10 years from now, this is the portfolio
I want, what would it look like?
3
:And the key part of that statement
is you have no idea what the
4
:world's gonna look like in 10 years.
5
:You have no idea if you're gonna
like stocks more than bonds, if
6
:you're gonna like commodities.
7
:If you're gonna, you have no active, you
have no possible active view in 10 years.
8
:And so that's the, and so think
of that as your definition of
9
:passive, as your definition of beta.
10
:Build the best portfolio you can that
you'd be happy having in 10 years.
11
:And then think of active as everything
that you do between now and then.
12
:Adam Butler: Okay, today everyone
is gonna be very excited to see
13
:we've got Chris Schindler back in
the hot seat from Castle Field.
14
:Chris, how you doing today?
15
:How's Toronto?
16
:Chris Schindler: not so bad right now,
one or two degrees better than last week
17
:when it was about minus 10 and snowing.
18
:So probably not quite as nice
as where you guys are, but,
19
:Adam Butler: That's possible.
20
:It's pretty gray here today
too, but no snow on the ground,
21
:you'll be happy to hear.
22
:Chris Schindler: Oh yeah.
23
:Adam Butler: For those who
don't know, we've had Chris on
24
:two or three times in the past.
25
:They're always crowd favorites.
26
:We both, we go broad and deep.
27
:Chris's background we'll get,
we will obviously give a more
28
:detailed background or bio for
Chris, worked at one of Canada's.
29
:Major, public pension plans for, for many
years, ran their quant desk and has spun
30
:off into his own, uh, quant hedge fund,
primarily trading global futures markets.
31
:So, we're gonna cover a variety of
topics today related to his past and
32
:his present and potentially his future.
33
:And, um, so let's, let's start with what
34
:Mike Philbrick: let's not, let's
not hide where, where he is at,
35
:it's Castle Field, is that,
That's the name of the firm, right.
36
:And, uh, where is there a website?
37
:Is there, just let's get it
out there at the beginning too.
38
:Chris Schindler: Uh uh, I mean,
there's a website that has, I believe,
39
:a phone number and an email address,
and that's about it on it right now.
40
:So, uh,
41
:Mike Philbrick: Very, very
42
:Chris Schindler: very professional.
43
:Mike Philbrick: Close there.
44
:I,
45
:love
46
:Adam Butler: The scarcity close.
47
:Mike Philbrick: Yeah.
48
:Adam Butler: So let's start with
what we're currently facing.
49
:You know, it's funny because I think
ur first chat was probably in:
50
:We had this crazy concentrated
tech rally, actually.
51
:It was kind of like this meme stock,
low grade, low quality tech rally.
52
:and we're, sort of back in a
way to where we were there.
53
:We don't have any specs to contend with
at the moment, but it, you know, we're
54
:back into that, massively concentrated
technology oriented large cap rally that
55
:we experienced for much of the 2010s,
ertainly the back half of the:
56
:So I thought it might be
useful to revisit that period.
57
:You know, I think a, a lot of people
who've only been investing for the
58
:last 10 or 15 years have only really
experienced an environment where U.S
59
:and especially U.S, big cap tech.
60
:Was really the only game in town.
61
:Do you think we're back in that kind
of environment or do you think there's
62
:gonna be a lot more opportunities
over the next decade than we
63
:experienced in the previous decade?
64
:Chris Schindler: Holy moly.
65
:You guys come out swinging, eh?
66
:so, uh, and, and I guess you don't go
back to twenty-tens, you can go wait, you
67
:can go back to the two-thousands or, you
know, the, the, the Nasdaq bubble when
68
:you really wanna talk about concentrate?
69
:I
70
:Adam Butler: mean, it was,
that was interrupted, right?
71
:For that
72
:2000 to 2012
73
:period, right?
74
:We had this.
75
:Chris Schindler: in Canada, I remember
we, um, a huge problem for anyone forced
76
:to benchmark to, to public markets
where, like a public market index
77
:where, if you want to hold a Canadian
index, you have to have like 30 or 40%
78
:of your weight in Nortel, you know,
and, and so, you know, it's, there's
79
:obviously, a lot to this question,
and, do these environments show up?
80
:They, yeah.
81
:Like they obviously do.
82
:Have we been through one?
83
:We absolutely have been.
84
:The future's a bit hard to predict, but.
85
:But you can kind of point to some features
of tech that make it much easier, I
86
:think, to explain how it can get so
concentrated and how it can get like what
87
:looks bubbly at times I guess, as well.
88
:and part of it I think has to do
with just, it'll be pretty hard
89
:for someone to just say, I'm gonna
start up a new business and, and
90
:turn it into a billion dollar show
and, you know, in a couple years.
91
:But like, obviously with the infinite
leverage of technology, especially,
92
:you know, online technology and,
and the huge scalability, you know,
93
:you can create these huge potential
future businesses, uh, almost out of
94
:like, it feels like out of nothing.
95
:And, and, and they're so
hard to value and right.
96
:Part of the problem with the NASDAQ
bubble was, everything looked reasonable.
97
:Well, I dunno if stuff looked
reasonable or not, but you want, you
98
:can imagine why this one company, if it
succeeds, could be massively successful
99
:and could be massively valuable.
100
:but the challenge was.
101
:All 10 or 20 of them couldn't be.
102
:and so you had situations where,
individually it might make some sense
103
:if you didn't get a, a sense of the
context of the entire, space or sector.
104
:So that's like, that's
part of the problem.
105
:And we've seen that over and over
again where it, they, they can't all
106
:succeed because they're together.
107
:They're, they're making a bigger claim
on future, economic growth or future
108
:wealth that that is impossible to exist.
109
:And so together, like, all these
valuations can't make sense and then
110
:you gotta figure out like, does the
entire index have to re reset or do
111
:you have to go after the individuals
and, and figure out, you know, which
112
:ones will go, which ones won't.
113
:Because it's, it's so easy looking back
to say, man, these were billion dollar
114
:companies, but if they're the one in 50
survivors or if you got entire spaces that
115
:just didn't work and went to zero, it's,
much harder to predict that going forward.
116
:But, you know, and, and like, I
mean obviously that's the challenge.
117
:you know, and I guess the other thing is.
118
:Because a lot of these businesses,
and, and I understand, I'm talking
119
:about more of the ones that we just
don't know what they're worth yet.
120
:Because, because so many their cash
flows are, way out in the future.
121
:They're kind of, well they're,
they're almost like a private
122
:equity firm that's marked to model.
123
:They don't have anything that really moves
'em up and down, you know, uh, you know,
124
:on sort of, on the, on the day to day.
125
:And, they're just based on
some future possibility.
126
:And that leads to two or three
really weird price dynamics, which
127
:can lead to this concentration.
128
:The first one is when you like, know
analysts and, and, and, and I think
129
:that there's a, a fair amount of
evidence that analysts tend to crowd
130
:with each other, and strangely, the
more volatile and uncertain the stock,
131
:the more they tend to crowd with each
other relative to the volatility.
132
:They have this benchmark risk of
being benchmarked to their peers and
133
:looking wrong relative to their peers.
134
:And so you actually find that for really
uncertain stuff that's a really high ball
135
:that they crowd even more and it creates
more of these crowding effects and you
136
:get more of these sort of bubbly effects.
137
:And, and so that's like part of it
and that leads to momentum, in these
138
:names, which can really happen.
139
:And that, and of course they drag
retail in along with them along the way.
140
:and you can put that up against what
feels like almost a totally different
141
:statement, but I think are they actually
kind of work together, which is the,
142
:you know, when you have a Dispersion of
opinions on something just straight up
143
:though, like, and, and I'm not talking
about like analysts all crowded here.
144
:I mean like actual people in the
market who are betting actually
145
:have a dispersion of opinions.
146
:You know, like cap in sort of assumes
that everyone has a modest expectations,
147
:but like, that's clearly not true.
148
:And as soon as you allow for
heterogeneous expectations, you get
149
:these sort of weird effects where,
the more uncertain the outcome,
150
:the more the price gets pushed up.
151
:And I don't know if you guys have seen
any of these papers, but I mean, these
152
:are, this is sort of a, a, is this
making any sense to you or do you want
153
:me to go into this a bit more detail?
154
:Yeah.
155
:So, imagine if you had a world where,
you know, there's a, there's some
156
:people thought a stock was worth
101 and some worth 102, and some
157
:were 103 and somewhere 99, 98, 97.
158
:And you kind of think that in a perfect
world, it would settle up what the
159
:average dollar thinks it's worth.
160
:And we've had this conversation a lot
about privates because it really, really
161
:shows up in privates and in private
equity is the most extreme form of this.
162
:The, the price doesn't settle what
the market thinks it's worth, the
163
:price settles in what the most wildly
optimistic person's willing to pay.
164
:So.
165
:You know, if someone, if someone's
gonna buy a house and, and you know,
166
:the market thinks it's worth a million
and some people think it's worth 800
167
:and someone, and one guy goes, it's
worth 200 or it's worth 2 million.
168
:It sells for 2 million.
169
:It sounds more like, and, and so prices
push off to the right when you have
170
:dispersion of opinion, when you can't
short the price back down to zero and
171
:the privates cannot be shorted back.
172
:So they go all the way to what the most
wildly optimistic person's gonna pay.
173
:But if you have a world where you've
got more longs and shorts, or you have
174
:a, a, not enough shorts to pull the
longs back, and we're always in a world
175
:where there's a long bias, there's more
like there's more, you know, potential
176
:long buyers and short buyers that a
dispersive opinion is going to bias you
177
:towards the tails and to the right tail.
178
:And so the bigger the dispersion of
like, like, I don't know, this thing is
179
:worth, and some people think it's worth
nothing, something is worth a ton that
180
:pushes you to the right as well and
creates a bubble in that space as well.
181
:So you can kind of see how the massive
uncertainty of these things will result
182
:in, in a, a bias high and momentum.
183
:Which we see all the time.
184
:and so, does it, so you can
push all that against Hmm.
185
:It makes it pretty risky against, I
think like one other thing you have
186
:to pay attention to and, and like,
look, there's always crazy issues
187
:when you're doing market cap and
market cap waiting and people, people
188
:have that as a benchmark, right?
189
:And the challenge with market cap is
your benchmark meet is that it, it can
190
:be an incredibly painful benchmark.
191
:It's because if the, if the, if the
small number of names do extremely well
192
:and, and you're anything other than
the, than the market you're going to
193
:get, it it's gonna crush you at times.
194
:And there are gonna be times when
you crush it because it does badly.
195
:But it's, it's a really inefficient
benchmark in a lot of ways to
196
:measure your performance against.
197
:But it is, it is what people
do measure performance against.
198
:And so you get these benchmark
issues associated with it.
199
:and so like, there's, there's a whole
universe of quant and, and you know, how
200
:do we think about alternative to market
cap indices, and think of them as, as
201
:as processes and, and, and benchmarks
and, This is gonna go on, uh, uh, on
202
:a total left turn, by the way here.
203
:Um, but, uh, you know, I spend a lot of
time thinking about how do we alternatives
204
:to market cap weighting because you do
get this massive concentration risk in a
205
:small number of names and like, the most
naive alternative to market cap weighting,
206
:which, which for sure eliminates
like, you know, any kind of mega a cap
207
:bias is just to equal weight things.
208
:And, it's actually like in the
very long term, a surprisingly
209
:strong solution for equities is
just to equal weight All the names.
210
:but it's, oh, it's shockingly naive.
211
:and, and it's got, so we did
this, we, we, we ran like an
212
:alternative to, to market cap weight.
213
:We, we ran an equal weight and the
pro and there are lots of problems
214
:with equal weight, but what it does do
is it says, I don't care what anyone
215
:thinks this is worth, I don't care
what the market thinks it's worth.
216
:I don't care.
217
:I'm just gonna put $1 in each of
these things and, and, and so be it.
218
:Now, lots of problems with that.
219
:But one of the ones that always
bugged me about equating anything
220
:was this definition of, well
what's the thing you're equating?
221
:I mean, you could say like, imagine I'm
equating countries around the world and
222
:I'm gonna put $1 in the United States
and $1 in Canada and $1 in France.
223
:And then imagine the United States
breaks up into 50, you know,
224
:independent little countries.
225
:And that thing that used to have $1 in
you now go, now I'm gonna put $50 in it.
226
:You're gonna bet 50 times as much
on the exact same thing, just
227
:because of how it was defined.
228
:And, and you have this problem
with equal weighting, which is,
229
:I call the unit problem of equal
weighting, which was like, how
230
:do I think about what's the unit?
231
:Because it's clearly,
it's a definitional issue.
232
:And if, if things come together, if
things split up, I'm gonna completely
233
:change my weightings based on what
shouldn't change my weightings.
234
:And that's like a big
problem with equal weighting.
235
:And so market cap weighting, it's
got like a lot of efficiencies to it.
236
:It's got a lot of, you know, like I
say, efficiencies, it's got theory
237
:behind it that you can kind of stand by.
238
:but at the end of the day, it's
people's opinions about things.
239
:It's the whole market's opinion about
things, but the price does move on.
240
:That Ecoweight's got this definition
of, of independent unit problem.
241
:And so there's a subcategory
of things in between.
242
:And, and so this is what we, this
is the sort of the three categories
243
:of of alternative indices.
244
:We created what we call kind of
like a fundamental valuator, right?
245
:And a fundamental valuator is,
is is different again, because it
246
:takes something about the companies.
247
:And so like, you know, when Rob Arnett,
I, I think is a guy who's really
248
:covered this a lot, but he would
say like, it's, it can be anything.
249
:It could be a number of parking
spots in the parking lot.
250
:It could be a number of employees, but
it's typically revenues or dividends or
251
:cash flow or something that kind of speaks
to the size and he doesn't sell it this
252
:Mike Philbrick: more towards
a fundamental criteria rather
253
:Chris Schindler: biases it.
254
:And, and so, so if you think about
Ecoweight and Ecoweight's got one extra,
255
:really, this is totally off fire now,
but it's got one really cool feature
256
:Ecoweight, which has got like a cult, like
an energy capture or a volatility capture.
257
:If you have a number of companies that are
equal-weighted and you always have error
258
:terms, you know, like you have surprises,
surprise the upside, surprise the
259
:downside and, and what a market cap does.
260
:Or if you take an equal weight and you
don't rebalance it, then the companies
261
:that get surprised, the upsides grow.
262
:So they have, they have positive
shocks and the companies that have
263
:negative shocks shrink, and you end
up over-weighting the ones that have
264
:positive shocks and under-weighting
the one with negative shocks.
265
:And, and if there's any
reversion to the mean.
266
:And so if, if prices project those
further out, if there's any reversion
267
:to the mean, then you've, you're kind
of backwards in what you'd like to do.
268
:What you really want to do is buy
the one you expect to, to revert back
269
:and you wanna sell the one that's,
that's had a positive bias and market
270
:cap is the exact opposite of that.
271
:So anytime you equal weight or anytime
you rebalance to a starting process,
272
:you're gonna capture some of that, that
natural mean reversion and, and in fact a
273
:huge, huge proportion of a lot of quant.
274
:Alpha and value add is in
fact that energy recapture.
275
:And so I think Rob is able to show,
I don't know if he showed this or
276
:something else did, but you could take
like the inverse of his portfolios
277
:and they also beat market cap just
because that energy capture is, is
278
:pretty, is pretty helpful anyway.
279
:But so one of the things that, the,
that any kind of fundamental weighting
280
:does is that, you know, when the
fundamentals change, you buy more
281
:or less, but it doesn't move the
price because of people's opinions.
282
:Because the market's opinion and
projecting that into the future
283
:'cause that projecting into the
future tends to cause issues.
284
:So, and if he's never sold it as this,
I've never really seen it presented
285
:this, but the reason I like, I like
this idea is if I took a company, I
286
:split it into 10 pieces, I will still
have the same amount of weight in that
287
:new thing, split up 10 ways that I
would've had the original and vice versa.
288
:And so it's kind of an equal weight,
but it's an equal weight by size
289
:or something a bit more fundamental
than just like this equal weight.
290
:And, and between those, now you
start to say, how do I invest
291
:in a, in a market that's got.
292
:some very, very concentrated
companies in it.
293
:And, and you have to think, take
a step back and say, if those
294
:concentrated companies were in
fact a hundred companies that came
295
:together, well maybe it's not so bad.
296
:Maybe that is, well, you know,
like it's a quarter of the weight.
297
:But, but if it was a massive conglomerate
that brought together, maybe it's
298
:not as concentrated as I think
299
:Adam Butler: Mm-Hmm.
300
:Chris Schindler: but if it's a
single thing with a, with a small
301
:number of risk factors just blown
up a massive size and go, that's
302
:when I gotta be more worried about.
303
:And so we start to think again, which
is like, how do I determine how many
304
:effectively independent companies
are in that company to get a proper
305
:sense of how concentrated it is?
306
:And, and, I'll just say those are,
there's a lot of topics in that, but
307
:just say like, is there a fundamental
reason why tech, and especially tech with
308
:earnings that are being projected way
out of the future is way harder to value?
309
:Like Absolutely.
310
:Does that result in trending
and possibly higher prices?
311
:Look that, that then have to correct
and, and disappoint going forward.
312
:Like probably, does that mean that.
313
:Google.
314
:Is Google a single factor
or is it a conglomerate, or
315
:how do you think about it?
316
:I think you gotta get a little bit
deeper before you say, is this, this
317
:is a massive tech concentration.
318
:'cause Google's not really
Google's a tech company, but
319
:it's also an advertising company.
320
:It's also, it's, it's a media company.
321
:I mean, maybe it's a bit more, maybe it's
not quite as concentrated as it feels.
322
:Adam Butler: Well, some of them
are more concentrated than others.
323
:I mean, obviously Microsoft is exposed
to virtually every sector of the economy.
324
:It's a massive global conglomerate.
325
:Same with Google.
326
:Nvidia reminds me more of like
a Nortel or JDS Uniphase, right?
327
:I remember JDS Uniphase with their
optical switching and you know, everyone
328
:assumed that the internet was gonna have
optical switching, and that was gonna
329
:be the, tech that everyone settled on,
and JDS Unified just went to the moon.
330
:You know, it's these kinds of concentrated
bets on, on these narrow tech,
331
:outcomes that become especially risky.
332
:Right.
333
:But I mean, just from an advisor
standpoint, how do you manage this
334
:and manage client expectations?
335
:It terrifies me to see investing in global
cap weighted U.S equities above 60% of
336
:global cap weight now, and seven companies
worth, you know, up almost 30% of U.S.
337
:Equity valuation.
338
:Like it's just a.
339
:You just have this sort of, you're, you're
going on this massive amount of faith
340
:and taking this huge concentrated bet.
341
:If you don't, you risk
being totally left behind.
342
:If you do, then you're
taking this concentrated bet.
343
:It feels like a no-win situation.
344
:I mean, how do big asset managers
deal with this, especially when
345
:they're benchmarking against peers
on a year-in-year-out basis, like it
346
:seems like it's just a hard problem.
347
:Chris Schindler: Yeah.
348
:And, and, the, challenge, and I, you know,
and I don't know how you break it, but the
349
:problem with it is, is the benchmarking.
350
:At the end of the day, if you are always
going compare someone to something,
351
:then they are always going to have
to look somewhat like that thing.
352
:And, and you've, and instead of being a
maximum share ratio investor where they're
353
:trying to make as much money for, as, you
know, as much, much return, for as much
354
:risk as possible, you've forced 'em to
have a different definition of risk, which
355
:is, their tracking error to the benchmark.
356
:And, and their optimization becomes
return over tracking outta the
357
:benchmark, which is a fundamentally,
like, much less useful thing.
358
:Uh, and, and it's much
less useful for you.
359
:And I say like when typically I say
you're looking for managers and I
360
:think you just have to get comfortable
with, I mean, if a manager's properly
361
:a long, short space, they should have
no beta anyway, and you shouldn't care.
362
:You literally should just say, I've got
my, you know, and, and whether I'm talking
363
:about as a portfolio constructor, how much
of this stuff do I want in, in my beta?
364
:Separate that question out for a second.
365
:Say, let's say, let's say I've somehow
made that decision then for my managers.
366
:I, I should give them the right benchmark
and I should give them the right risk
367
:definitions and the right governance.
368
:And so that, so that this
doesn't affect 'em at all.
369
:They have a good stock pick over here and,
and, and they should make it regardless
370
:of what the beta is and is doing.
371
:Now, that's, that's, that's a pie
in the sky kind of nice statement.
372
:It, it typically doesn't go that way.
373
:But even for, you know, even if you're
saying like, I still, I'm investing my
374
:money in this beta, what do I do about it?
375
:And, and it's funny because when we
first started looking at this and how
376
:to think about waiting countries and,
and I think we're doing this research
377
:in the early two thousands and the,
and, and the country that really stuck,
378
:stuck out in the history, you know,
the last 20 or 30 years was Japan.
379
:'cause Japan in the late eighties had had
what looked exactly like the US does now.
380
:It was a massive portion of MSCI
and of course it got super expensive
381
:as again, there was all the tiger
funds and everyone was, was, was,
382
:was just throwing money into it for
15 years and it got so expensive
383
:and then, and then it just broke.
384
:And it broke, and if you were MSCI
weighting Japan, you got crushed.
385
:If you had, you know, underweighted a
bit, you did well because you had a very,
386
:very large concentrated exposure to a
relatively small subset of the universe.
387
:And, and I think over the very long
term, these moves tend to punish you
388
:and you tend to want to disparate
because, because there's the, there's
389
:always the mixture of the fundamentals
and then the market mania behind it.
390
:And, and the market mania behind
it is the, is the piece that always
391
:over-projects and, and any market cap
weighted, which is a mixture of the
392
:fundamentals and the market's projection
of that into the future is, is almost
393
:certainly gonna lead to over-projections.
394
:The problem is, can you survive in
the short run long enough leading
395
:against that to, to prove your thesis.
396
:That's the tricky part.
397
:Mike Philbrick: it's, it's the
combination of, of this, overvalued
398
:market and a strong trend, right?
399
:So, and this is where it gets
really dangerous because when the
400
:overvalued market trend turns and
increasingly you get that larger
401
:and larger spikes in volatility.
402
:Where the dip is bought until such time,
it's a 25 or 30% and the dip isn't bought,
403
:or it's only bought up 10 or 15, and
the trend is now changed and different.
404
:And the world of investors is
always sort of slower to pick that
405
:up in, in the final trend change.
406
:And then you have this exposure, this
overexposure to the largest market
407
:just by the market cap chasing.
408
:And you have the risk unwind and, And so
that's, you know, the valuation side of
409
:it is important, but man, when the trend
is strong, it's a really hard problem.
410
:Chris Schindler: yeah.
411
:And, which I guess when you're
saying the trend is strong girls
412
:and the values, you're just, you're
also, to put it another way, you're
413
:just saying the behavioral side
414
:Mike Philbrick: Right.
415
:It's that, it's that, it's that
momentum that, you know, that punching
416
:fist through the, the, the enthusiasm
that continues and as long as it
417
:continues, the valuations don't matter.
418
:I mean, it, it's expensive.
419
:It's not as expensive it's ever been.
420
:It's not as expensive as Japan was, and we
don't know if any of those are even limits
421
:on how expensive something could co become
in a, in a strongly trending market.
422
:Chris Schindler: Yep.
423
:So, uh, and that's exactly it.
424
:And, and so then you end up with, you
know, sort of various forms of this, which
425
:is like, look, you can stay along the
trend, but you've gotta be aware that the
426
:more crowded it gets, the, the quicker and
sharper it can turn back on you because
427
:there's, because there's like a growing
liquidity build up and there'll be a
428
:growing liquidity rush on the way out.
429
:I, I think, my guess is a
lot of players get that.
430
:I don't know if the retail side sees
it as clearly, but I think a lot of
431
:players get the growing riskiness of it.
432
:But there's always that.
433
:Yeah.
434
:But you have to keep playing
while it's still happening.
435
:And, and it's very, 'cause it's
just so painful to lean against it.
436
:So, uh, and this, it all comes down
to it's a benchmarking problem.
437
:Adam Butler: Did you ever
438
:Mike Philbrick: a doubt.
439
:Adam Butler: did you ever do any
work internally on, um, the, double
440
:exponentials, like as the, as the
curve approaches a certain level
441
:of criticality and the fractals
and all that kind of stuff?
442
:I forget the name of the
French, mathematician who was
443
:mapping all of that and you wrote
444
:Chris Schindler: a way
445
:Adam Butler: paper April.
446
:Chris Schindler: it?
447
:Mike Philbrick: or what?
448
:Adam Butler: He, one of.
449
:Mike Philbrick: Mandel.
450
:Mandelbrot.
451
:Is
452
:Chris Schindler: Mandelbrot would be one
of like the fractal guys, but, but yeah,
453
:so the, um, I mean, yeah, that's, that's
a big, so when markets go parabolic, the,
454
:the issue is always is, is you know, like
it's the same definition of anything.
455
:It's like a bubble is really easy to
see after the fact, after it's popped.
456
:Um, it's very, very hard to know
if this thing that's running up,
457
:is that the bubble yet or is it
the peak, the bubble, you know?
458
:And Jeremy, Grantham, GMO has done
a huge amount of work on trying
459
:to just, you know, he's, he's
basically all bubbles being revert.
460
:But the, the challenge with that is,
after the fact, yes, all bubbles being
461
:reverted because you kind of defined it as
a thing that went up and came back down.
462
:It, you know, Microsoft or Apple,
just like, are they bubbles?
463
:Well, it's hard to say.
464
:They just, they kept going
for like 15, 20 years.
465
:And, and so, I mean, maybe at some
point in, in the far future you'll
466
:be to look back and say, yeah, yeah,
they were bubbles, they mean reverted.
467
:But, but it's, it's, I don't
think it's quite as obvious.
468
:And, and so he tries to fight in
bubbles relative to fundamentals.
469
:But the, the problem is they mean
revert or the fundamentals catch up.
470
:and it's one of those two,
471
:Adam Butler: The story always need
to have a plausible outcome where
472
:the fundamentals could catch up.
473
:I mean, there's very good narratives
around why, you know, meta Google
474
:NVIDIA, Microsoft, deserve these
ultra premium multiples, right?
475
:The new story is AI and all the
compute that's gonna be required.
476
:In 2000, it was, it was internet and
switches and all that kinda stuff.
477
:In Japan, it was their six
Sigma manufacturing process.
478
:They were gonna completely
dominate global tech, manufacturing
479
:and auto manufacturing.
480
:And, you know, that all got swept
up in their, in their banking sector
481
:and, and the real estate sector.
482
:You know, I remember in
:
483
:in Tokyo was valued at a.
484
:Higher total valuation than
all the land in California.
485
:Right?
486
:Like, and there's a plausible
reason for this every time, right?
487
:And, there's this potential every time
for this time to truly be different.
488
:You know, maybe, fast takeoff AI actually
does, mandate this kind of overvaluation,
489
:maybe software, you know, uh, mark
Andreessen said Software eats the world.
490
:Maybe this is the time when
software eats the world.
491
:Like there's always gotta be this
plausible explanation in order
492
:for the markets to rise to this
kind of bubble level, right?
493
:Chris Schindler: Maybe, but then you,
I, I, it's like, unless there's, unless
494
:it's also a, an incredible, like just
creator of mass wealth for everyone.
495
:You, you can't, you can't plow this one up
because it's potential ability to grab the
496
:ability and still keep these gut there.
497
:There has to be like once again,
you gotta add all up what, like
498
:those growths require what kind of
earnings and what kind of cash flows
499
:and what kind of percentage of the
total world pie at some point you go.
500
:Does that make sense?
501
:Because if they're claiming two x
of what it it will ever be, then
502
:no, those things don't all add up.
503
:It's just the question is like, one
of those 10 may be correctly valued.
504
:Maybe that goes even bigger.
505
:But, but that's, I mean that's obviously,
yeah, there's, there's always a story.
506
:Uh, there's no doubt
there's always a story.
507
:and it has to make a bit of sense.
508
:It can make a lot of sense.
509
:The, the, the, you know, and we, we
all heard the stories, like all the
510
:way through, like through the, through
the years and through the decades.
511
:We've heard the stories.
512
:I mean, I guess NFTs had a story.
513
:I, it it doesn't necessarily mean that
they're gonna hold their wealth when
514
:the story moves on to someone else
515
:Mike Philbrick: The, the other thing
is the initial conditions can, they're
516
:important and they're different.
517
:Right?
518
:1990, you had a significant
earnings contraction, yet
519
:the market did not go down.
520
:The early nineties, the
S&P kind of sailed through.
521
:Whilst earnings were contracting, I
mean, yields were high and they, it
522
:looked over the recession almost.
523
:And so you also don't know what
the initial zeitgeist of the
524
:market is when you go through
the, through the transition.
525
:There's so many dimensions to this.
526
:It's, it's
527
:Chris Schindler: Yeah.
528
:Well, yeah, it's, it like, no doubt.
529
:and I think, you know, like, especially
when Japan peaked in 89 and, and I
530
:mean, I'm gonna make up some numbers,
but I think like 15, 20 years
531
:later, it's stock market was down.
532
:I can't remember, like 90% in, in like,
like it was so much in its real estate
533
:market was down ninety-five percent.
534
:It was, it was just
unbelievable crushings.
535
:Mike Philbrick: It's only
approaching those numbers today,
536
:Chris Schindler: yeah.
537
:Yeah, it's just
538
:Mike Philbrick: but it's.
539
:Chris Schindler: and, and, you know,
and, and, I think like from like
540
:2000, 2010, I think Japan's earnings
growth was faster than the U.S.'s.
541
:like it's starting points really matter.
542
:And, and whether or not, and you're gonna
see this lots of times it's like, and,
543
:and you think about, you know, like risk
parity stocks versus bonds and you go
544
:like, like if you just went, like imagine
you just, you make some magic statement.
545
:It's like they both should have
the same sharp ratio over time.
546
:And maybe that's true,
maybe it isn't, who knows?
547
:But like, you know, if this guy
runs off at a sharp of one over the
548
:last 10 years, it's either getting
ahead of itself or catching up.
549
:And I don't know if you really
know, because at the end of
550
:the day I mean, who's to say.
551
:But, uh, or maybe a bit of both and,
and it is either getting in front of
552
:itself and you should sell it or it's
catching up and it's a good deal.
553
:and I, I guess that's kind of
like a risk-parity statement.
554
:It's like if you were, uh, if there, if
the only two things you could invest in
555
:in the world were stocks and bonds and
you had 'em, would you care if this one
556
:happened to take from this one and then
this one happened to take from this one?
557
:If you have both of them, I guess
you're, you're probably kind of fine.
558
:so if you have the world and the world is
taking from here to give to here, as long
559
:as you've got a well diversified basket,
maybe you don't care as much, um, as,
560
:as, as, as long as you do that, right?
561
:Adam Butler: then you've got periods
like:
562
:makes, makes a bit of a mockery of
that stock bond diversification, right?
563
:Like this, you know, own
some stocks, own some bonds.
564
:The idea is the bathtub.
565
:There's always a drip into the bathtub,
and so the level always rising,
566
:whether it rises more into equities,
that doesn't really matter versus
567
:bonds because you own them both.
568
:But when the, you know, that bathtub
sort of contracts, the levels contract,
569
:then, you know, you've got stocks
and bonds both losing together.
570
:Right.
571
:Which is why stocks and bonds,
the, the two-legged stool
572
:typically doesn't, balance Right.
573
:You gotta add that, that third leg.
574
:Chris Schindler: Yeah, I mean, at
least I, I and I, I guess that, so the
575
:statement there was like, if stocks
and bonds were the only two things,
576
:and you had, I guess, a world where you
couldn't lever and delever, obviously,
577
:when we first started our risk parity
work, I mean, the very first thing
578
:we did is went, stocks and bonds are
dangerous, like hugely dangerous.
579
:And, and, and that would be a crazy
dangerous risk parity process.
580
:and, and assuming correlations are
static and either zero or negative
581
:is also massively dangerous.
582
:And so, you know, if it, it's gonna
require some dynamicism and it is
583
:gonna require some dynamicism on risk
and correlation measures, and it's
584
:gonna require other stuff because
you, and I think I presented this
585
:a while ago, to you guys I know I
ave this presentation back in:
586
:When the last thing anyone in the world
was thinking in:
587
:stretch your mind back and remember.
588
:But it was like people were still kind
of freaking about deflation at that time.
589
:And the last thing anyone was
thinking about was inflation.
590
:But, but it was, it's just all it
is, inflation is always a risk and
591
:discount rate shocks are always a risk.
592
:And, and so building a portfolio
that's resilient to, to inflation
593
:shocks and discount rate shocks,
Inflation shocks is easier 'cause you,
594
:because you can put some other stuff.
595
:You've got some, you know, some
gold or some break-evens or
596
:some, you know, commodities.
597
:There's things that you can put together
to, to get a decent attack on inflation.
598
:I just can't write shock, you know,
that, that's, it's self distinct
599
:from growth and inflation shocks
is much harder to defend against.
600
:because, you know,
601
:Adam Butler: We just haven't
had very many inflation shocks
602
:over the last few decades.
603
:So, you know, hedging against inflation
or owning assets in the portfolio that
604
:are designed to do well during higher
than expected inflation shocks has kind
605
:of made you look silly for a long time.
606
:You get these sort of periodic spikes
where it, pays off and then you
607
:go through these long stretches of
sort of this, you know, or at least
608
:you have over the last few decades.
609
:Gone through these long stretches
of disinflationary growth and, you
610
:know, any I, any effort to diversify
outside of stocks and bonds kind of
611
:makes you look silly for a long time.
612
:And then, you know, you get this, you get
this spike and, and that sort of pays off.
613
:But it's just the investors haven't
had much experience with that level
614
:of diversity paying off over the
horizon that they've been managing
615
:money or had money invested in markets.
616
:So it's hard.
617
:Chris Schindler: Sure.
618
:totally right.
619
:Um, to that, I guess I would
add a couple things uh, and I
620
:can't remember what I presented.
621
:Uh, I should probably would've rechecked
my old podcast before I, I came on.
622
:But, the, um, inflation, uh,
so something like a breakeven.
623
:While, while it should respond
and it responds to a certain type
624
:of inflation shock over a certain
timeframe, which is not necessarily
625
:what you're, you're always worried
about, probably has a negative expected
626
:return over time, though, as a trade.
627
:And, so if you think about the things
that, like that you mentioned where
628
:you go, I, I want to have a positive
expected return because I want it
629
:to contribute to my total portfolio.
630
:And, and yeah.
631
:Like it's gonna be spiky
at the right times.
632
:And then how do you build something that's
inflation sensitive that has more of a
633
:smooth, positive return over time while
still covering your inflation shocks?
634
:And that was the big, I think, you
know, sort of effort in saying,
635
:first of all, when we, when we built
our inflation sensitive asset class
636
:against all sorts of pressure to
say like, why, why would we bother?
637
:The answer is because it's
a risk and it could happen.
638
:And, and so.
639
:Whether or not you think it's
gonna happen, let's call that
640
:your alpha on this whole thing.
641
:But, but, you know, portfolio construction
at the, at the portfolio level is just,
642
:I want to build things that are resilient
to a variety of outcomes, regardless
643
:of who thinks what's gonna happen.
644
:I call that like a data
portfolio construction.
645
:And, and even then you
say, what's inflation?
646
:And, and, and everyone's got a different
definition of inflation, right?
647
:An economist might say it's a CPI
or, you know, wage inflation, or they
648
:might say it's monetary inflation.
649
:A lot of 'em will say it's
monetary inflation is the
650
:correct definition of inflation.
651
:you know, it, it obviously, as we saw
in the seventies and, you know, the
652
:late sixties or even early eighties,
inflation can be driven by commodities.
653
:Um, and it's, so I call
a supply side inflation.
654
:And, and if the price of commodities like
go up by four times, well yes, that's
655
:going to be massively inflationary.
656
:If it's persistent and
it's across the set.
657
:and so for each of those different
definitions of inflation, you
658
:actually have different basket
of assets to, to handle them.
659
:And so for monetary inflation,
like what, what's your, what's
660
:your best defense guess?
661
:Monetary inflation.
662
:I don't know.
663
:There's like, there's a variety
of things you can think about
664
:from real assets to gold.
665
:Uh, you know, if it's, if it's,
if you're looking purely at a
666
:definition of something like CPI,
then maybe a real return bond or, or
667
:a breakeven is a better focus on that.
668
:If you're looking at like a source
of inflation from the energy side or
669
:from the ags or from commodities in
general, then obviously commodities
670
:are the best source of that.
671
:You know, we built a, a very broad
basket inflation-sensitive set of assets
672
:because we thought inflation can be,
there's lots of different definitions,
673
:there's lots of different, causes, but
that the reason you care about inflation
674
:and the reason you need this, this asset
class is because in general inflationary
675
:shocks have a deleterious effect on most
of the other assets in your portfolio.
676
:And so there's gonna be times
when your other assets get hit,
677
:especially your bonds get hit
by inflationary, like unexpected
678
:inflation, but so do your businesses.
679
:And so, you know, if you think of your.
680
:Your equity in your businesses and your,
you know, are, are, are generally exposed.
681
:You need something to protect you.
682
:And then the real question is, well,
how do you build something that
683
:protects as well as possible, but
still has a positive drift to it?
684
:And so that's where like, that's where
we kind of built a quant program or a
685
:systematic program that does that, right?
686
:And you can start to think about if I
got these, like, what am I trying to do?
687
:Is I'm, I'm trying to cover
inflation, but I'm also trying
688
:to get the positive risk premiums
and drifts in the commodity space.
689
:Well then you gotta get, you
gotta dig a, dig a bit deeper than
690
:just going along a couple things.
691
:And that once again, requires a
bit more expertise, a bit more
692
:specialization, and a bit more
leverage and a bit more like effort.
693
:But ultimately I think something
like that can be really, really
694
:helpful for a lot of investors.
695
:Adam Butler: Yeah.
696
:I mean, before we
697
:Chris Schindler: to, once again, like
if, if, if you thought your bathtub
698
:was just stocks and bonds Yeah.
699
:You're, you're gonna get,
like, you're gonna get exposed.
700
:the, the risk parity world is really
like, it's that statement of like, if
701
:this just money sloshing around, then if
somehow you could own a bit of everything.
702
:Uh, then in that world
maybe you're kind of okay.
703
:Um, but then, then that goes
like, well, that's great.
704
:Money's sloshing around.
705
:And, and, and every single
investor's wants to get that alpha.
706
:Like, I want to time that I want to
add value by getting in front of that
707
:sloshing or avoiding the sloshing or,
you know, and of course that's what all
708
:active and macro and everything is, is
trying to time the flows of money around.
709
:And it's like, yeah, stocks
and bonds and commodities.
710
:If you got that, if, if somehow
that flows your entire path, that's
711
:great, but I'd still like to capture
some of that energy between them.
712
:And, and that's where, you know,
I think a lot of the fun is.
713
:Adam Butler: so speaking of Alpha and
trying to generate it, we spent a lot
714
:of time, you know, debating where the
greater, if inefficiencies are right and
715
:the more sustainable inefficiencies are.
716
:And we chatted a little bit
about Samuelson's dictum on
717
:this program, a few times.
718
:And, you know, whether there's a,
a greater opportunity to generate
719
:alpha through security selection
or in, in the macrospace, just in
720
:terms of hedging inflation risk.
721
:Like I.
722
:Do you think it's, it's conceivable to
be able to manage inflation risk through
723
:more effective security selection?
724
:Like, can you just select a diverse
basket of equities and or credits that
725
:make you more or less resilient to
inflation and you don't need to have
726
:that third leg of the macro stool?
727
:Chris Schindler: huh.
728
:That's interesting.
729
:Um, so Samuelson's dictum, that's
the microefficient macro inefficient.
730
:Adam Butler: yeah, yeah.
731
:Chris Schindler: I mean that's a, that's
an interesting statement and I think
732
:it's one of those things that, um.
733
:You know, I, I lemme just like quickly
sort of say about inflation, I would,
734
:I would kind of think of, uh, what you
just said there is like, if I stock
735
:pick correctly, can I, can I create,
like can I, can I cover inflation
736
:from credit and stocks as opposed
to having to go into commodities?
737
:Like Yeah, I mean there's probably
some inflation sensitive equities
738
:and, and, and I think, you know,
you, you could probably find things
739
:that have some inflation sensitivity.
740
:you know, is that, is that going, is
that something you would add to your
741
:basket of inflation sensitive assets?
742
:Yeah, probably.
743
:I think you have to be careful and
this is, um, you know, this is just an
744
:alpha beta separation statement, but
you go, like, if, if you think of like
745
:portfolio construction as I'm gonna try
and build my portfolio and, and I think
746
:of past and we've had this conversation
before, like what's passive, like
747
:nothing's truly passive, you know, and,
and what's beta and, and my definition
748
:of beta like goes all over the place.
749
:But if you say one definition
of it is like it's gonna do
750
:what it's gonna do regardless
of what anyone expects it to do.
751
:And, and so if you put money in it, it
doesn't matter what you think this is
752
:gonna do once, if you just, if you just
leave it, it will, it does what it does.
753
:Um, that definition of, beta,
well, if you go, I'm gonna put my
754
:betas together to try and create
the best beta portfolio possible.
755
:There's obviously some active decisions
there, but let's say there's like,
756
:you know, a not as much timing,
then you need pieces that interact
757
:with each other in a nice way.
758
:And, and if you're leaning on your ability
to see the future and, and stock pick
759
:correctly to cover your inflation risk,
that's, that's a little bit different.
760
:That's, that's, that's like saying
like, if I could see the future properly
761
:and I can call winners and losers,
then I don't have this risk because
762
:I'm, because I can see the future.
763
:And it's like, well, maybe
you do, maybe you don't.
764
:But that's active management and
you're now relying on active management
765
:to cover your inflation risk.
766
:And I would say you, you
should do that as well.
767
:But when I think about how pieces of
my portfolio interact and portfolio
768
:construction the way, and this is how we
sold it to our board, and I think it's a
769
:really interesting thought process when
you talk about your, portfolio, your beta.
770
:And we said, what's the portfolio
you wanna have in 10 years from now?
771
:It's like, not over the next 10 years.
772
:Like in 10 years, if you had to
build a portfolio and say, 10 years
773
:from now, this is the portfolio
I want, what would it look like?
774
:And the key part of that statement
is you have no idea what the
775
:world's gonna look like in 10 years.
776
:You have no idea if you're gonna
like stocks more than bonds, if
777
:you're gonna like commodities.
778
:If you're gonna, you have no active, you
have no possible active view in 10 years.
779
:And so that's the, and so think
of that as your definition of
780
:passive, as your definition of beta.
781
:Build the best portfolio you can that
you'd be happy having in 10 years.
782
:And then think of active as everything
that you do between now and then.
783
:So like I'll have a view over the next
month or the next two months, or the next
784
:five years and start to layer on that.
785
:But your center point, your starting
point should be that thing that, that,
786
:that is the most, Unaffected by your
view of the future, because your view
787
:of the future make it, make those
bets and, and, and decide how much
788
:risk to put in that bet based on how
much, how confident you are in your
789
:ability to see the future and do that.
790
:But, but just understand that,
that you could be wrong and you
791
:might not see the future right.
792
:And you might not have that ability.
793
:You might not be as good
as you think you are.
794
:You might be better than you
think you are, who knows?
795
:But, but, separate those two pieces
out and build the best beta you
796
:can and that needs assets that
interact well together regardless
797
:of your ability to call the future.
798
:And then, and then if you want to
try and add value through active
799
:management, absolutely do that.
800
:And if you think part of that value
is alpha and part of it is inflation
801
:protection, however you wanna
define that, for sure, go for it.
802
:Size it, right?
803
:But separate those decisions there.
804
:Mike Philbrick: And the, the nice side
effect there, Chris, the way you explain
805
:that is now you also have something
to measure your active bets against.
806
:You have this, un, let's call it unbiased,
do no harm allocation of beta assets.
807
:That you will have today and have in
10 years, and you're gonna make active
808
:bets, you know, against that, or add
additional diversification to that.
809
:And now you can actually measure whether
your steps were in fact a creative
810
:or were they Dilutive to the actual
long-term returns of your portfolio?
811
:Chris Schindler: percent.
812
:And, and, and, and you're exactly right.
813
:And that was a huge part of the push
for creating that, we call it the
814
:theoretically optimal portfolio.
815
:And, and you never quite get to it because
you have constraints and you have, and
816
:you're not ever 10 years in the future.
817
:You have, you know, and you have
a starting point and you're trying
818
:to move from there to something.
819
:There's, there's a lot to that.
820
:But that's, if that's your center
point, that, then you can measure your
821
:distance from that and you can start
to justify your distance from that.
822
:And, and that starts to really be your
act, your set of active decisions.
823
:You have to start justifying why
you are no longer what, what and why
824
:you're not going in that direction
or why you're leaning against that.
825
:And, and, start to think about how much
active risk you're taking in, in those
826
:active decisions relative to that data.
827
:It's a really, really helpful starting
point and it's a much, at least from
828
:my opinion, 'cause this is what we
kind of, you know, put in place.
829
:It's a much better benchmark portfolio
than almost anything else you can define.
830
:Like, this is, like, we talked at
the beginning about the challenge of
831
:benchmarks and if you're, if you have
your, your CIOs responsible for, for
832
:investing at the total fund level and you
give them a benchmark that's 60 40, then
833
:it's gonna be really hard for them to be
anything that's like too far off of 60 40
834
:because you've made that their benchmark.
835
:And now that their definition of
risk is tracking error to a 60 40.
836
:And if you say your benchmark is the
median manager or the median pension
837
:plan or the median, anything that's
gonna look a lot like a 60 40 or an
838
:80 20 or it's gonna, you know, at
the end of the day, they, once again,
839
:they're centered around something.
840
:That isn't necessarily the,
the, the right starting point.
841
:And you go, how do we ever move off
of that paradigm and how do we move to
842
:something better if you're always getting
benchmarked back to that paradigm?
843
:And, but then the question inherently
comes, well then what's, what do
844
:you want your benchmark to be?
845
:and that becomes a, a really
tricky question, but you say
846
:like, look, this is a good center
point to start thinking about.
847
:And, and, and you have to be
careful that it's, that it's not
848
:too pie in the sky theoretical.
849
:Like if you, it can't assume that you
can do certain things that you, you
850
:can't, in reality, like, like a leverage
requirements or, you know, assets,
851
:there's not enough real return bonds on
the planet to do what you want to do.
852
:It's like, well, that's
not a fair benchmark.
853
:So it has to be like, you know, it has
to move back to reality a little bit,
854
:but like, as a, benchmark construct that,
that you sort of say like, I can measure.
855
:And, and, and, and I guess the
one other way you can think about
856
:benchmarking yourself, and this is
like also super weird, but we also
857
:put in place a little bit, was.
858
:Benchmark each year to
the start of that year.
859
:So, 'cause I'm just trying to break the,
compare myself to the rest of the world
860
:or do what the rest of the world's doing.
861
:And now you can say, if I'd held the
portfolio that I started with for the
862
:entire year versus what I actually
did, I could not measure my changes to
863
:some arbitrary starting point, which
is just as arbitrary as anything else.
864
:But I can start to like, once again, focus
in my alpha without contagioning it with
865
:someone else's definition of alpha, which
is in their starting portfolio, which
866
:is, which becomes my beta unfortunately.
867
:And I, I don't want my beta to be
someone else's alpha as my starting
868
:point because, because that really
messes up the whole decision,
869
:Mike Philbrick: N nothing, nothing more
dangerous than having a false premise to
870
:start the whole discussion of, oh, 60 40s
your benchmark and beat the media manager,
871
:and that that premise just contaminates
every other decision down the track,
872
:Chris Schindler: Yeah, absolutely.
873
:And so portfolio construction at the
total fund level is, it's hard enough
874
:as it is, but, understanding the, oh
Everything is affected by your benchmarks.
875
:Like everything.
876
:And, and so trying to break the paradigm
of, or like the worst thing if you're a
877
:CIO is some other team that's not you.
878
:Like a risk group creates your benchmark
and now you're like, well, who's the CIO?
879
:Because the most important set of
decisions, the asset allocation,
880
:maybe even the amount of risk you're
taking have been, ab like have been
881
:taken over by a different group.
882
:And, and, and now you're just
a, like a long short TAA around
883
:someone else's starting benchmark.
884
:And like, I believe the CIO should
own the total portfolio, should
885
:own every major important decision.
886
:And so, and, and you can really
see, the challenges of that.
887
:But at the same time, you're a
board member, you go, oh, like what
888
:are you completely unconstrained?
889
:And so then you can start to define,
well here's a, here's an alternative
890
:benchmark, or here's the definition
of risk, which is how much movement
891
:from where we are comfortable
here to, to the end of the year.
892
:Like, and, and, and we were just trying to
come up with alternative benchmarks that.
893
:gave you the flexibility you needed to do
the right things without giving you too
894
:much flexibility to, to cause unmitigated
895
:Mike Philbrick: do the wrong things.
896
:Chris Schindler: So,
897
:Mike Philbrick: The CIO's dilemma is
just getting more and more, uh, complex
898
:and uh,
899
:Chris Schindler: it, absolutely is.
900
:That was a, that was a big part
of the challenge was, was breaking
901
:that, breaking that benchmark.
902
:Adam Butler: Yeah.
903
:Another irony is that the fact
that everybody is benchmarked to
904
:something is the, you know, a big
reason why a lot of alternative
905
:sources of return exist, right?
906
:Like, you know, if, the true definition
of risk is tracking error and not
907
:the deviations and the value of the
overall portfolio, then that is going
908
:to drive behavior that is aligned with
minimizing tracking error, not aligned
909
:with minimizing total wealth variance
and that produces the opportunities that
910
:alternative managers, many alternative
managers use to generate their returns.
911
:So, you know, you don't, you don't want
everybody to become enlightened and,
912
:and abandon their benchmarks because
then it has the potential to, to kill
913
:the goose that that lays the golden
eggs for many alternative managers.
914
:Mike Philbrick: But,
915
:Chris Schindler: Yeah,
I wouldn't say it's it.
916
:Yeah, you're absolutely right.
917
:It's, it's definitely one of the sources.
918
:It's, it's probably not the only one,
like benchmarking, but it's definitely
919
:one where, and you could kind of like
just argue, you know, as, I guess we
920
:have in the past that it all comes
down to anti-crowdedness, right?
921
:Like, it comes down to when you have a
bunch of people following some set of
922
:rules or some process or some benchmark.
923
:Whenever, whenever too many people crowd
into, into any particular area, the prices
924
:get bid up and, you know, if the cash
flows aren't affected by that crowdedness
925
:'cause why would they be, you know,
the, the, the prices get bid up and the
926
:cash flows the same and returns fall.
927
:Like crowdedness is always gonna
result in, in, lower Sharpe ratio.
928
:Because at the same time is that, you
know, the returns fall, the risk goes
929
:up because the possibility of that
crowd all trying to lead together at the
930
:same time becomes significant as well.
931
:So crowdedness of which benchmark
hugging is a major one, uh, is a
932
:significant source of potential
alpha if you can, if you can avoid or
933
:take advantage of that crowdedness.
934
:so all of that to say, you know, if we,
if we backtrack and went, inflation and
935
:we can come at it from the alpha side,
we can come at it from the stop making
936
:side and, and whether or not, I know you
kind of started with inflation or, or you
937
:even sort of went back and said, look,
are we, are we micro or macro efficient?
938
:I don't know.
939
:Like these, these are, these are
interesting questions because like in
940
:one sense it really does look like,
we have massive examples where we've
941
:been incredibly macro and efficient
over the last 20, twenty-five
942
:years to the point of so obvious in
hindsight, and maybe for many people,
943
:super obvious at the time as well.
944
:and so, so you might argue them for
microefficiency and, and like, and I
945
:guess microefficiency, it's got one other
thing going for it, which is like, as
946
:human beings, if you think about it for
a second, like everything that we, like
947
:all of our senses are, are really good at
relative, but terrible at absolute right?
948
:Like, like I go, like, if, if you
asked me what stars brighter in the
949
:sky, I could say That one's brighter.
950
:But you know, or what's bigger,
you know, or what sound is louder.
951
:I can, I can do relative really well.
952
:And that's what our
senses are built to do.
953
:We're terrible at absolute.
954
:I could not give you like any sense
of it, how bright that that is.
955
:And in fact, even our relative senses
are like log scale and you know,
956
:like what seems like twice as loud
to us might actually be 10 times.
957
:Adam Butler: Mm-Hmm.
958
:Chris Schindler: More decibels and
the same thing with brightness.
959
:And, so like, so we're quite
good at saying A versus B.
960
:And so if you think of like micro
as a whole series of like, you got
961
:specialists focusing on a small number
of stocks and you're stock picking
962
:and you're going a whole series of A
versus B and doing some sort of ordinal
963
:rank, that's probably what we're most
comfortable doing as humans, right?
964
:And, and so we probably are very
confident in our ability to do that.
965
:And we probably are quite good at
orderly ranking things, but then you,
966
:I guess, like you got a bunch of things
that might even be ranked correctly,
967
:but when the whole picture, the
absolute piece can just be miles off.
968
:And I think as humans we're probably
no good at the absolute piece or, and,
969
:and so without something to anchor
that absolute two, it, it probably
970
:can go off, in extreme distances.
971
:Adam Butler: Well, here, here,
here's, we sort of came at it, right?
972
:We came at it from the
perspective of, two dimensions.
973
:One is, portfolio agility, right?
974
:the big players out there.
975
:just don't have much ability to take
major bets, take major tracking error
976
:against their policy portfolio, right?
977
:Like taking major, equity overweight
versus target or major credit overweight
978
:or duration overweight versus target
carries a lot of risk, whereas taking,
979
:you know, maybe there's more tolerance
for risk within the, you know, individual
980
:asset classes, And then there's just
the agility, like you're, you're
981
:swinging these massive portfolios
around, you just don't have the, the
982
:ability to move quickly enough to take
advantage of, of many of the macro
983
:or micro inefficiencies that exist.
984
:Right?
985
:So, sort of taking a down one
level, I would argue kind of 99%
986
:of all cognitive and computational
energy focused on investing.
987
:Is within the individual silos, right?
988
:So you've
989
:got the equity group and
you've got the credit group.
990
:You've got the, the
991
:rates group, you got the
992
:Chris Schindler: There's no way
the equity group can tell you
993
:equities versus a commodity.
994
:Like, it just doesn't, the
question makes no sense.
995
:And so there, you know, I think
there's, there's probably another thing
996
:that, that leads to microefficiency
as well is the stat art players like,
997
:the ability to build a long, short
basket in ARB that is infinitely more
998
:powerful than the one sided ARB of just
trying to sell something you think is
999
:expensive or buy something you think
:
00:49:05,101 --> 00:49:05,391
Adam Butler: yeah.
:
00:49:05,551 --> 00:49:08,056
'cause you can hedge the beta
within the security space, right?
:
00:49:08,056 --> 00:49:10,756
But there's nothing to, there's,
nothing to hedge against directly in the
:
00:49:10,881 --> 00:49:12,256
Chris Schindler: and a, it's much slower.
:
00:49:12,256 --> 00:49:15,226
It's much lower breath,
it's a much riskier bet.
:
00:49:15,256 --> 00:49:18,646
It's one of those things that you, you
have to trust that a bunch of other people
:
00:49:18,646 --> 00:49:22,186
are gonna come in alongside with you
over time for it to work on your behalf.
:
00:49:22,651 --> 00:49:25,831
Whereas like in a Stata player, you
can, like, you can almost do it yourself
:
00:49:26,101 --> 00:49:29,881
if you know, so, and it's got a, it's
a very, very different risk profile.
:
00:49:30,137 --> 00:49:33,677
so I think like there's a lot of reasons
why you could think of micro-efficient.
:
00:49:33,857 --> 00:49:36,527
I can also say like, the last three or
four years, like the micro-efficiency
:
00:49:36,527 --> 00:49:39,504
argument seems to have like, you
know, if you get too many people,
:
00:49:39,894 --> 00:49:42,654
uh, you know, you've had a lot
of craziness, uh, uh, intraday.
:
00:49:42,654 --> 00:49:45,774
I mean, like, think about, I think much
of the market's changed in the last
:
00:49:45,774 --> 00:49:49,374
two or three years with, you know, we
were talking about the, the retail,
:
00:49:49,374 --> 00:49:52,584
like player just coming and doing
some crazy, you know, meme stocks.
:
00:49:52,584 --> 00:49:55,134
But you also have like, like what's
happened the last three years.
:
00:49:55,134 --> 00:49:58,374
It's like, I don't, I don't know how
many day traders are still playing with
:
00:49:58,374 --> 00:50:01,314
cash equities versus the ones that are
just playing with like, like massive,
:
00:50:01,344 --> 00:50:02,994
massive size of one day options.
:
00:50:03,534 --> 00:50:07,104
And the the ability for a small player
or a small set of players to come in and.
:
00:50:07,507 --> 00:50:11,767
significantly move the
market is, is changed a lot.
:
00:50:11,772 --> 00:50:14,722
And, and like these, I I don't know why
these things are like, it blows my mind
:
00:50:14,722 --> 00:50:17,242
that these, these are legal because
it just, it feels like if someone came
:
00:50:17,242 --> 00:50:19,822
in and fat fingered the market to the
size of the amount of manipulation,
:
00:50:20,092 --> 00:50:23,092
that's a market manipulation because
you just hammered the market that hard.
:
00:50:23,097 --> 00:50:26,392
But if you went to 10 dealers and you
bought, you know, enough of these things
:
00:50:27,052 --> 00:50:30,442
and then, and then just nudge it, then
suddenly you've got a whole bunch of other
:
00:50:30,442 --> 00:50:34,429
people buying aggressively on your behalf,
bracing each other and, potentially
:
00:50:34,429 --> 00:50:37,566
slamming way more into the market than,
you would ever do as an individual.
:
00:50:37,571 --> 00:50:41,329
And, and you've, just, you've given
like this incredible weapon to, to
:
00:50:41,329 --> 00:50:44,542
a small number of players and it's
been really disruptive at the micro
:
00:50:44,572 --> 00:50:47,162
and at the macro level, uh, you know,
over the last two to three years.
:
00:50:47,162 --> 00:50:49,922
And so you can really see like,
I mean that's changed a lot.
:
00:50:50,264 --> 00:50:50,354
Adam Butler: Yeah.
:
00:50:50,354 --> 00:50:52,904
I mean, you could, you could almost
corner the gamma market the way you
:
00:50:52,904 --> 00:50:55,634
could, you could, you could corner
the silver market back in the.
:
00:50:55,716 --> 00:50:56,916
In the eighties, you
:
00:50:57,081 --> 00:50:58,071
Chris Schindler: Oh, you absolutely have.
:
00:50:58,071 --> 00:51:01,274
I mean, and, and like, I mean the
the whole I mean, vol is, is such an
:
00:51:01,274 --> 00:51:04,394
interesting asset class, but it's changed
so much in the last three or four years.
:
00:51:04,737 --> 00:51:08,554
you know, you've got dealers now who are,
who are stuck, you know, short calls, like
:
00:51:08,554 --> 00:51:10,144
massively like in the market right now.
:
00:51:10,144 --> 00:51:13,327
And, and so, and the same way as,
you know, like when, when you still
:
00:51:13,327 --> 00:51:16,867
think about the and this is, I think
fundamentally, and I think big pension
:
00:51:16,867 --> 00:51:17,827
plans kind of get this wrong too.
:
00:51:17,827 --> 00:51:21,127
And they go like, I'm being very, I'm
being a good, I'm being a good player.
:
00:51:21,127 --> 00:51:24,667
When I, when I, buy a big put because
I, you know, like if the market crashes,
:
00:51:24,667 --> 00:51:25,897
I make this money on the other side.
:
00:51:26,107 --> 00:51:29,151
And what you don't realize is
an option is not really a thing.
:
00:51:29,317 --> 00:51:30,907
you know, you buy equity,
you bought a thing and you
:
00:51:30,907 --> 00:51:31,777
kind of know what you've got.
:
00:51:31,777 --> 00:51:35,137
But an option is kind of a
promise by someone else to
:
00:51:35,137 --> 00:51:36,427
buy and sell on your behalf.
:
00:51:37,027 --> 00:51:39,127
Because when you buy an
option with a dealer.
:
00:51:39,457 --> 00:51:42,391
You know, they have to delta hedge
it and so on the other side of that
:
00:51:42,391 --> 00:51:45,211
trade, if you're, if, if the dealer's
on the wrong side market starts to
:
00:51:45,211 --> 00:51:49,141
rise and they have to buy to cover
that, that, you know, the deltas that
:
00:51:49,141 --> 00:51:52,741
runs away from them, they become a
massive accelerant into the market.
:
00:51:52,746 --> 00:51:54,241
And same thing on the put side.
:
00:51:54,241 --> 00:51:56,701
And so if the dealers get stuck on the
wrong side of that trade, which they
:
00:51:56,701 --> 00:51:59,221
do all the time now, like this is,
like, this has been the last three or
:
00:51:59,221 --> 00:52:00,301
four years, this has been the story.
:
00:52:00,701 --> 00:52:04,031
it, it's just, it's just quite an
incredible, force in the short term.
:
00:52:04,031 --> 00:52:07,931
And it can be an incredible short, and so,
so you can, you can really like see a lot
:
00:52:07,936 --> 00:52:11,291
of market movement when the dealers are on
the wrong side of their gamma exposures.
:
00:52:11,524 --> 00:52:14,134
now they, they've started to reprice
it and they started to figure it out.
:
00:52:14,134 --> 00:52:17,224
But, but it's, it's been a real change
in the market because, I mean, for
:
00:52:17,224 --> 00:52:21,304
the longest time ever it was, you
know, it was priced by puts and, and
:
00:52:21,309 --> 00:52:24,964
you know, as such there was this like
strong negative correlation between
:
00:52:25,024 --> 00:52:28,321
the VIX and the S&P and p and like
that has gone positive at times.
:
00:52:28,321 --> 00:52:31,417
And, and, and, and the whole
relationship between, you know,
:
00:52:31,417 --> 00:52:33,457
vol and market moves is growing.
:
00:52:34,042 --> 00:52:35,962
And, and these one-day
options are super interesting.
:
00:52:36,142 --> 00:52:39,952
Uh, they really transform things, but like
I, I would say that they're taking a ton
:
00:52:39,952 --> 00:52:42,262
away from Microefficiency as we speak.
:
00:52:42,262 --> 00:52:45,082
um, you see how the stat-art guns
are able to pull that together?
:
00:52:45,864 --> 00:52:47,994
Adam Butler: So, Sorry,
Mike, you had looked like you
:
00:52:48,044 --> 00:52:50,169
Mike Philbrick: Oh, I, I think you're
gonna transition, just like I was
:
00:52:50,169 --> 00:52:52,959
thinking, the same thing you've got
if you're transitioning to sort of
:
00:52:52,959 --> 00:52:55,209
strategies and changes in the market
:
00:52:55,284 --> 00:52:58,224
Adam Butler: Yeah, well, I wanted to talk
more broadly about diversification, right?
:
00:52:58,224 --> 00:53:01,344
Like, we, we've done a lot of
that on, on previous episodes.
:
00:53:01,344 --> 00:53:02,994
I, I wanted to really round it out, right?
:
00:53:02,994 --> 00:53:08,291
So, once you sort of, we talk about
stocks, bonds, and inflation, hedge
:
00:53:08,291 --> 00:53:13,804
assets, I, I'd love for you to kinda
rank for me, right, like, what are, what
:
00:53:13,804 --> 00:53:18,829
are some of the other alternative betas
or, premia or whatever that, and I know
:
00:53:18,829 --> 00:53:20,449
it's always a co a continuum, right?
:
00:53:20,454 --> 00:53:24,369
From, beta alpha and, you know, you've
already talked about that a little bit.
:
00:53:24,369 --> 00:53:29,589
But, but how would you kind of rank, where
would you wanna start as you're adding.
:
00:53:29,802 --> 00:53:33,882
You know, completely different flavors
to the portfolio in terms of what
:
00:53:33,882 --> 00:53:36,102
big players can actually allocate to.
:
00:53:36,339 --> 00:53:39,759
you know, with the actual dollar
size of these premia are large enough
:
00:53:39,759 --> 00:53:43,539
for a sufficient number of players
to actually be able to participate.
:
00:53:43,809 --> 00:53:46,749
Like how would you think about,
adding to the diversification
:
00:53:46,749 --> 00:53:48,069
of the portfolio in what order?
:
00:53:48,069 --> 00:53:49,539
If you could, if you could rank
:
00:53:49,559 --> 00:53:49,779
Chris Schindler: Huh.
:
00:53:50,521 --> 00:53:51,391
so I guess there's a couple.
:
00:53:51,511 --> 00:53:55,411
So, so first of all, there's the, there's
the diversification into assets and
:
00:53:55,411 --> 00:53:57,271
there's diversification into strategies.
:
00:53:57,271 --> 00:54:00,234
And even then I would say that
inflation-sensitive, it kind of has to
:
00:54:00,234 --> 00:54:02,214
be in between an asset and the strategy.
:
00:54:02,214 --> 00:54:05,154
I think if you, I think like what you
described as if it was just assets,
:
00:54:05,154 --> 00:54:07,614
then it doesn't do what you needed to
do and people aren't gonna stick with it
:
00:54:07,614 --> 00:54:11,574
because it's, yeah, it'll spike, but we're
talking like once every 10 years or so.
:
00:54:11,574 --> 00:54:13,584
You need it and then you look
like a loser for nine years.
:
00:54:13,584 --> 00:54:16,069
But if you can get strategies that,
that, that actually make money over
:
00:54:16,069 --> 00:54:18,499
time and give you that protection,
you're miles ahead just 'cause
:
00:54:18,499 --> 00:54:19,609
there's so much easier to stick with.
:
00:54:19,609 --> 00:54:19,789
And.
:
00:54:19,994 --> 00:54:25,887
And so, the alternative assets to stocks
and bonds are obviously, you know,
:
00:54:25,887 --> 00:54:27,537
credit and, and then the privates.
:
00:54:27,537 --> 00:54:29,727
And, and we, and that's a
totally separate discussion.
:
00:54:30,357 --> 00:54:31,797
Adam Butler: But are
they alternative assets?
:
00:54:31,797 --> 00:54:32,847
Like do we even need to go there?
:
00:54:32,847 --> 00:54:38,277
Like credit's, you know, credits short
ball at your, it's capital structure?
:
00:54:38,277 --> 00:54:39,091
Like, I don't know.
:
00:54:39,091 --> 00:54:39,781
I've argued on.
:
00:54:40,376 --> 00:54:45,236
Many, many podcasts and in, in
many papers that credits not
:
00:54:45,236 --> 00:54:46,616
even really its own asset class.
:
00:54:46,646 --> 00:54:48,656
And is private equity any
different than equity?
:
00:54:49,721 --> 00:54:52,721
Chris Schindler: so I, uh, I've also
made the exact same argument with credit.
:
00:54:52,751 --> 00:54:56,501
I mean, we, when we first tried to look
at bringing it in as an asset class
:
00:54:56,501 --> 00:54:59,831
at the portfolio level, like once you
cover, it's got an equity risk, it's
:
00:54:59,831 --> 00:55:02,321
got a fixed income risk, it's got a
credit risk, and it's got a shortfall
:
00:55:02,326 --> 00:55:03,551
piece, it's got the illiquidity.
:
00:55:03,791 --> 00:55:07,601
And once you take those pieces out of
it, like as an asset class, it doesn't
:
00:55:07,601 --> 00:55:08,861
bring anything to your portfolio.
:
00:55:09,101 --> 00:55:12,131
But it's actually a very cool asset
class in its own because it's this.
:
00:55:12,476 --> 00:55:14,696
It's not exactly risk parity,
but it's a nice mixture of
:
00:55:14,906 --> 00:55:16,106
four different risk premiums.
:
00:55:16,106 --> 00:55:17,336
So it looks pretty good on its own.
:
00:55:17,666 --> 00:55:21,056
It just doesn't bring as much as people
think it does to a, to a total portfolio.
:
00:55:21,296 --> 00:55:24,656
But it's a, but it's a really
big universe for value add.
:
00:55:25,226 --> 00:55:27,956
And so there's a, there's a lot of room
for value add within credit, and I think
:
00:55:27,961 --> 00:55:30,116
there's a, there's a lot of, so, so is
:
00:55:30,181 --> 00:55:32,396
Adam Butler: I think, you know, the,
the opportunity is to, is take a
:
00:55:32,396 --> 00:55:33,836
little away from the equity, right?
:
00:55:33,836 --> 00:55:35,096
And, and add a little bit to credit.
:
00:55:35,096 --> 00:55:36,956
Acknowledging the credit
gives you some of that equity
:
00:55:37,286 --> 00:55:38,156
Chris Schindler: I mean, from a factor.
:
00:55:38,161 --> 00:55:40,526
So this is, this was like, you know,
this is once again going back to the
:
00:55:40,526 --> 00:55:43,316
work we're doing at teachers, at the
portfolio level, but like from a, we tried
:
00:55:43,316 --> 00:55:46,196
to get things into a factor perspective,
and once you transform into a factor
:
00:55:46,201 --> 00:55:50,512
perspective, you go, like if your factors
are either call it growth and inflation,
:
00:55:50,512 --> 00:55:54,406
you can call it stocks and bonds and,
and some short ball and some illiquidity,
:
00:55:54,706 --> 00:55:57,529
then you've mostly just defined credit.
:
00:55:57,859 --> 00:56:00,619
you know, you've also come pretty
close to defining most of the factors
:
00:56:00,619 --> 00:56:01,849
that are in your privates as well.
:
00:56:01,954 --> 00:56:04,302
and so, you know, when it comes down to.
:
00:56:05,374 --> 00:56:07,024
A little bit of a timeframe.
:
00:56:07,264 --> 00:56:10,474
Uh, you know, privates are,
like they are diversified.
:
00:56:10,474 --> 00:56:13,504
Like they literally, like, they're
definitely diversifying in the short term.
:
00:56:13,504 --> 00:56:18,051
So if you look at your one year, uh, you
know, model privates, they look, they look
:
00:56:18,051 --> 00:56:21,741
really uncorrelated because they're lagged
and because they're smooth and the smooth
:
00:56:21,741 --> 00:56:23,451
means you get to make up their valuations.
:
00:56:23,456 --> 00:56:27,474
And, and in some cases you really just
make up the valuations and they're
:
00:56:27,474 --> 00:56:28,824
lagged because it doesn't matter.
:
00:56:28,974 --> 00:56:30,534
They, they're not in real time anyway.
:
00:56:31,074 --> 00:56:34,427
And so, you know, those two
effects are incredibly helpful
:
00:56:34,432 --> 00:56:36,084
for CIO in the short term.
:
00:56:36,301 --> 00:56:39,961
They're probably not that useful
for a sponsor in the long term.
:
00:56:40,321 --> 00:56:43,591
And so that's a, that's, I call it like a
classic agent management mismatch because
:
00:56:43,591 --> 00:56:45,751
the CIO gets paid on return on risk.
:
00:56:45,751 --> 00:56:48,991
And, you know, anything that cuts risk
that significantly and recently is
:
00:56:48,996 --> 00:56:50,941
doing boosting returns is super helpful.
:
00:56:51,157 --> 00:56:54,067
but it's not necessarily really accretive
to the portfolio in the long term.
:
00:56:54,697 --> 00:56:57,997
Um, so, so that's the, you know, that's
the trade or, or it is in some cases,
:
00:56:58,177 --> 00:57:01,417
and it probably is at a certain size,
it's just probably gets over allocated
:
00:57:01,417 --> 00:57:05,204
to, because it looks artificially,
diversifying and artificially
:
00:57:05,204 --> 00:57:06,494
less risky than it actually is.
:
00:57:06,494 --> 00:57:09,827
And so, from that perspective, it probably
gets over invested to, so illiquidity
:
00:57:09,832 --> 00:57:13,274
in general is probably over invested
in portfolios and it, and it has some
:
00:57:13,279 --> 00:57:16,274
inherent sources of risk as well that,
that you have to be super aware of.
:
00:57:16,827 --> 00:57:19,447
but if we say like, let's set
the assets aside and think about
:
00:57:19,447 --> 00:57:21,937
strategies, my gosh, there's so many.
:
00:57:21,997 --> 00:57:25,541
and, and I think if you're saying, I,
I I, I'm gonna invest in strategies or
:
00:57:25,541 --> 00:57:28,331
I'm gonna invest in man, just creating
strategies, you've gotta, you gotta
:
00:57:28,331 --> 00:57:31,781
split them into, I'm trying to think
about the buckets you put them into.
:
00:57:32,141 --> 00:57:34,721
I mean, obviously, you break 'em
down by asset classes and you
:
00:57:34,721 --> 00:57:35,801
break 'em down by holding period.
:
00:57:35,831 --> 00:57:38,201
I think it's probably
the, the starting point.
:
00:57:38,201 --> 00:57:40,586
And then you say within asset classes
and holding periods, what have you got?
:
00:57:41,292 --> 00:57:42,777
And, know, holding period is.
:
00:57:43,242 --> 00:57:47,052
Particularly important because
it's such a significant source
:
00:57:47,052 --> 00:57:48,656
of diversification, right?
:
00:57:48,656 --> 00:57:53,666
Like if, if you have managers who are
trading intraday, you know, even in and
:
00:57:53,666 --> 00:57:57,506
out a couple times a day, they're for sure
gonna be uncorrelated with your managers.
:
00:57:57,506 --> 00:58:01,286
They're holding for five days or for
10 days or 20 and, and they actually
:
00:58:01,286 --> 00:58:04,166
create, like at the daily level,
it was like a different asset, And
:
00:58:04,166 --> 00:58:07,456
so, from a pure diversification
perspective, that's super helpful.
:
00:58:07,461 --> 00:58:10,546
I mean, you can have a bunch of managers
who are uncorrelated all trading at
:
00:58:10,546 --> 00:58:12,496
the same frequency, let's say 10 days.
:
00:58:13,186 --> 00:58:16,366
Then, you know, if over the long
time, over the long period, you
:
00:58:16,366 --> 00:58:18,226
know, they're, they're, they're doing
different things from each other.
:
00:58:18,226 --> 00:58:21,369
They're gonna look uncorrelated
instantaneously, they're all
:
00:58:21,369 --> 00:58:23,859
either long or short at the same,
at the same time for a given day.
:
00:58:23,859 --> 00:58:26,414
So whatever happens that day, they're
gonna look like they're either, they're
:
00:58:26,414 --> 00:58:27,879
either lost or, or won together.
:
00:58:28,474 --> 00:58:32,739
And, and this is, this is one of the
challenges with diversification over time.
:
00:58:33,249 --> 00:58:36,309
Is that some definition of time,
you don't, you're not diversifying.
:
00:58:36,309 --> 00:58:36,429
Right?
:
00:58:36,429 --> 00:58:39,099
I think we've talked about this before,
but you know, diversification sort of
:
00:58:39,099 --> 00:58:42,562
says if I have two assets that are,
that are uncorrelated, then I get a
:
00:58:42,562 --> 00:58:46,912
square root of two reduction in my
risk, like 1.4 times reduction in my
:
00:58:46,912 --> 00:58:48,562
risk between two uncorrelated assets.
:
00:58:48,567 --> 00:58:50,782
And that happens at
any definition of time.
:
00:58:51,382 --> 00:58:55,129
But if I have two managers that are
uncorrelated over the long term at
:
00:58:55,129 --> 00:58:58,369
any, like, at some definition of time,
they're either both long, the SMP or both
:
00:58:58,374 --> 00:59:01,369
short, the SMP and, and, and, and, and
that's, that's actually not diversifying.
:
00:59:01,374 --> 00:59:02,329
That's a, that's additive.
:
00:59:02,854 --> 00:59:04,802
And, at some definition of time.
:
00:59:04,802 --> 00:59:07,982
So at the one day level or the one hour
level, your managers don't diversify.
:
00:59:07,982 --> 00:59:09,332
They add and subtract to each other.
:
00:59:09,662 --> 00:59:11,822
But over time, that turns
into diversification.
:
00:59:11,822 --> 00:59:15,036
And so, it's, it's very, very
helpful to have managers with that
:
00:59:15,036 --> 00:59:16,086
have different holding periods.
:
00:59:16,621 --> 00:59:20,062
And, you know, if you are building
a multi-strat of managers, that's
:
00:59:20,062 --> 00:59:22,012
probably one of the things you start
to think about, to start with is how
:
00:59:22,012 --> 00:59:22,972
do I get different holding periods?
:
00:59:23,842 --> 00:59:25,672
And, and then what are the strategies?
:
00:59:25,702 --> 00:59:28,402
Well, what are intraday strategies and
what are the risk readings of those?
:
00:59:28,432 --> 00:59:29,902
And, and how do I collect them?
:
00:59:30,526 --> 00:59:32,146
and, and my God, there's,
there's a lot to think about
:
00:59:32,191 --> 00:59:34,191
Adam Butler: And what's the
capacity of intraday too, right?
:
00:59:34,191 --> 00:59:34,661
I mean,
:
00:59:35,261 --> 00:59:35,511
Chris Schindler: what's that?
:
00:59:36,541 --> 00:59:38,671
Adam Butler: you know, not everyone can
allocate the, well, not everyone can
:
00:59:38,671 --> 00:59:42,964
allocate anything, but, but intraday would
be especially difficult for, you know, to
:
00:59:42,964 --> 00:59:46,771
allocate a massive amount of capital to,
or, or to even get a meaningful amount
:
00:59:46,771 --> 00:59:49,577
of risk into for many larger managers.
:
00:59:49,982 --> 00:59:50,582
Chris Schindler: a hundred percent.
:
00:59:50,582 --> 00:59:53,006
So, so it's, extremely hard
from an oversight perspective.
:
00:59:53,011 --> 00:59:55,586
It's, it's hard from a leverage
perspective and capital efficiency
:
00:59:55,586 --> 00:59:57,926
perspective, it's, it's hard to,
from a portfolio construction.
:
00:59:57,926 --> 01:00:00,956
So you see, you see like, um,
multi-managers doing it and
:
01:00:00,956 --> 01:00:02,126
doing it somewhat successfully.
:
01:00:02,706 --> 01:00:05,496
you know, if you think, if you're
a multi-Strat and you've got all a
:
01:00:05,496 --> 01:00:07,746
bunch of these strategies together,
I mean, you think about this for
:
01:00:07,751 --> 01:00:11,526
a second and you go, one of the
massive advantages to a multi-Strat,
:
01:00:11,589 --> 01:00:14,139
especially if they're trading lots of
different models in the same space.
:
01:00:14,832 --> 01:00:15,582
Is netting.
:
01:00:15,642 --> 01:00:19,372
And I don't think, you know, I don't
think it's quite as obvious to people
:
01:00:19,682 --> 01:00:20,852
like what a big advantage that is.
:
01:00:20,852 --> 01:00:23,402
But if you had 10 managers and
at any given point in time, you
:
01:00:23,402 --> 01:00:25,919
know, some are buying S&P and P
and some are selling, well then
:
01:00:25,919 --> 01:00:27,299
you don't get any netting, right?
:
01:00:27,299 --> 01:00:28,374
And, and you what is that worth?
:
01:00:28,379 --> 01:00:32,664
And the answer, it is worth a, a, a
shocking amount because massive amount,
:
01:00:32,664 --> 01:00:35,844
because transaction costs are so
expensive and, and they're such a big
:
01:00:35,844 --> 01:00:38,094
part of, of any, of any trading strategy
:
01:00:38,424 --> 01:00:40,944
Mike Philbrick: Well, especially if
there's a performance fee on top of that,
:
01:00:41,064 --> 01:00:41,574
Chris Schindler: Yeah.
:
01:00:41,754 --> 01:00:42,174
Mike Philbrick: wrong.
:
01:00:42,174 --> 01:00:45,324
You're wrong on one trade and you're
getting 80% of the other trade.
:
01:00:45,564 --> 01:00:45,984
Chris Schindler: yeah.
:
01:00:45,989 --> 01:00:48,634
And, and, and once again,
this is the difference between
:
01:00:48,964 --> 01:00:50,464
cancellation and diversification.
:
01:00:50,464 --> 01:00:53,494
But if you, if you had only two, one
manager's long, the S&P one year and
:
01:00:53,494 --> 01:00:56,074
the other one's short, the S&P the
whole year, that's not diversifying.
:
01:00:56,134 --> 01:00:58,894
That's just you've got no exposure
and you're paying fees of the
:
01:00:58,894 --> 01:01:00,934
a hundred percent certainty,
one side versus the other.
:
01:01:01,234 --> 01:01:02,134
So that's the last thing you want.
:
01:01:02,134 --> 01:01:03,964
You don't want cancellation,
you want diversification.
:
01:01:04,431 --> 01:01:06,999
but if, if you were to
think about like, you know.
:
01:01:07,369 --> 01:01:10,639
let's say, let's say for us, we have like
20 models, and if you look at any one of
:
01:01:10,639 --> 01:01:11,839
these models, there's a couple of things.
:
01:01:11,959 --> 01:01:14,269
There's a couple really interesting
concepts that come into play.
:
01:01:14,756 --> 01:01:17,246
on one hand you could think about
it, you said like, imagine I was
:
01:01:17,246 --> 01:01:19,611
intraday playing and I had lots of
different strategies that came and,
:
01:01:19,736 --> 01:01:23,036
and I was running like a, what we
call a complex event processor, which
:
01:01:23,036 --> 01:01:25,166
is, which is responding in real time.
:
01:01:25,166 --> 01:01:30,626
It says like it's 10 0 2 and your trend
falling model said buy, or it's 10 14,
:
01:01:30,626 --> 01:01:33,536
and this model said do this or it's,
and, and if you just do those, all
:
01:01:33,536 --> 01:01:37,016
those in real time, yeah, you get that
diversification benefit, but what, but
:
01:01:37,021 --> 01:01:40,286
you lose all netting because you've
said, I'm trading this at this time,
:
01:01:40,286 --> 01:01:42,746
and you go and you buy and then an hour
and a half later you trade this one
:
01:01:42,746 --> 01:01:44,336
and, and, and, and, and you're selling.
:
01:01:44,336 --> 01:01:45,656
And, and those don't touch each other.
:
01:01:45,656 --> 01:01:47,726
And so you're paying twice
the transaction costs.
:
01:01:47,982 --> 01:01:50,712
If you can take all those trades
and bring them together and trade
:
01:01:50,712 --> 01:01:52,242
them like say one time a day.
:
01:01:52,737 --> 01:01:55,377
Then by definition, you know, some are
buying, some are selling, and you're
:
01:01:55,377 --> 01:01:58,647
gonna net those guys out and, and you,
and that's, that's, you know, so, so you
:
01:01:58,647 --> 01:02:02,007
connect, so you take trading time and
instead of trading in real time, you,
:
01:02:02,007 --> 01:02:05,307
you, you, you compress that down to one
or two or a certain number of times a day.
:
01:02:05,577 --> 01:02:08,007
Well then you, then, you've
created a netting process.
:
01:02:08,127 --> 01:02:10,227
But the trade off is you're,
you're a bit slower in responding.
:
01:02:10,257 --> 01:02:13,344
So like, the question is like, how do I
trade off the speed of response versus
:
01:02:13,344 --> 01:02:14,934
the, the, the value of this netting.
:
01:02:15,534 --> 01:02:17,004
And you've gotta quantify both of those.
:
01:02:17,004 --> 01:02:19,314
What's my alpha decay, what's
my cost of waiting to do a
:
01:02:19,314 --> 01:02:21,894
trade versus my netting value?
:
01:02:22,284 --> 01:02:23,839
And, and it's, it's quite amazing.
:
01:02:23,844 --> 01:02:26,989
Like for us it's a, it's, it's one
of the assets that you think you have
:
01:02:27,019 --> 01:02:30,139
as a manager is like, if you only
had one process, and let's say it
:
01:02:30,139 --> 01:02:34,202
was a sharp ratio of one, but before
transaction costs and it's making 10%
:
01:02:34,202 --> 01:02:35,972
a year, but your t cost cost 5% a year.
:
01:02:35,972 --> 01:02:37,262
It's like, well, that, you
have to think of that thing
:
01:02:37,262 --> 01:02:39,122
as losing 5% in trading costs.
:
01:02:39,512 --> 01:02:43,132
If you had 20 of those and you
went to bring that, that new one
:
01:02:43,132 --> 01:02:46,009
into your process, you might, like
literally net out something like
:
01:02:46,009 --> 01:02:48,079
75 to 80% of the trading costs.
:
01:02:48,454 --> 01:02:50,374
And so that becomes much more accretive.
:
01:02:50,374 --> 01:02:53,824
And in fact, it's, it's, it's something
that you have when you have like
:
01:02:53,824 --> 01:02:57,357
multi-processes is, kind of this
brand new, call it like an asset,
:
01:02:57,357 --> 01:03:00,267
this new benefit, which is that if I
wanted to run this new process, if I,
:
01:03:00,267 --> 01:03:02,997
if this was, if this was, if I was a
single manager and this was the only
:
01:03:03,002 --> 01:03:05,397
thing I did it may not be feasible.
:
01:03:05,697 --> 01:03:08,577
But when I, when I bring it in and when
I net it with the rest of my process,
:
01:03:08,607 --> 01:03:10,527
like it's T-cost almost disappear.
:
01:03:11,007 --> 01:03:13,107
And it's a bit of a function of
how big it is and how it turns and
:
01:03:13,107 --> 01:03:14,277
how it trades with the other stuff.
:
01:03:14,282 --> 01:03:17,817
But like it's, it's quite amazing how much
of this T-cost can, can diversify away
:
01:03:18,147 --> 01:03:20,307
or just disappear into, into the process.
:
01:03:20,692 --> 01:03:23,542
Adam Butler: So this raises
another, another, quandary,
:
01:03:23,609 --> 01:03:24,659
which we also struggle with.
:
01:03:24,689 --> 01:03:26,519
'cause we also obviously run multi-strats.
:
01:03:26,519 --> 01:03:28,739
But, so you've got all
these different strategies.
:
01:03:28,739 --> 01:03:31,216
They, you know, even if you're,
if you're trading 'em all at the
:
01:03:31,216 --> 01:03:35,086
same time, so you obviously you're
maximizing the netting effect with that.
:
01:03:35,386 --> 01:03:38,736
But, attribution gets really tough, right?
:
01:03:38,736 --> 01:03:41,856
So you've got different strategies
that on their own, for example,
:
01:03:42,156 --> 01:03:46,356
may not be particularly accretive,
but when you trade them with other
:
01:03:46,361 --> 01:03:50,406
strategies because of the trade
netting effects and the diversification
:
01:03:50,406 --> 01:03:51,786
you get within the portfolio.
:
01:03:52,186 --> 01:03:57,526
it's highly accretive, but then you've
got an investor who wants to know where
:
01:03:57,526 --> 01:04:00,766
you generated your returns from, right?
:
01:04:01,036 --> 01:04:04,786
You could, you could obviously describe
that at the market level very easily,
:
01:04:04,949 --> 01:04:09,479
but going one level below the market
level into the model level or the
:
01:04:09,479 --> 01:04:14,909
strategy level, that gets really hard,
Because you don't know on a net basis
:
01:04:14,969 --> 01:04:18,779
how each of these constituents has
contributed to the overall process.
:
01:04:18,779 --> 01:04:19,889
How do you guys think about that?
:
01:04:20,714 --> 01:04:23,384
Chris Schindler: So I guess there's a
couple, there's a couple points there.
:
01:04:23,479 --> 01:04:28,411
The, if you, if you do everything in gross
space, if you do all your models, you say
:
01:04:28,411 --> 01:04:31,681
like, I'm just gonna take t-cost as this
thing that's charged at the very end.
:
01:04:32,281 --> 01:04:34,951
Instead of trying to attribute it back
to the models, you can at least describe
:
01:04:34,951 --> 01:04:39,061
what the, what the end of it like model,
process was before transaction costs.
:
01:04:39,286 --> 01:04:39,811
Adam Butler: Yeah, the growth.
:
01:04:40,021 --> 01:04:42,841
Chris Schindler: you can't, there's no
way to take that final t-cost and give it
:
01:04:42,841 --> 01:04:47,191
back to individual models or, or you're
wildly overestimating transaction costs.
:
01:04:47,196 --> 01:04:48,691
And, and I don't think
that makes a lot of sense.
:
01:04:49,284 --> 01:04:52,674
it gets even more complicated if you're
doing anything on top of the models,
:
01:04:52,674 --> 01:04:56,754
like any kind of portfolio construction,
uh, which, which we do, right?
:
01:04:56,754 --> 01:05:00,174
So, so, and then, then it's like,
well, like, I like to let my models
:
01:05:00,174 --> 01:05:03,251
run independently, but every now and
then if, if every single one of 'em
:
01:05:03,251 --> 01:05:05,891
is long equities today, I'm gonna say,
I'm like, I'm not sure I'm gonna bet
:
01:05:05,891 --> 01:05:09,191
20 times as much equities when just
because all 20 models like it, it's
:
01:05:09,191 --> 01:05:10,541
very unfrequent and very unlikely.
:
01:05:10,541 --> 01:05:11,111
But yeah.
:
01:05:11,711 --> 01:05:15,457
And so there's gonna be, a point in
time when you, when you're gonna lean
:
01:05:15,457 --> 01:05:17,047
against the, that aggregate decision.
:
01:05:17,047 --> 01:05:19,957
And, and maybe that should come
at a, a negative expected cost.
:
01:05:19,957 --> 01:05:21,096
You're leaning against the alpha process.
:
01:05:21,102 --> 01:05:23,317
But, but hopefully it's a creative
on the risk side because like
:
01:05:23,317 --> 01:05:25,627
there are occasional times when
you know when it wants to do that
:
01:05:25,627 --> 01:05:26,887
and you go, those are super risky.
:
01:05:26,892 --> 01:05:29,377
Like if something happens in the market
that one day you could, you could
:
01:05:29,377 --> 01:05:30,697
have a really good or really bad day.
:
01:05:31,297 --> 01:05:32,437
Uh, but it's pretty random.
:
01:05:32,857 --> 01:05:35,617
And so, you know, we, you know,
we say, well, we've got aggregate
:
01:05:35,617 --> 01:05:36,577
risk that we're trying to control.
:
01:05:36,577 --> 01:05:39,577
And now, and now you're at the level
of, I'm, I'm mixing models, I'm
:
01:05:39,577 --> 01:05:44,047
netting models, I've got overlays
on, on aggregate risk, and how do
:
01:05:44,052 --> 01:05:45,397
I assign those back to the models?
:
01:05:45,397 --> 01:05:46,237
And you just can't.
:
01:05:46,652 --> 01:05:51,581
And, and so the best you can do is,
is, I say, is talk about the models in,
:
01:05:51,807 --> 01:05:56,617
growth space and then, and then describe
these layers and, and speak 'em almost
:
01:05:56,617 --> 01:05:58,311
as if they're models themselves, right?
:
01:05:58,311 --> 01:06:01,901
This is a transformation process and,
and this transformation process, it
:
01:06:01,901 --> 01:06:05,351
transformed risk this way and it, and
it cost us, or it added this value.
:
01:06:05,666 --> 01:06:07,916
And think of it as a, as
a process That's a yield.
:
01:06:07,971 --> 01:06:11,211
It's, it's in there because you
think it's utility or creative.
:
01:06:11,211 --> 01:06:13,596
And, and then you always have to just
pay attention to how much risk is in
:
01:06:13,596 --> 01:06:15,486
that thing relative to these things.
:
01:06:15,486 --> 01:06:17,826
And, and, and in terms of the utility
that you're trying to provide from it.
:
01:06:17,856 --> 01:06:21,169
'cause it's from a, if you think of it
as a, you know, either Sharpe ratio or
:
01:06:21,169 --> 01:06:25,221
utility enhancer, it's, it's gotta be,
it is gotta be either reducing risk or
:
01:06:25,227 --> 01:06:27,862
improving return or improving utility
in some way that makes it creative.
:
01:06:28,387 --> 01:06:28,507
Adam Butler: Yeah.
:
01:06:28,537 --> 01:06:31,867
And then you're also, you're constrained
in your ability to articulate the
:
01:06:31,867 --> 01:06:34,027
value of that trade netting too, right?
:
01:06:34,027 --> 01:06:37,601
Like, it's actually important to be
able to demonstrate, yeah, you could
:
01:06:37,601 --> 01:06:41,705
have owned five different funds with
this, with similar exposures, but your
:
01:06:42,274 --> 01:06:46,461
net return would be expected to be sort
of 40% lower because you're not taking
:
01:06:46,461 --> 01:06:47,821
advantage of, of this trade netting.
:
01:06:47,836 --> 01:06:52,476
But you, you know, articulating that
in a, in any sort of defensible,
:
01:06:52,476 --> 01:06:55,012
quantifiable way is also very difficult.
:
01:06:55,012 --> 01:06:59,199
And then, while you can communicate
this to institutional investors or, you
:
01:06:59,199 --> 01:07:04,119
know, accredited or qualified investors,
then you can't communicate any of this
:
01:07:04,269 --> 01:07:09,069
extra context or color to non-accredited
or non-qualified investors, right, who
:
01:07:09,069 --> 01:07:14,246
always operate at a, a, major disadvantage
to qualified investors who are able to
:
01:07:14,246 --> 01:07:18,026
then provide all this extra color, even
though it's actually a possible, from
:
01:07:18,026 --> 01:07:23,156
an accounting standpoint to describe
the accretion from all these different
:
01:07:23,156 --> 01:07:27,619
strategy sleeves that are trading the same
markets within the same, the same account.
:
01:07:28,609 --> 01:07:29,269
Chris Schindler: Yeah.
:
01:07:29,419 --> 01:07:31,669
Adam Butler: it introduces all of
these different complexities for
:
01:07:31,674 --> 01:07:34,489
different classes of investors
that I think are counterproductive.
:
01:07:35,089 --> 01:07:35,538
Chris Schindler: Yeah.
:
01:07:35,538 --> 01:07:39,482
I, I mean, I think you can make
a statement of, if I had no
:
01:07:39,482 --> 01:07:42,842
turnover control and no netting,
my trading costs would be X..
:
01:07:42,846 --> 01:07:46,442
And, and you can, and like we can do that
calculation that's like, imagine I, I,
:
01:07:46,442 --> 01:07:49,742
these are independent managers and, and
you charge a T cost assumption dollar
:
01:07:49,747 --> 01:07:51,602
and you go, boom, what's your number?
:
01:07:51,737 --> 01:07:52,967
Adam Butler: it's, it's an estimate,
:
01:07:53,221 --> 01:07:53,971
Chris Schindler: It's always an estimate.
:
01:07:54,122 --> 01:07:55,592
It, it trading costs.
:
01:07:55,622 --> 01:07:59,366
It, like, when it comes right down
to anytime you do any kind of trade
:
01:07:59,371 --> 01:08:03,056
cost attribution, uh, you're gonna be
estimating at, at that point, at, if
:
01:08:03,056 --> 01:08:05,396
you're gonna try and put it back to
models, you're gonna try and do anything.
:
01:08:05,666 --> 01:08:07,946
You have your actual, this is
the amount we actually paid.
:
01:08:08,576 --> 01:08:12,296
and, and, and and then anything else as an
attribution back is gonna be an estimate.
:
01:08:12,611 --> 01:08:16,076
But you can start with like, I mean,
and we do do this and, and so it's a,.
:
01:08:16,076 --> 01:08:18,026
If we had no netting,
what would our T cost be?
:
01:08:18,055 --> 01:08:19,435
And with netting, what's our T costs?
:
01:08:19,435 --> 01:08:22,975
And it's really interesting because
it's the, what is the incremental
:
01:08:22,975 --> 01:08:25,435
transaction cost associated
with adding this new model?
:
01:08:25,435 --> 01:08:29,156
And you have to say like if we, and,
even then, like adding new models,
:
01:08:29,156 --> 01:08:31,406
people always get this wrong, but you
go like, I'm expecting this model to
:
01:08:31,406 --> 01:08:34,316
make $10 million because I'm gonna put
this much and expect the Sharpe ratio of
:
01:08:34,316 --> 01:08:36,356
one, but it, it doesn't work that way.
:
01:08:36,356 --> 01:08:36,506
Right?
:
01:08:36,506 --> 01:08:40,376
It's like when you add a new model, unless
you take your risk up, the new model
:
01:08:40,376 --> 01:08:42,591
doesn't get to make it standalone money.
:
01:08:42,591 --> 01:08:45,291
It's just, it's just how much did it
improve your expected Sharpe ratio?
:
01:08:45,770 --> 01:08:48,804
Because, if it, if it only takes your
risk up by, by, you know, 1% when you
:
01:08:48,804 --> 01:08:52,314
gotta shrink the rest of the process
by 1% to, keep the same risk target
:
01:08:52,689 --> 01:08:55,294
and you know, whatever it's suspected
to make comes out the other side.
:
01:08:55,294 --> 01:08:57,274
And so it's really, it always
comes down to how much does
:
01:08:57,279 --> 01:08:58,533
improve your expected Sharpe ratio.
:
01:08:59,112 --> 01:09:03,312
And you can also say, if I was
running this amount of money, here's
:
01:09:03,312 --> 01:09:04,992
the total dollars I'd pay in t-cost.
:
01:09:04,992 --> 01:09:07,992
And if I was just running this model
alone, here's the dollars I pay in t-cost.
:
01:09:07,997 --> 01:09:11,261
And when I add them together at the same
risk, what does my dollars in t-cost?
:
01:09:11,261 --> 01:09:13,782
And it's interesting 'cause occasionally
you can add models that are, that
:
01:09:13,787 --> 01:09:16,062
have quite high turnover and you can
add 'em to the whole process and your
:
01:09:16,067 --> 01:09:19,482
transaction costs come down and it has
a little bit to do with the size of the
:
01:09:19,482 --> 01:09:20,742
model versus the stuff you're doing.
:
01:09:20,742 --> 01:09:22,782
It has a lot to do with what
is the model buying when the
:
01:09:22,782 --> 01:09:23,652
rest of your stuff is buying.
:
01:09:23,742 --> 01:09:27,448
And, and so, you know, if it's truly
uncorrelated, you know, it might add
:
01:09:27,448 --> 01:09:30,479
incrementally or it might take away
because every single time that the
:
01:09:30,479 --> 01:09:33,702
rest of the process is buying and this
guy's either buying or selling, you
:
01:09:33,702 --> 01:09:36,372
save some transaction costs on this,
but you also save it on this one.
:
01:09:36,822 --> 01:09:39,015
And so you, you can,
it it is quite amazing.
:
01:09:39,015 --> 01:09:43,276
But bringing stuff in that turns over
quite high can take your transactions
:
01:09:43,276 --> 01:09:47,716
down and, and suddenly you go, that's a,
that's a huge benefit to a multi-strap.
:
01:09:47,746 --> 01:09:48,616
I think it's a huge benefit.
:
01:09:48,831 --> 01:09:50,716
Mike Philbrick: Well, if you, if you
think about it, you're, you're adding
:
01:09:50,746 --> 01:09:55,516
a model that has a trading frequency
and that frequency isn't going to be
:
01:09:55,521 --> 01:10:00,346
more, or it's unlikely to be more than
all of the other existing models within
:
01:10:00,346 --> 01:10:02,026
the portfolio at that moment in time.
:
01:10:02,617 --> 01:10:04,532
Is that, am I kind of getting that right?
:
01:10:04,532 --> 01:10:09,062
So you've got this high transaction
model and you've got 20 models over here.
:
01:10:09,529 --> 01:10:14,089
It's unlikely that that one model trades
at a more rapid frequency than all of
:
01:10:14,094 --> 01:10:17,256
the other models, and then it helps
inform those other models on their
:
01:10:17,276 --> 01:10:18,831
Adam Butler: If you're not
accounting for the averaging,
:
01:10:19,211 --> 01:10:22,296
Chris Schindler: So it, it could
trade more rapidly than your average.
:
01:10:22,356 --> 01:10:25,386
it has to do with how big it is relative
to your average, because if you've got
:
01:10:25,446 --> 01:10:28,326
10 or 15 and, and like at any given
point in time, some are buying, there's,
:
01:10:28,776 --> 01:10:29,796
call it like the lightest level.
:
01:10:29,796 --> 01:10:32,309
There's a 50% chance that, the rest
of your guys are doing is in the
:
01:10:32,309 --> 01:10:33,269
opposite direction with this guy.
:
01:10:33,479 --> 01:10:36,419
So like, straight up the bat, if
it's small enough, you can come
:
01:10:36,419 --> 01:10:38,619
pretty close to 50% of, of coverage.
:
01:10:39,106 --> 01:10:41,216
But that's just what
this covers of this guy.
:
01:10:41,546 --> 01:10:44,156
Every time you do that, this guy
covers some of this one as well.
:
01:10:44,156 --> 01:10:46,346
And so like that comes right
back on the other side.
:
01:10:46,346 --> 01:10:48,896
And so if you realize the total
savings, it's both of those
:
01:10:48,896 --> 01:10:50,516
together, you can get to 75, 80%.
:
01:10:50,516 --> 01:10:55,202
And so it's a, it's a pretty interesting
reduction, meaning that you go, if you
:
01:10:55,232 --> 01:10:59,042
found, if you found these five processes
and five different managers and they're
:
01:10:59,042 --> 01:11:02,956
each a sharp ratio one, but like they
lose 5% in trading costs when you bring
:
01:11:02,956 --> 01:11:06,316
'em all together, or if you bring 20 of
these guys together, these incremental
:
01:11:06,316 --> 01:11:10,306
managers are only, are, are coming
at like 20% of, of, of the turnover.
:
01:11:10,486 --> 01:11:12,256
Which, which is, which is just incredible.
:
01:11:12,346 --> 01:11:15,526
And so it's not, we're not talking
about the diversification of the alpha.
:
01:11:15,676 --> 01:11:16,456
We're talking like that.
:
01:11:16,516 --> 01:11:19,846
In addition to that is this
massive reduction in cost.
:
01:11:19,846 --> 01:11:23,302
which, which is what you can see is
like, the, and this is where, you know,
:
01:11:23,812 --> 01:11:26,422
like if you have these, I don't know,
like a medallion, like who's, who knows
:
01:11:26,427 --> 01:11:29,512
what they're up to, but assume that
they're doing a ton of short-term stuff.
:
01:11:30,077 --> 01:11:33,041
and the danger with, with, individual
short-term stuff, once again, as we said,
:
01:11:33,041 --> 01:11:35,707
is that, you don't get your netting,
but if you do enough of it and then you
:
01:11:35,707 --> 01:11:40,481
can aggregate it carefully into slices,
you could probably get a ton of netting
:
01:11:40,481 --> 01:11:42,221
and just incredible diversification.
:
01:11:42,221 --> 01:11:44,794
So, and so, time diversification
is super important.
:
01:11:44,824 --> 01:11:46,954
And, and all of this was just to
say like, if I was putting together
:
01:11:46,954 --> 01:11:49,961
a multi-Strat, you gotta think
about the different feature sets
:
01:11:49,961 --> 01:11:50,891
that you're diversifying across.
:
01:11:50,891 --> 01:11:53,051
And so you're diversifying
across strategies and across
:
01:11:53,056 --> 01:11:54,071
assets and across time.
:
01:11:54,071 --> 01:11:56,384
And that's the three major distinctions.
:
01:11:56,384 --> 01:11:59,564
And to all of that across strategies
and time, you've got this netting
:
01:11:59,564 --> 01:12:02,024
thing to think about, or even
assets and strategies and time.
:
01:12:02,024 --> 01:12:03,524
You've got this netting
consideration, which is, which
:
01:12:03,524 --> 01:12:04,484
is an important consideration.
:
01:12:04,984 --> 01:12:06,844
Um, and I went way off
track on your question.
:
01:12:06,844 --> 01:12:09,874
but, and then you say, what
are the big categories?
:
01:12:09,934 --> 01:12:14,434
And, so at the, global macro level,
you know, if you, you've got your.
:
01:12:14,629 --> 01:12:16,489
Broadly speaking, you've got your carries.
:
01:12:16,489 --> 01:12:20,332
And so, you know, obviously like most
fixed income models start with, relative
:
01:12:20,332 --> 01:12:23,752
or absolute carries, and whether they're
risk-based or not is a big question.
:
01:12:23,752 --> 01:12:25,282
If they're not risk-based, then
you're still gonna end up with
:
01:12:25,282 --> 01:12:26,242
a bunch of betas underneath it.
:
01:12:26,242 --> 01:12:29,872
But like, you know, some concept of
carries, like, like obviously FX carries
:
01:12:29,872 --> 01:12:31,282
a really big and well-known strategy.
:
01:12:31,782 --> 01:12:33,792
you've got your carries, you've
got the values, you've got the
:
01:12:33,792 --> 01:12:36,642
qualities, and you've got momentum,
and then you've got the volatilities.
:
01:12:36,672 --> 01:12:39,102
And I think broadly speaking,
that captures a lot of 'em.
:
01:12:39,107 --> 01:12:43,092
And you can capture that, that set,
in all of your major asset classes.
:
01:12:43,509 --> 01:12:47,589
Then you have, you know, like the other
ones like merger arbitrage, classic
:
01:12:47,589 --> 01:12:50,929
risk premium where it's, it like the
classic definition of risk premium
:
01:12:50,934 --> 01:12:53,782
where it's like, you know, like someone
owns a company, you know, it's trading
:
01:12:53,782 --> 01:12:56,859
at 20 and, you hear that there's a,
there's a merger announced and it
:
01:12:56,889 --> 01:12:59,349
immediately pops to something and you
go, what, what does it popped here?
:
01:12:59,611 --> 01:13:01,831
and like obviously a lot of people spend
a lot of time thinking what they think
:
01:13:01,831 --> 01:13:06,391
it should, it should go to, but it, goes
to, it used to be a company that's prices
:
01:13:06,391 --> 01:13:10,254
moved, you know, based on earnings and it
had a beta and, and suddenly what you own
:
01:13:10,254 --> 01:13:12,264
for a brief period of time is a coin flip.
:
01:13:12,264 --> 01:13:15,774
And it's a coin flip on the probability of
this merger going through the price popped
:
01:13:15,774 --> 01:13:19,854
from 20 to 30 and if the merger doesn't go
through, I guess it goes back down to 20.
:
01:13:19,854 --> 01:13:22,434
If it goes through, it goes to
something, it's, that's usually a
:
01:13:22,434 --> 01:13:24,024
posted price that maybe it's 40.
:
01:13:24,234 --> 01:13:26,094
And you go, why is it
trading at 30 and not 40?
:
01:13:26,094 --> 01:13:28,764
It's like, well, there's an implied
probability of this deal going through.
:
01:13:29,034 --> 01:13:33,917
And so what you own briefly, you've
just made 20, do you, it was at 20
:
01:13:33,917 --> 01:13:36,707
a day ago, now it's at 30 and now
you own this thing, which is no
:
01:13:36,707 --> 01:13:38,087
longer a stock, it's a coin flip.
:
01:13:38,459 --> 01:13:39,714
and you said, I don't want a coin flip.
:
01:13:39,714 --> 01:13:42,864
I don't wanna like make or
lose $10 on this thing that I
:
01:13:42,869 --> 01:13:43,734
have no understanding about.
:
01:13:43,734 --> 01:13:46,344
And I'm gonna ask someone else, like,
someone else can take that trade on from
:
01:13:46,344 --> 01:13:47,693
me and they can own that and diversify.
:
01:13:47,693 --> 01:13:48,474
And I want out.
:
01:13:48,684 --> 01:13:49,494
It's a classic risk-free.
:
01:13:49,499 --> 01:13:51,654
So someone else will take on,
they say, I'm gonna, I'm gonna.
:
01:13:52,149 --> 01:13:54,309
I'm gonna buy these things and I'm
gonna, I'm gonna bet that there's a
:
01:13:54,309 --> 01:13:57,949
certain probability of default and, a
certain, probably this thing failing.
:
01:13:57,949 --> 01:14:00,259
I mean, and, and a certain
probably going through.
:
01:14:00,259 --> 01:14:02,059
And I'm gonna price and
size this thing correctly.
:
01:14:02,119 --> 01:14:05,568
And so that was, you know, merge arbitrage
is, is a very classic risk premium.
:
01:14:05,952 --> 01:14:08,652
and, and like, I think a beautiful
one, if it's done well, where, where
:
01:14:08,652 --> 01:14:11,682
I always saw it done badly is on
the portfolio construction side.
:
01:14:11,832 --> 01:14:14,492
Because like, like anything else, people
would tend to screw it up and market cap
:
01:14:14,492 --> 01:14:17,702
weight it and they go, the size of the
deal would dictate how much what I owned.
:
01:14:17,942 --> 01:14:20,882
And the last thing you want when you're
flipping coins is to bet a thousand
:
01:14:20,882 --> 01:14:23,252
times more here and then bet because,
because at the end of the day, that's
:
01:14:23,252 --> 01:14:26,409
gonna catch you, uh, one day because the
only thing that matters is the big one.
:
01:14:26,409 --> 01:14:28,659
And then the other thing to understand
is that if you have a whole portfolio
:
01:14:28,659 --> 01:14:30,939
lease, you have a, a growing data risk.
:
01:14:31,257 --> 01:14:34,507
We saw this in oh eight, if the market
crashes or if you have a credit crisis
:
01:14:34,507 --> 01:14:37,417
or something happens, then all these
deals, which you think are independent
:
01:14:37,417 --> 01:14:39,367
coin flips, can suddenly be very
highly correlated with each other.
:
01:14:39,372 --> 01:14:41,857
And so that's like you have
in the background, a tail beta
:
01:14:41,857 --> 01:14:43,357
risk in merge arbitrage as well.
:
01:14:43,631 --> 01:14:47,057
but like, a great risk for you to, to
add if you can, if you can find it.
:
01:14:47,394 --> 01:14:49,914
and I really ran through
like the, like quality.
:
01:14:50,511 --> 01:14:54,157
there's so many different definitions
of quality in across asset classes.
:
01:14:54,162 --> 01:14:55,027
Within asset classes.
:
01:14:55,027 --> 01:14:56,407
Like that's a very broad statement.
:
01:14:56,797 --> 01:14:57,847
Uh, same thing with value.
:
01:14:58,297 --> 01:14:59,172
Adam Butler: Across asset classes.
:
01:14:59,977 --> 01:15:02,617
Chris Schindler: so I would say
maybe not across asset classes.
:
01:15:02,617 --> 01:15:04,927
It's probably better to think of
it across sectors within equities,
:
01:15:04,927 --> 01:15:07,019
but it's a, um, if you think of.
:
01:15:07,517 --> 01:15:09,767
Yeah, I think like, I guess
you, you would not, you wouldn't
:
01:15:09,767 --> 01:15:11,207
do a cross sectional quality.
:
01:15:11,207 --> 01:15:13,097
What you would like, the
best you would have is a time
:
01:15:13,097 --> 01:15:14,327
series definition of quality.
:
01:15:14,327 --> 01:15:16,997
And then if you had like a, a
variety of asset classes with a time
:
01:15:16,997 --> 01:15:18,317
sectional definition of quality.
:
01:15:18,317 --> 01:15:20,537
Some are higher, some are lower at
any given point in time, and you can
:
01:15:20,542 --> 01:15:21,917
kind of think of that as a relative.
:
01:15:22,277 --> 01:15:24,047
You could even risk that
guy if you wanted to.
:
01:15:24,317 --> 01:15:26,747
And we actually do have one
model that that does that.
:
01:15:27,017 --> 01:15:29,867
But, but it's like that, that
it, it's a very sloppy definition
:
01:15:29,867 --> 01:15:31,037
of cross sectional quality.
:
01:15:31,037 --> 01:15:34,397
but it's, you know, like a series of
time series definitions brought together.
:
01:15:34,517 --> 01:15:37,097
We'll have it all around our
weight, across sectors and,
:
01:15:37,097 --> 01:15:38,387
and of a quality definition.
:
01:15:38,772 --> 01:15:42,524
Um, you know, and then, so we got,
think about FX for a second and say
:
01:15:42,524 --> 01:15:46,564
like, the major risk periods and
effects would be momentum value.
:
01:15:46,686 --> 01:15:47,376
Carry.
:
01:15:47,436 --> 01:15:51,246
And then, maybe some definition like, like
country, like, whether they, whether they
:
01:15:51,246 --> 01:15:52,626
sit in value or not, like value quality.
:
01:15:52,631 --> 01:15:55,201
And that would be kind of like a,
a throw-together concept there.
:
01:15:55,531 --> 01:15:58,021
But that, like even that, that
three-legged stool in FX is a
:
01:15:58,026 --> 01:15:59,371
pretty powerful starting spot.
:
01:15:59,641 --> 01:16:01,411
and then you always got your vol and so
:
01:16:01,586 --> 01:16:03,736
Adam Butler: value would be sort
of like per relative to purchasing
:
01:16:03,736 --> 01:16:04,786
power parity kind of thing.
:
01:16:05,191 --> 01:16:06,751
Chris Schindler: that, that's
a very weak definition.
:
01:16:06,751 --> 01:16:06,841
Yeah.
:
01:16:07,046 --> 01:16:07,336
Yeah.
:
01:16:07,891 --> 01:16:11,011
That's a good starting point and, and a
surprisingly decent starting point of a
:
01:16:11,016 --> 01:16:13,201
long-term definition of value in, in, FX.
:
01:16:13,681 --> 01:16:15,441
and then if you think about, credit.
:
01:16:15,791 --> 01:16:19,258
So credit, credit still has
like, well, credit's complicated.
:
01:16:19,258 --> 01:16:22,498
'cause as we said, it's, it's a mixture
of things, but you know, credit's gonna
:
01:16:22,503 --> 01:16:23,728
have a term structure piece to it.
:
01:16:23,728 --> 01:16:25,228
It's going and like the credit.
:
01:16:25,424 --> 01:16:28,574
So the interesting, when we first started
trying to think about, and this is like
:
01:16:28,579 --> 01:16:31,844
back to:bringing credit to the portfolio level.
:
01:16:31,844 --> 01:16:34,724
But way back before we were talking
about bringing into our risk parity.
:
01:16:34,954 --> 01:16:36,934
and so we were building our risk
parity as a mixture of stocks and
:
01:16:36,934 --> 01:16:39,934
bonds and commodities and, and
strategies across all these non-assets.
:
01:16:40,414 --> 01:16:42,994
And, and when it came time to
look at credit, we found credit
:
01:16:42,999 --> 01:16:44,554
is a super weird asset class.
:
01:16:44,964 --> 01:16:50,144
especially if you're staring at, IG
and this is back in::
01:16:50,144 --> 01:16:53,193
we were looking at it going, it's
really weird because if you just
:
01:16:53,193 --> 01:16:57,081
invest in, in investment grade, if you
look at the returns of that process
:
01:16:57,081 --> 01:16:58,941
over time, they're not very good.
:
01:16:59,458 --> 01:17:01,948
But meanwhile, if you go to the
academic literature at the time it
:
01:17:01,948 --> 01:17:04,318
was literally saying like, we don't
understand what's going on with credit.
:
01:17:04,407 --> 01:17:06,028
Why does credit pay so much?
:
01:17:06,478 --> 01:17:09,238
Like it's if the credit spread
is paying more than it should.
:
01:17:09,243 --> 01:17:11,281
And, and, and there was this
massive disconnect between
:
01:17:11,281 --> 01:17:12,241
what the academics were saying.
:
01:17:12,241 --> 01:17:15,481
Like, look, if you look at company
by company, look how much, look
:
01:17:15,486 --> 01:17:17,731
at the probability default and
look at the actual defaults and
:
01:17:17,736 --> 01:17:18,481
look what they're getting paid.
:
01:17:18,486 --> 01:17:21,511
And like this is like, we can't
explain why the spread is so rich.
:
01:17:21,871 --> 01:17:24,811
Meanwhile, the people investing
in credit are making very little.
:
01:17:25,576 --> 01:17:27,556
And, and it was super unusual.
:
01:17:28,103 --> 01:17:32,266
And it turns out the disconnect was
most people when they invest in credit
:
01:17:32,266 --> 01:17:34,659
are, you know, for the same reason
that you'd see that, like the bond
:
01:17:34,659 --> 01:17:36,669
investors, they're trying to get
some duration and they're sitting
:
01:17:36,669 --> 01:17:37,898
at the back end of the credit curve.
:
01:17:38,529 --> 01:17:42,489
And if you, if you're sitting like
I own credit, I, I buy a ten-year
:
01:17:42,489 --> 01:17:45,309
bond and then maybe by the time such
as seven, I roll it back out to 10.
:
01:17:45,309 --> 01:17:48,009
And if you're doing that sort of seven to
10 rolling out process, which is where the
:
01:17:48,009 --> 01:17:52,209
vast majority of people sit, you capture
almost none of the credit risk premium.
:
01:17:52,866 --> 01:17:55,186
it's, you get all the risk
and almost none of the fun.
:
01:17:55,216 --> 01:17:57,046
I mean, the sharp ratio
there is, is almost nothing.
:
01:17:57,706 --> 01:18:00,706
But if you hold credit right through
the maturity, which means that you're
:
01:18:00,706 --> 01:18:03,466
holding companies that live with one to
two years of default and, and, and the
:
01:18:03,466 --> 01:18:06,136
other default that they don't, it's a very
different structure where if you hold it,
:
01:18:06,136 --> 01:18:07,666
that's where the all the sharp ratio is.
:
01:18:07,666 --> 01:18:09,466
And you go, that's super weird.
:
01:18:09,646 --> 01:18:12,826
And then once again, it was like early on
in our research going, that's this clearly
:
01:18:12,826 --> 01:18:15,689
a leverage issue because to get the amount
of risk that you need and to get the
:
01:18:15,689 --> 01:18:18,976
exposure you need and the cash that you
need to hold the stuff at the front end.
:
01:18:19,391 --> 01:18:23,839
like very few people hold bonds
right through to, they either like,
:
01:18:23,864 --> 01:18:25,214
like right through to time zero.
:
01:18:25,364 --> 01:18:27,314
But if you do, that's where
all the Sharpe ratio is.
:
01:18:27,704 --> 01:18:29,084
You go, why is everyone out here?
:
01:18:29,534 --> 01:18:30,974
And it's like, oh, there's two reasons.
:
01:18:30,979 --> 01:18:33,193
And the first one is like, and
they're both classic credit reasons.
:
01:18:33,193 --> 01:18:35,443
And the first one is the vast majority
of credit players who are just rolling
:
01:18:35,443 --> 01:18:37,394
this process out thinking they're
collecting the risk premium because
:
01:18:37,394 --> 01:18:40,228
they're taking the risk without knowing
that, that, there's this massive in
:
01:18:40,233 --> 01:18:43,138
the curve because you've got these
people selling here and buying here.
:
01:18:43,521 --> 01:18:46,668
And at the other side is like, it
turns out that the credit curve is,
:
01:18:46,728 --> 01:18:49,938
is the discount curve for corporate
liability for pension plans.
:
01:18:50,388 --> 01:18:52,668
And so if you want to immunize
your pension plan, that's
:
01:18:52,668 --> 01:18:53,958
the piece you have to hold.
:
01:18:54,168 --> 01:18:56,358
It's like, well you should never
be investing in a space where
:
01:18:56,358 --> 01:18:59,318
people are forced to be investors
because that's gonna be a very
:
01:18:59,318 --> 01:19:01,838
naturally crowded, it's the last
place in the world you want to be.
:
01:19:01,838 --> 01:19:04,538
But the vast majority of people playing
credit at the time were out there at the
:
01:19:04,543 --> 01:19:07,657
back end of the curve where there was just
like no Sharpe ratio and all the risk.
:
01:19:07,968 --> 01:19:10,313
Adam Butler: It's like the long
end of the duration curve for the
:
01:19:10,313 --> 01:19:12,413
insurance sector and for the, for the,
:
01:19:12,983 --> 01:19:13,343
yeah.
:
01:19:13,553 --> 01:19:16,553
Chris Schindler: so, you know,
credit like, my God, like, like if
:
01:19:16,553 --> 01:19:19,043
you just wanted to have a form of
credit, all you would do is just
:
01:19:19,103 --> 01:19:22,463
buy from five or six years and hold
it right through to maturity, like
:
01:19:22,673 --> 01:19:23,963
significantly higher sharp rates you go.
:
01:19:24,293 --> 01:19:24,983
Is that a risk premium?
:
01:19:24,983 --> 01:19:25,282
Yes.
:
01:19:25,282 --> 01:19:26,223
Is it an active strategy?
:
01:19:26,273 --> 01:19:29,452
Eh, it's just different than, than what
the vast majority of people are doing.
:
01:19:29,618 --> 01:19:33,128
Adam Butler: all the, all the ETFs,
like all the index ETFs exposure to
:
01:19:33,128 --> 01:19:35,228
credit are all constant maturity.
:
01:19:35,228 --> 01:19:36,907
So they're all, that's
exactly what they're doing.
:
01:19:36,907 --> 01:19:42,068
They're constantly rolling into new bonds
of TAR that, around that target maturity.
:
01:19:42,098 --> 01:19:42,338
Right.
:
01:19:42,343 --> 01:19:43,598
So they're just not collecting that
:
01:19:43,823 --> 01:19:44,183
Chris Schindler: Yeah.
:
01:19:44,273 --> 01:19:48,439
So, anyway, that, that, I assume this
is obsolete information 15 years after
:
01:19:48,439 --> 01:19:50,689
we discovered it, but, but it's still,
it's, it is quite surprising where
:
01:19:50,689 --> 01:19:53,696
it's, it is, I remember working with
the, the head of credit at the time and
:
01:19:53,696 --> 01:19:56,216
because, it was just one of those, like,
we don't understand, like, like why,
:
01:19:56,216 --> 01:20:00,266
why would you just buy a bold process
of credit, a constant maturity role?
:
01:20:00,266 --> 01:20:03,356
Like why is, why is the sharp ratio so
low when, when it looks like they haven't
:
01:20:03,356 --> 01:20:05,486
made a lot of defaults and we know that
they're paying a lot and the answer is.
:
01:20:05,951 --> 01:20:09,198
Well, because it's, it's literally the
curve has a pretty significant kink
:
01:20:09,198 --> 01:20:11,388
because this is where the buyers are
and this is where the sellers are.
:
01:20:11,443 --> 01:20:13,516
And, and it's huge pressure points.
:
01:20:13,516 --> 01:20:16,006
And if you just hold past that, there's,
there's something quite interesting there.
:
01:20:16,011 --> 01:20:17,026
You know, it's the same thing.
:
01:20:17,386 --> 01:20:18,556
We talked about this a lot.
:
01:20:18,556 --> 01:20:21,496
you know, if, if all you're allowed
to invest in is investment grade,
:
01:20:21,556 --> 01:20:24,466
well then every time something gets
downgraded, you're forced to sell it.
:
01:20:24,471 --> 01:20:27,196
And, and that's, you know, that
it's you, you wouldn't sell it if
:
01:20:27,196 --> 01:20:28,246
you didn't, if you didn't have to.
:
01:20:28,246 --> 01:20:30,286
And you know, it's a bad trade, you
know, it's a money losing trade.
:
01:20:30,496 --> 01:20:33,646
But across that, you know, constraint of,
if I, if I own this name, once they're
:
01:20:33,646 --> 01:20:34,816
being downgraded, I'm gonna get fired.
:
01:20:34,821 --> 01:20:37,336
I'm, I'm happily gonna sell
it and I'm gonna give that
:
01:20:37,336 --> 01:20:38,506
money to someone else happily.
:
01:20:38,506 --> 01:20:41,056
And that, transfer of utilities
is, is a classic risk premium.
:
01:20:41,416 --> 01:20:43,606
So if you're an unconstrained
investor buying the fallen Angels,
:
01:20:43,611 --> 01:20:46,126
like this is like, this is like
20-year-old unknown strategies.
:
01:20:46,131 --> 01:20:49,151
But buying the Fallen Angels is
a, is a very winning strategy and
:
01:20:49,196 --> 01:20:51,656
Adam Butler: continues to be, you
know, it's amazing and like a, a
:
01:20:51,656 --> 01:20:55,550
number of managers come out and tried
to launch these Fallen Angel ETFs and
:
01:20:55,556 --> 01:20:58,699
I always look at 'em and go, this is
such a great, risk premium to own.
:
01:20:58,699 --> 01:21:01,579
And then they, you know, a year later they
delist them 'cause nobody's interested.
:
01:21:02,629 --> 01:21:04,846
Chris Schindler: Well, and I
guess the reason it exists is
:
01:21:04,846 --> 01:21:06,286
because people can't do it.
:
01:21:06,406 --> 01:21:09,586
I mean, it's like, as, as long as
you're, if you're an unconstrained
:
01:21:09,586 --> 01:21:12,106
investor, you absolutely should,
you know, once again, these aren't
:
01:21:12,106 --> 01:21:13,456
really, maybe they're strategies.
:
01:21:13,461 --> 01:21:16,906
I, I, if you think about it that way,
I mean, I mean, you're seeing just an
:
01:21:16,966 --> 01:21:20,896
absolute ton of overriding strategies
that are coming into the market nowadays.
:
01:21:21,286 --> 01:21:23,909
Uh, you know, 'cause, 'cause
they're index enhanced and, like
:
01:21:23,909 --> 01:21:25,318
it, to me it's quite incredible.
:
01:21:25,349 --> 01:21:28,079
You know, how much of these you're seeing
and, and once again, these are stuffing
:
01:21:28,079 --> 01:21:31,606
the dealers full of haha just, crazy
amounts of gamma I thought they're trying
:
01:21:31,606 --> 01:21:32,836
to handle, like, on the sharp downside.
:
01:21:32,836 --> 01:21:33,916
So, so, you know, it's just like.
:
01:21:34,411 --> 01:21:36,674
But, um, you know, those
are very simple strategies.
:
01:21:36,674 --> 01:21:40,108
I, I'm not a big fan personally of
every aspect of that, but like, you
:
01:21:40,108 --> 01:21:43,468
know, if you build a proper, vol
selling process and size it, right?
:
01:21:43,468 --> 01:21:46,498
Like, like, like vol selling
within FX within actually,
:
01:21:46,618 --> 01:21:47,698
of course is the main one.
:
01:21:47,898 --> 01:21:49,428
and to a certain extent
in some, in commodities.
:
01:21:49,428 --> 01:21:51,438
Like, there's, there's
interesting opportunities there.
:
01:21:51,714 --> 01:21:55,004
so if you think about like, like what
are the major strategies the very,
:
01:21:55,004 --> 01:21:59,414
like, as I would've defined them
back in::
01:21:59,414 --> 01:22:02,384
You've got a,, well, you've actually got
a, let's call it a low vol if you want.
:
01:22:02,384 --> 01:22:02,984
Define it that way.
:
01:22:03,044 --> 01:22:05,174
Where's the least leverage
point within assets?
:
01:22:05,174 --> 01:22:07,124
You've got a low vol piece, you've
got an inventive piece, you've got
:
01:22:07,124 --> 01:22:09,104
a vol piece, you've gotta carry it.
:
01:22:09,104 --> 01:22:12,824
And you've got like some vol, some
value versus quality definition.
:
01:22:13,050 --> 01:22:16,141
and then every major asset probably
has some sort of seasonality
:
01:22:16,146 --> 01:22:17,491
or cyclicities in it as well.
:
01:22:17,911 --> 01:22:22,282
And so, That basket is probably like the
modern alternative risk premium basket.
:
01:22:22,282 --> 01:22:24,989
And then I would say like, you know,
next generation that we sort of focused
:
01:22:24,994 --> 01:22:27,419
on a little bit is like, well, what
about the players playing those baskets?
:
01:22:27,989 --> 01:22:30,089
Because if there's all those baskets
and all those players, and, and in
:
01:22:30,089 --> 01:22:32,999
many cases now the risk premium of
the player playing the basket is
:
01:22:33,004 --> 01:22:34,259
stronger than the basket itself.
:
01:22:34,549 --> 01:22:38,539
and you'll see this all, and like
that's by the way, longer term macro,
:
01:22:38,709 --> 01:22:41,573
you know, ETF index anticipation.
:
01:22:41,573 --> 01:22:43,709
You know, like, like I, I'm trying
to, trying to anticipate names
:
01:22:43,714 --> 01:22:44,729
coming in outta the indices.
:
01:22:44,729 --> 01:22:47,699
Like you've got so many players
who are so big and, and doing that,
:
01:22:47,759 --> 01:22:48,779
it's such aggressive size now.
:
01:22:48,779 --> 01:22:52,739
Like, like in anything, you can easily
get more people offering the insurance
:
01:22:52,739 --> 01:22:53,969
than, than you have people buying it.
:
01:22:53,969 --> 01:22:55,529
And you can get caught on
the other side of that trade.
:
01:22:55,529 --> 01:22:58,148
I mean, it's almost like, I think a lot
of those strategies, which has sharks
:
01:22:58,148 --> 01:23:00,914
of two have just gone like minus two
because very, very quickly it's like, Too
:
01:23:00,914 --> 01:23:04,881
many people tried to hoard toilet paper
during, covid and then, and they all
:
01:23:04,881 --> 01:23:06,321
tried to give it back at the same time.
:
01:23:06,321 --> 01:23:08,871
It's like you're, you're literally
trying to buy the toilet paper before
:
01:23:08,871 --> 01:23:11,511
someone else buys it, and hopefully
there's enough buyers to buy it from you.
:
01:23:11,838 --> 01:23:14,398
but if too many people do that,
you can get, you can get caught
:
01:23:14,403 --> 01:23:16,288
holding your toilet paper, if
you don't mind the analogy.
:
01:23:16,733 --> 01:23:19,088
Adam Butler: So I wanna, I wanna
highlight something that you, that
:
01:23:19,088 --> 01:23:22,028
you sort of, you said, and, but you,
you kind of glossed over as though,
:
01:23:22,238 --> 01:23:23,198
as though it's sort of a given.
:
01:23:23,198 --> 01:23:25,448
But you know, you've got all
these different premia, you
:
01:23:25,538 --> 01:23:27,558
know, you talked about carry and
then you talked about FX carry.
:
01:23:27,577 --> 01:23:29,318
You talked about vol
selling and inequities.
:
01:23:29,378 --> 01:23:30,128
You talked about value.
:
01:23:30,128 --> 01:23:33,038
And most people think about value equities
but you've got all these different.
:
01:23:33,504 --> 01:23:35,531
Typically, but all these
specialists, right?
:
01:23:35,531 --> 01:23:37,661
And you've got, you know, people
who are familiar with value.
:
01:23:37,661 --> 01:23:41,561
They like buying, you know,
cheap companies or cheap credits
:
01:23:41,561 --> 01:23:42,821
or, or what have you, right?
:
01:23:43,121 --> 01:23:46,361
But the real magic for, vol
selling carry, it doesn't matter.
:
01:23:46,541 --> 01:23:52,641
The real magic is in selling all the
vol isn't getting, all the carry is
:
01:23:52,641 --> 01:23:56,871
in, arming all the value across all
the asset classes, all the different
:
01:23:56,871 --> 01:24:02,348
securities, to the extent that you can
then, you know, trade against the baskets.
:
01:24:02,373 --> 01:24:03,327
there's a whole other level there.
:
01:24:03,327 --> 01:24:08,098
But just to kind of diversify global
premium strategy, it's available, well,
:
01:24:08,098 --> 01:24:12,238
it may not be available to everybody, but
it's becoming more available every year.
:
01:24:12,598 --> 01:24:15,838
And most people just take
little pieces of it, right?
:
01:24:15,838 --> 01:24:18,083
Like, I've got a, a value
tilt in my portfolio or a
:
01:24:18,088 --> 01:24:19,373
quality tilt in my portfolio.
:
01:24:19,378 --> 01:24:22,529
But it's purely on the equity
side when, if you're just in into
:
01:24:22,529 --> 01:24:25,766
FX carry, that actually doesn't
have a very attractive profile.
:
01:24:25,766 --> 01:24:27,776
It used to have a more attractive profile.
:
01:24:28,076 --> 01:24:30,206
Now the profile isn't attractive at all,
:
01:24:30,446 --> 01:24:32,096
but global Carry is
:
01:24:32,146 --> 01:24:34,031
Chris Schindler: or five years
there where like there was no carry
:
01:24:34,031 --> 01:24:36,581
signal because the central banks
drove all the interest rates down to
:
01:24:36,861 --> 01:24:37,441
Adam Butler: That's right.
:
01:24:37,541 --> 01:24:39,731
Chris Schindler: you know, it's,
I bet you there's fat carry right
:
01:24:39,731 --> 01:24:42,550
now in a lot of places, you know,
especially em versus developed like,
:
01:24:42,550 --> 01:24:43,871
I mean, it's, it's suddenly back.
:
01:24:44,351 --> 01:24:49,311
But, but yeah, that, pillar of
value and carry and momentum is, is
:
01:24:49,316 --> 01:24:50,751
pretty powerful almost everywhere.
:
01:24:51,291 --> 01:24:52,041
Um, you know, AQR
:
01:24:52,101 --> 01:24:54,096
Adam Butler: the magic is
getting it from everywhere.
:
01:24:54,216 --> 01:24:54,576
Right.
:
01:24:54,591 --> 01:24:54,651
Chris Schindler: Yeah.
:
01:24:54,651 --> 01:24:58,278
And, and this is where I think systematic
investing is interesting because like not
:
01:24:58,282 --> 01:24:59,478
to take away from discretionary players.
:
01:24:59,483 --> 01:25:01,941
Like they, they have, like, they,
you know, I think there's a really
:
01:25:01,946 --> 01:25:04,101
interesting marriage between
discretionary and systematic.
:
01:25:04,101 --> 01:25:06,321
And because, you know, at difficult
turning points are when the
:
01:25:06,326 --> 01:25:07,491
world hasn't looked the same.
:
01:25:07,731 --> 01:25:10,101
Discretionary people have a
chance to, to see into the future.
:
01:25:10,101 --> 01:25:12,368
And, if they're good at that, they
can add a ton of value where, where
:
01:25:12,368 --> 01:25:14,618
the systematic players may get
caught in those structural shifts.
:
01:25:15,128 --> 01:25:17,827
But in a world of more stability,
the systematic player and the breadth
:
01:25:17,827 --> 01:25:20,063
that just can't be beaten and,
and, and can really do quite well.
:
01:25:20,063 --> 01:25:23,613
And so those two, like, they, they really
do diversify at, at, at difficult times.
:
01:25:23,856 --> 01:25:28,716
but the expertise in systematic
investing is in the systematic investing.
:
01:25:28,716 --> 01:25:33,186
And so you'll see that like, if you do
carry an FX or fixed income or equities
:
01:25:33,186 --> 01:25:38,823
or vol or credit, it rhymes so much across
those that the expertise is in building
:
01:25:38,823 --> 01:25:42,333
the models as opposed to the asset class
expertise required to go capture it.
:
01:25:42,333 --> 01:25:43,743
And it's the same for almost everything.
:
01:25:43,743 --> 01:25:46,803
I mean, I say if you're building
a systematic model or, or, or
:
01:25:46,803 --> 01:25:50,523
management, you would never
have a commodity carry expert.
:
01:25:50,523 --> 01:25:51,513
It makes no sense.
:
01:25:51,518 --> 01:25:53,763
And, and, and you might, you might
wanna talk to a discussion I call
:
01:25:53,763 --> 01:25:56,223
my commodity trader to make sure
that you got all the pieces right.
:
01:25:56,243 --> 01:25:58,966
but at the end of the day, the,
the, the, the commodity carry model
:
01:25:58,971 --> 01:26:03,136
is going be 99% resonant to the FX
carry and to the fixed income carry.
:
01:26:03,136 --> 01:26:05,566
And, and there's obviously gonna be a
little bit of like asset class specifics
:
01:26:05,566 --> 01:26:06,675
that you have to understand and know.
:
01:26:07,321 --> 01:26:10,768
But the, but once you're past that,
the, the model building piece of
:
01:26:10,768 --> 01:26:14,368
it, and like the signal generation,
the risk calculation, the portfolio
:
01:26:14,368 --> 01:26:18,281
construction, the putting all the
pieces together and like, it should
:
01:26:18,281 --> 01:26:21,971
be, the expertise is in the model
building as opposed to in the asset
:
01:26:21,976 --> 01:26:23,981
classes is, is needed to capture that.
:
01:26:23,981 --> 01:26:26,381
And, and, and there's a little bit of
expertise that the asset class required,
:
01:26:26,381 --> 01:26:28,931
but they, I think, quite a bit less.
:
01:26:28,946 --> 01:26:32,261
And, and so, the systematic
trader can capture all of those.
:
01:26:32,261 --> 01:26:34,601
In fact, I would say a small number of
traders could probably capture all of
:
01:26:34,601 --> 01:26:36,581
those strategies all at once, pretty well.
:
01:26:37,001 --> 01:26:39,492
And, and then you say like a discretionary
investor could probably go in and,
:
01:26:39,497 --> 01:26:42,911
and really clean up on the, around the
edges and, and, and those two could
:
01:26:42,911 --> 01:26:44,231
be, could be quite helpful together.
:
01:26:44,504 --> 01:26:47,894
but the, like, say like how do
you collect all those things?
:
01:26:48,401 --> 01:26:51,001
You know, it's, it's actually
not as difficult as it sounds.
:
01:26:51,001 --> 01:26:53,221
I mean, I think if you started to
build these processes and models
:
01:26:53,221 --> 01:26:56,221
like bit by bit then like the, the
advantage of systematic investing is.
:
01:26:56,488 --> 01:26:59,548
Once you've built a model and built
it well, it just goes off and runs.
:
01:26:59,548 --> 01:27:02,098
It's like an annuity, and you can start to
build the next one and build the next one.
:
01:27:02,098 --> 01:27:04,438
And, you know, you build
five, 10 models a year.
:
01:27:04,438 --> 01:27:06,418
After two or three years,
you've got a really interesting
:
01:27:06,423 --> 01:27:08,038
diversified suite of processes.
:
01:27:08,308 --> 01:27:10,258
And some of these can be built
much quicker because, because
:
01:27:10,258 --> 01:27:13,484
like I said, they rhyme in such
significant and obvious ways.
:
01:27:13,664 --> 01:27:16,334
And, and so, you know, and, and,
and this is not a news story.
:
01:27:16,334 --> 01:27:20,858
I mean, there's, there's been a, you know,
a number of very successful multi-Strat
:
01:27:20,858 --> 01:27:22,748
risk premium collectors over the years.
:
01:27:22,803 --> 01:27:25,478
And, and, like anything, they're
gonna have good years and bad years.
:
01:27:25,523 --> 01:27:27,924
and, and the space gets more or
less crowded as the space gets
:
01:27:27,924 --> 01:27:29,154
crowded, returns get driven down.
:
01:27:29,154 --> 01:27:33,564
But, but I'm a solid believer that
the space will never get so crowded
:
01:27:33,564 --> 01:27:34,644
that it will never make any money.
:
01:27:34,644 --> 01:27:39,441
Because like on one side you've got people
with actual demands who are like always
:
01:27:39,441 --> 01:27:40,671
gonna have the constrained investors.
:
01:27:40,675 --> 01:27:42,321
You're always gonna be
investors who are in the spot.
:
01:27:42,321 --> 01:27:43,791
There's always gonna be a flow of wealth.
:
01:27:44,391 --> 01:27:45,621
They're there and they're naturally there.
:
01:27:45,621 --> 01:27:46,971
You're gonna have the
demands for insurance.
:
01:27:46,971 --> 01:27:50,004
Like, like, you're gonna have the players
creating the risk premiums and if you've
:
01:27:50,004 --> 01:27:52,523
got other players collecting it, when
too many people come in and collect Yeah.
:
01:27:52,738 --> 01:27:54,928
for a while it can get driven
very low or even negative.
:
01:27:55,198 --> 01:27:58,048
And then most players will leave,
or the size will fix or you know,
:
01:27:58,048 --> 01:27:59,788
like, like all that're normalized.
:
01:28:00,061 --> 01:28:03,541
And at the end of the day, because its
natural demand is there, these players
:
01:28:03,541 --> 01:28:08,101
will, there will be an equilibrium
where a correct equilibrium risk
:
01:28:08,101 --> 01:28:12,091
premium collection process will and
can exist on, on average over time.
:
01:28:12,421 --> 01:28:14,958
And the only question is you know,
what is, what is the expected sharp
:
01:28:14,958 --> 01:28:16,218
ratio of that process long term?
:
01:28:16,278 --> 01:28:18,768
You know, it's never gonna, uh, we talked
about this four or five years ago, it's
:
01:28:18,768 --> 01:28:21,738
never gonna be as good as it was in the
early two thousands because it was just
:
01:28:21,738 --> 01:28:24,198
too unknown at that point and there
just weren't enough people doing it.
:
01:28:24,438 --> 01:28:27,048
It's never gonna go to zero
because, because naturally these
:
01:28:27,048 --> 01:28:28,398
players will leave if it does.
:
01:28:28,698 --> 01:28:32,534
And so there's the, what is the sharp
ratio that will keep players interested?
:
01:28:32,729 --> 01:28:33,874
And where does that balance to?
:
01:28:33,874 --> 01:28:36,588
And I, you know, and, and, like
it comes down to the, everyone,
:
01:28:36,618 --> 01:28:37,698
everyone always throws out a numbers.
:
01:28:37,698 --> 01:28:39,521
Like what's, what's the
Sharpe ratio per strategy?
:
01:28:39,521 --> 01:28:42,851
Is it, is it gonna be 0.25
or 0.35, or 0.4 or 0.5?
:
01:28:43,331 --> 01:28:45,234
And what is the Sharpe ratio at
the, at the aggregate process?
:
01:28:45,234 --> 01:28:47,604
Is it gonna be 0.5 or
one or one and a half?
:
01:28:47,604 --> 01:28:48,954
And, and I don't know where that settles.
:
01:28:48,954 --> 01:28:51,864
Like I would probably guess these
things each come in at like a 0.25
:
01:28:51,864 --> 01:28:55,841
and this thing comes in at a one, but
that's a extraordinarily helpful, you
:
01:28:55,841 --> 01:28:58,901
know, and I think people have been so
spoiled by the equities over the last,
:
01:28:58,901 --> 01:29:01,721
you know, 10 or 15 years and go one
Like, I can get that from equities.
:
01:29:01,721 --> 01:29:04,331
And it's like, yeah, the
equities are a 0.5 long term.
:
01:29:04,331 --> 01:29:06,491
and you just have to be careful
with equities because like, they
:
01:29:06,491 --> 01:29:09,041
make, very, very high Sharpe ratios
for a while and they make very
:
01:29:09,041 --> 01:29:10,451
low Sharpe ratios for a while.
:
01:29:10,751 --> 01:29:14,081
if you could find a, like a proper
one that you could put next to the
:
01:29:14,081 --> 01:29:18,321
0.5 of equities in the 0.4 or whatever
of bonds you'd be so happy long term.
:
01:29:18,821 --> 01:29:19,061
Adam Butler: Yeah.
:
01:29:19,351 --> 01:29:21,151
Chris Schindler: but, but it's just
a, it is just one of those things
:
01:29:21,151 --> 01:29:22,981
where, and you have to buy into it.
:
01:29:22,981 --> 01:29:25,651
You have to understand it, and you
have to trust over, over long term
:
01:29:25,651 --> 01:29:28,731
that it will be there, And, and I
find that that's probably the biggest
:
01:29:28,736 --> 01:29:32,991
challenge with systematic investing
is because people don't, intuitively
:
01:29:33,356 --> 01:29:36,556
it doesn't resonate with many people
is intuitively, let's say, like, I buy
:
01:29:36,556 --> 01:29:40,316
cheap companies, I I, something really,
really obvious and simple sounding.
:
01:29:40,316 --> 01:29:42,626
It's like I, I buy things when
they're cheap and, and they're on
:
01:29:42,626 --> 01:29:45,716
their way up, or I buy Exactly.
:
01:29:45,716 --> 01:29:48,026
you know, and you have to, you're
trying to explain a little bit more,
:
01:29:48,026 --> 01:29:51,416
something a little bit more complicated
that when it doesn't go well, people
:
01:29:51,421 --> 01:29:52,796
lose faith in it much quicker.
:
01:29:52,886 --> 01:29:55,496
And, and you can have a value
investor who's just being crushed
:
01:29:55,496 --> 01:29:57,956
for a year, and they'll come back
and say, it's worth even more.
:
01:29:58,016 --> 01:29:58,616
Just trust me.
:
01:29:58,616 --> 01:29:58,856
You know?
:
01:29:58,961 --> 01:29:59,616
Mike Philbrick: It's even better.
:
01:29:59,881 --> 01:30:02,306
Chris Schindler: It's,
it's even better now.
:
01:30:02,311 --> 01:30:02,425
And.
:
01:30:02,716 --> 01:30:06,766
if the S&P falls 20, 30%, people don't
go, it's never gonna make money again.
:
01:30:07,246 --> 01:30:09,256
They say, we should
pile in and buy it here.
:
01:30:09,436 --> 01:30:13,096
but there's a whole bunch of people who,
you know, if this strategy has a bad
:
01:30:13,101 --> 01:30:16,266
run, think, ah, maybe it was never a
thing, or maybe it never will be a thing.
:
01:30:16,266 --> 01:30:17,106
Or maybe it's,
:
01:30:17,766 --> 01:30:17,887
you know,
:
01:30:19,071 --> 01:30:21,591
Mike Philbrick: Well, it, it
comes down to that, that decision.
:
01:30:21,726 --> 01:30:23,946
Chris Schindler: like, like you can
argue that like, like, yeah, the expected
:
01:30:23,946 --> 01:30:28,743
return of the S&P has been driven down
by, until it finds the level at which
:
01:30:28,743 --> 01:30:30,273
it's expected return is positive.
:
01:30:30,359 --> 01:30:33,479
that's what any risk premium is doing
on any given day is like the person
:
01:30:33,479 --> 01:30:37,469
lending to it is trying to, is trying
to find the marginal price where the on
:
01:30:37,469 --> 01:30:41,039
expectation, their, their expected return
is, is proper for the risk they're taking.
:
01:30:41,398 --> 01:30:43,318
Like they, you know, the marginal
price center is trying to determine the
:
01:30:43,318 --> 01:30:47,219
price at which their expected return
meets some required return on risk.
:
01:30:47,519 --> 01:30:49,039
It should be the same for everything.
:
01:30:49,429 --> 01:30:53,364
and so there's no reason, except if
you have too many people trying to
:
01:30:53,364 --> 01:30:55,314
sell at the same time or two people
trying to buy at the same time,
:
01:30:55,314 --> 01:30:58,074
the price will adjust and move and
those players will come in and out.
:
01:30:58,434 --> 01:31:02,184
That should be a natural expectation
of what this process is gonna be and,
:
01:31:02,184 --> 01:31:03,654
and it has a fairly long life to it.
:
01:31:04,114 --> 01:31:04,744
But that's fine.
:
01:31:04,744 --> 01:31:07,174
If your portfolio construction in the long
term, you should be totally fine with it.
:
01:31:07,999 --> 01:31:08,289
Mike Philbrick: yeah.
:
01:31:08,404 --> 01:31:11,494
You, you hit on something that
we, struggle with, or like the
:
01:31:11,494 --> 01:31:16,144
intuition of the strategy and the
ability to stick to the intuition.
:
01:31:16,148 --> 01:31:20,164
So providing the extra underlying
insights is incredibly.
:
01:31:20,548 --> 01:31:23,608
Useful, but sometimes
still falls short when
:
01:31:23,758 --> 01:31:25,558
you know, and, and their
friends aren't doing it right.
:
01:31:25,558 --> 01:31:28,228
So you've got a little bit less
intuition than you'd expect.
:
01:31:28,228 --> 01:31:31,874
You have a little less crowding
from a cohort of, of those who, uh,
:
01:31:31,874 --> 01:31:33,434
you're, maybe benchmarked against.
:
01:31:33,434 --> 01:31:34,693
It leads to some pretty,
:
01:31:35,264 --> 01:31:36,284
pretty significant
:
01:31:36,404 --> 01:31:39,044
Chris Schindler: Well, why aren't
you just buying Nvidia, I think is
:
01:31:39,044 --> 01:31:40,784
the, uh, is to come full circle.
:
01:31:41,729 --> 01:31:47,869
Uh, so, and, and look I think what you
guys have done, with your, what do you
:
01:31:47,869 --> 01:31:51,139
call it, your, like when you're laying in
your alpha and your beta together, your
:
01:31:51,364 --> 01:31:52,744
Mike Philbrick: Oh, return stacking their
:
01:31:52,849 --> 01:31:53,089
Chris Schindler: yeah.
:
01:31:53,089 --> 01:31:57,353
I think like, like everything old is new
again, but like, like a portable alpha.
:
01:31:57,353 --> 01:32:00,483
it makes a ton of sense because
there's an investor out there who goes
:
01:32:00,656 --> 01:32:03,866
I can't face the benchmark loss of
this underperforming the benchmark.
:
01:32:03,866 --> 01:32:05,036
And it's like, that's great.
:
01:32:05,066 --> 01:32:08,066
Here's a process that that gives you
the benchmark return plus this alpha,
:
01:32:08,173 --> 01:32:09,403
it just seems really smart to me.
:
01:32:09,403 --> 01:32:13,063
So I, I, I, think that's a great product
and I, and I hope that it has some uptake.
:
01:32:13,288 --> 01:32:14,068
Mike Philbrick: Nice plug.
:
01:32:14,458 --> 01:32:14,748
Adam Butler: Yeah.
:
01:32:15,327 --> 01:32:15,988
Mike Philbrick: We'll take it.
:
01:32:16,318 --> 01:32:18,508
We'll take now we are, we
are coming up on the end.
:
01:32:18,508 --> 01:32:21,898
And so are there any thoughts that you had
that we haven't covered that you wanted
:
01:32:21,898 --> 01:32:25,907
to put out there for investors to think
about, things that you're contemplating
:
01:32:25,907 --> 01:32:28,577
that are hot on your plate right now
that, uh, that we haven't talked about?
:
01:32:29,278 --> 01:32:31,233
Chris Schindler: I mean I I
think we've covered a lot.
:
01:32:31,238 --> 01:32:33,933
I mean like, obviously I always
have lots of to, to talk about.
:
01:32:33,938 --> 01:32:37,053
But, but, from the topics we've covered,
I think we've covered them pretty well.
:
01:32:37,058 --> 01:32:39,993
And, and I feel like I apologize to people
'cause I know I say the same things that
:
01:32:39,993 --> 01:32:43,053
we've, we've two or three times in, I'm
probably repeating myself quite a lot
:
01:32:43,053 --> 01:32:45,659
now, but yeah, look, I'm happy to do this.
:
01:32:45,659 --> 01:32:46,289
I love doing this.
:
01:32:46,289 --> 01:32:47,099
I love the conversation.
:
01:32:47,099 --> 01:32:48,449
I think you guys ask great questions.
:
01:32:48,449 --> 01:32:49,949
and I'd love to come back and
do it again at some point.
:
01:32:50,489 --> 01:32:50,834
Mike Philbrick: Love it.
:
01:32:51,974 --> 01:32:54,044
Adam Butler: you're, you're a
great guy to bookend the, the
:
01:32:54,049 --> 01:32:55,214
beginning or the end of a season.
:
01:32:55,214 --> 01:32:57,943
I can tell you that there's, whatever
we have you on, they're clamoring
:
01:32:57,943 --> 01:33:01,544
for more, man, so we gotta keep 'em
starved for, for more Schindler.
:
01:33:01,544 --> 01:33:01,844
But,
:
01:33:01,859 --> 01:33:03,389
Chris Schindler: Exactly, exactly.
:
01:33:03,389 --> 01:33:04,409
Save some for the next time.
:
01:33:04,979 --> 01:33:06,419
Okay, listen, thanks a lot guys.