Evergreen Exchange I'm here with Louis gave of God caresearch. This is the inaugural podcast of the Evergreen exchange and as a willing guinea pig. The first guest is a business partner of ours and known probably to a lot of the Eva readers as a frequent contributor and the CEO of golf Cal. So Louis thanks for being here. My pleasure with the all the exciting people in Seattle. You can get anybody better than me. No, I don't know what that says about us. But I do want to start with a hard-hitting question out of the gate. I get asked this a lot about you. Is it Lily gave or Louis gave or willig of a gave gave ya you're sticking with it? Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely Louis golf. Okay, cause I feel like I've heard you say multiple versions. No, you're sure I'm pretty sure okay. Tell tell the listeners a little about God counting some people who are listening probably know who got Kyle is very well and probably is read your work other people might not know who got Kyle is or what they do. So I started Gaff Cal Twenty years ago now with my father Charles and Anatole kolecki and at the time we started the firm as an independent macro research firm and our main view was that China was going to be a big factor of change for the world and then most people weren't analyzing China correctly. Remember this was 20 years ago and that if we got China, right, that'd be a big piece of getting the macro picture right? So we open an office initially in Hong Kong then then one in Beijing And very much started. Yep, as a macro research firm and signed up a few institutional research clients here and there big Sovereign wealth funds big Asset Management firms, big hedge funds and then goes going in 2005. We started a money management arm again mostly starting with basically. Pure Asian products first an Asian Equity then over time. We also start a China fixed income we also Started a global Equity product. And so today Gaskell is really affirmed that stands on two legs one leg and still about two-thirds of the firm sales is writing independent research that we sell to institutional investors around the world and one third of our sales is managing money for institutional accounts. Mostly on Asia for people that haven't read God Kyle research and they're wondering okay what types of Of insights. Are you providing to your client base? Are you giving them stock ideas or you giving them ideas and regions of the world that they should be investing? So the research is very macro. So we don't go down into stock specific ideas, but we will write a lot about currencies will write a lot about interest rates about changes in the yield curve. And yes, we'll talk a lot about the relative attractiveness of the big region. So the way we organize is we are actually organizing Force. Teams. We have a pretty big China team and I think most people recognize us for the depth of the work. We do in China. We have an Asia X China team. We have the North America team and we have a Europe team. So when we don't pretend to cover the whole world we tend to not be super involved in Latin America and Eastern Europe, but if you take Europe, North America, sorry, but if you take Europe North America Asia and China That's roughly 85% 90% of global GDP and 8590 percent of global market caps so that when that gets you most of what happens in the world and that's and that's great great research and I'm sure that people can go to your website and if they haven't checked it out before it's God Kyle.com. That's correct. Cool talk. It said that the gold is interview. I didn't tell you really any of the She's I was gonna ask you before but I did tell you that the spirit or the theme would be to be to bounce back and forth kind of who he is as a person and then also talking about some of your thoughts and kind of investing over all the financial markets and I think we're going to we're going to cover some some stuff. That's that's interesting from a financial perspective and then about you personally so I thought the first question about you person to be tell tell the listeners about a party game that you play at your house on nights. Where you Have lots of people over and hosted dinner and tell them about the game that you play. Well, it's not as much my choice as the Kids Choice. It's it's the the name game. So everybody has to pretend to be to you pick a name. You can be Abraham Lincoln. You can be Hillary Clinton. You can be Donald Duck. It has to be a name that everybody knows and then you just go around the table and you have to guess who everybody is and on this front. I tend to be eliminated pretty quickly at these games might somehow my kids know within a guess or two who I am and this is in spite of me trying to pick names that you know, if people like that I don't really know. I'll be Kim Kardashian or I try to make it so that but somehow they pay me every time well if you can't pronounce Kim Kardashian that might be why they know it's not you. Yeah, probably who won the last time that you played that game wasn't it your son my seven-year-old. My son came away Victorious. That's right Brady. Tell wait, not only did he win did he win back-to-back of these like let's play a third time ever. It's like we want to go home talk about your obviously invested in God cow that's been raging success since you decided to move the your family there in 1999 and you've now relocated your family to Whistler, but you travel constantly in you're always around. The worlds in client what other types of businesses are you invested in? So I have a decent sized investment in a French Rugby Club called the beauty. Tuna Peak. It's a used to be one of the big names of French rugby. It's one of the oldest clubs. It's based in the heart of the best country, which is in the best country. There's really three things that matter one is the the pollute basket game. They play throwing a ball against the wall. The other is the Catholic Church. And the third is the is rugby. It is literally a religion down there and the club was was going to go bust a couple years ago and friends of mine called me to rescue it. And I thought it was very sad that this club which was a historical club which had been five times French national champion, which had lost a couple finals of the European Cup. I thought it was really sad for it to go under so let me jump in and tight and tell listeners who don't follow Rugby in Europe. It's a little bit. Like if you think about Major League Baseball having AAA and then the majors obviously, what's interesting about from from what you explained to me is that if your rugby team does well as a Triple-A team they can do well enough that they become a major league team again, and then if they do poorly they go back down and from what I understand you're hoping to take them from the AAA level back to the majors. That's exactly right. So the way rugby works both in Britain and in well, sorry in England and in France France is through a relegation/promotion system and that regards it's very similar to what you have and say the English premier league for soccer. So, you know bad teams go down and going down is a disaster because you lose a lot of TV rights. You still get a little bit of TV money. But as soon as you go down you get into Financial Dire Straits and that's what happened to Biarritz. They they went down and did. Just they're spending accordingly and so had had a challenge. So our first challenge when we came in was to basically stop the bleed and you know, restructuring a business anywhere is tough. We structuring a business in France. You almost have to be masochistic to do that. You know, obviously you you have labor laws that are very complicated and so it's been it's been a real eye-opening for me actually because you know, I've spent the past. Past 20 years of my life running a business in Hong Kong and frankly. That's Heaven, you know running a business in Hong Kong you're in a highly capitalist City fairly minimal regulations and I've gone from Heaven to Hell because you know trying to restructure a business in France. Yeah. Like I said, it's been eye-opening and I think the team doing would where would not have it like, this is our first full season. Say with new management new new leadership Etc. Rome wasn't built in a day. We're definitely not going up this year where you know, this is a three to five-year project and in all honesty and hopefully we'll get up we'll get back up before then, but there's a lot of work and you play rugby personally, correct? I do you've not retired yet. I think this is my last season to be honest. He hurts. The pain is starting to get harder in part of it. You know, I played in Hong Kong for a lot of years. And now that I've moved to Canada I've been playing with the Squamish Ax Men and the reality is people in Canada or whole lot bigger than people in Hong Kong. So the hits heard a whole lot more and you should also tell us nerds that you and I are recent fashion Moguls. That's right. So when I moved to Canada, I moved into a part of Canada Whistler, which is frankly an extremely Dynamic town. and it struck my wife and I my wife Kelly and I that there might be a lot to do so Kelly started my wife sort of incubator where we provide local entrepreneurs capital and you know now I wouldn't say expertise but perhaps some of our accumulated knowledge of running different businesses over 20 years and one of the Investments I made and I think you could invested with me as a new fashion business called Adel hard. They're based in Vancouver. It's a e DD e LH Ard. That's right a total hard and there I think an it's an interesting story. It was it's launched by a fellow who used it was the number six employee at Lululemon used to be CEO there and actually played for the same Rugby Club. I played for back in Asia. He also played for For Valley back in Hong Kong when you ran Lululemon up its operation out in Asia and what I find interesting is they make in essence men suits and men's shirts that look just like a suit but are really as comfortable as sweatpants or as comfortable as sweatshirts to wear and in this day and age of sort of you know, increasingly a mix between casual wear and formal wear. We hope it will fill a niche quite that needs quite well and I happen to be wearing a pair of their pants as we speak. Yeah, and and even you can make them look and you and I can make them look good and you still are yet to put on a pair of but you've heard that they're good and I can attest that they that they are good. Let's talk about your background and growing up. Did you always know that I mean that you are going to go into Finance? I think your dad was invest was a investment manager and Europe when did you kind of realize this is going to your direction it took me a while. Actually when when I was a little kid. I actually wanted to be a Catholic priest and after that I wanted to be an army officer. And in fact when I finished College, I did go to military school and became a French army officer and I serve for a couple years and while I had a tremendous time, you know running up and down Hills carrying a gun and Joining every minute of it at that point. I realized I probably couldn't do this for the rest of my life. So you became a priest no now I'd so I spent you know sent out. My resume is ETC got a few interviews with different banks. I was quite lucky in that the head of Paris ball the head stereo the head of human resources at part of all came from the same Battalion at that I came from so I got an interview there got a job there. And that really started my career in finance, but even though my dad indeed, you know done a big career in finance and he'd had his own money management firm that match about 10 billion US Dollars which back in the early 90s was a lot of affirm. It's a lot of money today but back then it was a lot of money and then they'd sold he and his partners that sold that firm to curse her. Sorry that firm that was called cursor. They sold it to a lines Capital even though even though I grew up growing up with a dad that you Was obviously waist-deep in finance when I started work at Paris, but I really felt like I do nothing and I wasn't wrong with the benefit of hindsight. I really did know nothing and I you know, I like a lot of kids I had to learn on the job and so I started in Paris and then probably by actually sent me to Asia in 97 fairly typical for a French bank. They bought an agent broker and the transaction closed on June 97 and it was a Roker that did about half of its business in Thailand the transaction closed on June 1st 97 on July 1st 97 the Thai baht devalued by about 35% And that was the start of the Asian crisis. So important I was to say poor as a really not qualifying it right. It was horrible horrible timing. But as a young guy I was there I was sent over there to do the integration of this broker and it was really eye-opening to see you know business employed at this the peace Which business imploded all across Asia during the Asian crisis was I think it was something pretty good to have early on in your career to see how quickly things can melt down and of course since then I've had other opportunities to see how quickly things can melt down whether you know the tech bust of 2,000 or more recently the 2008 mortgage crisis for and so yeah, that was that that's being sort of my my background and how I got Into this into this racket, it's funny. What you say, I grew up with the dad. That's obviously in finance. And then I went to Boston University and studied finance and I show up and I start working are going to the first research meeting and it sounds like they're speaking Greek right? It's like it was unbelievable how little that I thought I knew how little I really knew versus what I thought I knew going in and and it's a funny transition because or funny segue because I want to talk about Philosophically what's being taught at the university is about financing and specifically two key points and one is around Central Bank policy and one is around security analysis or evaluation value value companies and and the two things I'm going to pick on our monetary policy and evaluation. And the first one is we were taught very very early that the feds job was really to full the I'm talking about the Federal Reserve in the US. the central bank they had two jobs maintain a level of employment that was satisfactory and control inflation it now seems based on all the you know, everything that you read everything that they say that they've expanded the Mandate and they no longer just focus on those two things or if they do they kind of always explain that it will of course, you know, the reason we care about having good economic growth is because that will lead to Full Employment or something to that effect is Is do you agree that this is just it's almost a joke. I think you you said it best about a year ago when you told me, you know, how do you know a central bank policy has failed and the answer is they come out and they say we're going to do it twice as long for twice as much and I think that the challenge today when you look at central banks is that, you know, having gone down the path of extremely low interest You've obviously done two things. The first thing is you've encouraged massive amounts of borrowing and that makes it very hard to walk away from to to walk back from Once you have very high levels of debt. And today we have very high levels of debts at the government level very high levels of debt at the corporate levels record highs on both sides. It makes it very very hard to raise interest rates. We saw it in Japan. Before basically, you know, the zero interest rate policy is the negative interest rate policies. It's Hotel California, you know, you can check out anytime you like you never leave and so, you know, that becomes your first sort of Yeah, albatross around your neck in that you might want to follow a certain policy. But as we saw this year with with Powell, you might be talking a big game. But the reality is as soon as you start raising interest rates a little bit the weight of the debt in the system means that you know, very quickly the economy slows down and slows down more than you probably expected. So do you agree though that do you agree that they're no longer just purely focused on inflation employment. I Are focused on inflation and employment and the reality is when you have a huge stock of debt in the system as we do today, you start raising interest rates a little bit and immediately employment drops and and so does inflation. I think this is the story of this year. Right just you know pile starts talking about hawkish and immediately leading indicators roll over immediately inflation starts. It starts to roll over. So that's that I think is the first reality but but II reality of the monetary policies and if think in Keynesian terms, the whole idea of low interest rates is to encourage people to not save and to consume today, right? I mean, that's the whole point. So in essence the idea is let's consume tomorrow's growth today pull forward demand. Yeah pull forward demand. I think the question we can ask ourselves 10 years in is, you know, one of the quantities I have today is we have a situation where we have by any measure very low interest rates. We have fairly low oil. We are very tight corporate spreads. We have a very stable dollar for me. Those are the four most important prices bond yields spreads dollar oil. None of them are flashing warning secure. All of them are at levels where you would say. Hey loyal low spreads low interest rates stable dollar economic growth globally should be ripping higher today. It should logically it's not it's not everywhere. You care to look you see economic. Roll over for me. The question is is this simply because we've basically, you know, you know the old saying of that Keynes said in the long run world, you know, we're all dead. The question is are we now in the long run? We're basically we've brought forward all of the demand, you know in the past 10 years. We've eaten we'd basically eaten today's growth and we arrived today and there's nothing left in the Box because we you know, whatever growth we're going. I have today. We actually ate it for five years ago. And and that I think at this point is the big challenge for central banks is what do you do now that yield curves are flat or inverted. What do you do now that all across Europe Japan Etc. You have 10 trillion of government debt yielding negative interest rates. And even with that you can't get growth going. This is the situation. We're in Hotel, California. I think that one of the things that readers of yours and probably our newsletter have thought a lot about his if there is another crisis and interest rates are still relatively low and there's not a lot of room for them to cut rates and try to stimulate growth. You kind of falling their old Playbook. Is it possible that they will look to what the bank of Japan did and actually you have us you have a central bank. Let them buy bonds. Let them buy stocks. Is this something that you think that the US would Put on the table in the next Crisis stocks. I don't know I would say corporate bonds most likely I think if you look at you know, probably the big risk today for us markets is is actually in the corporate bond space where you know, you've gone from basically from three trillion to nine trillion of corporate debt in the space of 10 years and a lot of that growth as basically being in one or two Notch above junk bonds. If you start seeing a serious economic slowdown, basically, the junk bond market is going to get overwhelmed. Now while you've had this huge expansion in corporate debt at the same time new regulations have made it so that it's almost impossible for investment Banks to make a market in a lot of these corporate bonds and Warehouse debt, and I know you and I have talked about this before but you know any day where the S&P 500 is down one percent or more you really can't get any offers if you want to sell a corporate bond, and I'm not even talking to a junk bond just even sort of a bond from John Deere or caterpillar or whoever you just can't get a price from a bank because the banks simply do not know longer have the ability to Warehouse risk. So if ever we do have an economic slowdown and you start to see corporate downgrades, which is you know, what usually happens in in economic slowdowns. Whoo. Going to make the market knowing that investment Banks won't I think that's when conceptually the FED could step in and say look there's a market failure here, you know, these people need to sell these bonds but there's no markets. So we need to step in because it's a market failure. Now in a sense the government will have created this market failure through these new regulations Etc. But you know, it'll be a little bit like the 2008 crisis all over again where in essence the market the government helped create the crisis by forcing companies and Banks and the mortgage companies to lend to people who shouldn't have been there too. And then when these things blew up the government said, what are you guys have been doing or and we need to intervene because there's a market failure here. I think we'll see the same thing in corporate in the corporate bond markets eventually. So what will agree to disagree on the one concept of I just think that you look at the fed and I think that to say that their focus on inflation phone Employment without having one eye on the stock market. I just don't believe it. I mean they're their rhetoric in the way that they talk. I think that that has become something that they fact there's no doubt. They have the and you again you saw this year stock market goes down 20% and immediately they change the rhetoric and it's honest. It's understandable. I think on a few things first in the u.s. You're seeing retail sales increasingly correlated to what's happening in the stock market for pretty simple reason. The stock market as a percentage of GDP in the US has never been this high. So the you know the weight the importance of asset prices and consumption is more important than ever and I would say it's only going to get worse from here for a simple reason is the u.s. Is now starting to age. So, you know, logically if you're 35 years old you shouldn't care what the stock market is, you know, you're contributing every month to your 401k and whatever, you know. Actually of the stock market Falls if you're 35 years old, you should be happy but now you should be happy because you're going to be adding more. Yeah, you can buy more cheaper and yep, you're not going to need that money for 30 years. Yeah, if you're 65, if you're 70 and the stock market Falls, it's problematic very quickly because then you have to adjust your consumption exactly and it's the healthier of reflexivity right and and in a society where any America is now getting older so, you know, you're now in a situation in the US where real estate prices. These are no longer rising. And so if stock prices start to fall at the same time as the population ages, I think that's a problem and especially as more and more people have probably with stocks doing what they've done relative to bonds. They it's likely that in a lot of people's portfolios that they've become disproportionately large unless they've been really diligent to rebalance them. And how many people do you know, who do that? Not enough and In fairness in fact most Tell investors go the opposite way far it's a terrible, you know, yes, logically, if you start off with a portfolio, that's a 60% equities 40% bonds and two years later. You're 75 percent equity 25% bonds because equities have been on a rip roaring run. Yes, you're absolutely right. You should be rebalancing but the retail participant more often than others. I do equities are great and I should sell my bonds and doing nothing for me and I should go 85% and our clients. Say what you're taking money out of something that's done. Well, L to put into something that's done less. Well, this doesn't make any sense to me cut cut the weeds in water the plants. So I want to finish one other point around sort of the things that we learn in traditional academics and I just I'm just not sure that they apply anymore, you know, if you were to use, you know, tradition the types of security evaluation methods that you studied at Duke or that I say to Boston University Amazon shouldn't exist. And yet here is the most dominant company maybe in the last hundred years and it shouldn't exist. If you use traditional methods of Finance to kind of value them. How do you explain it? Okay, so, you know going back to the classes you and I both took that led us to believe that we could actually enter financed knowing something really we didn't, you know, we're taught at school that you know to value a stock you look at a stream of discounted you sorry a stream. A future cash flows that you discount by an interest rates. Yep on which you tack on the risk premium. And so that gives you a Value Plus on top of that you have some kind of residual value at the end. So there's four things as investors. We have to guess for things we can possibly get wrong the stream of future cash flows the interest rates on which you discount the risk premium and the residual value now In fairness this Probably the easiest bit of all of this is the interest rates, you know, you can just take the 10 year from the US government boom and you can press that in and say well, you know, that's the best guess of the market today. Why should I second-guess that so you've got that that part is sorted the risk premium, you can look at history and you know, the stream of future cash flows is actually, you know, also well depending on the business depending on this John the business is can be more or less complicated I think. Where the challenge in the markets today is the residual value and let me explain why I think today the perception of the market is we live in an age of accelerative disruption in this technology equal age where businesses are either. It's a complete binary situation where a business will take over the whole world or just go to nothing. I'll give you a simple example. If you look in the market today companies such as BP or shell or Chevron or Exxon or Motors or Ford are basically given away in the street you look at their stream of cash flows you look at their interest rate at the interest rates, you look at the risk premium and think why are these companies so cheap and the answer is the market is putting a zero on the residual value The View being that in five years. Yeah, all companies make a lot of money today minting cash. But who cares in five years time we will need oil wells in 10 years time. We will need all Wells I happen to not be leave that but that's what the market is implying today. Meanwhile, yes, in five years time in 10 years time who will still be driving a Ford pickup will all be driving Tesla pickups. So Tesla is worth seventy billion dollars and Ford is worthless. And so I think what you're seeing in the market today is the market saying that you have companies like Amazon companies like Tesla perhaps companies like we work or Uber or Lyft where yeah sure. They don't make much money or even Lose money, but who cares because their residual value is enormous and yeah companies like Royal Dutch Shell or Ford or John Deere or others make a lot make a lot of money. But who cares because in 5 or 10 years time. These companies will be out of business for me. It's the same frankly kind of mentality that we saw in 98. Mm 99 2000 where everything linked to Tech really went through the roof went to crazy valuations. And everything that wasn't was basically sold down the river the only way you can logically justify that is say look. We're in this age of disruption the residual value of something like General Motors is actually negative because it's it's got these big pension fund liabilities Etc and the residual value of something like Amazon is infinity. I don't believe I happen to believe that but that's what the market is telling us, but I think that a lot of people use analogies to 19 And today with tech companies and you look at Amazon is not a tech company that's going to be gone in the next Crisis. It's not a company that's you know, it's a billion dollar market cap because somebody gave a PowerPoint and and pitched it to you know group of investors. It's a real real company and what I find fascinating is, you know, they from the outset said we will never at we're not interested in earning a profit. It's not something that we care about doing and to And to see somebody basically say and what other world would you give money to somebody who's telling you I make I have no plan and making a profit the henna it's indeed very challenging your ab c-- right Amazon will still be here in 5 years time and in 10 years time Etc. If you look at the 99 analogy, you know, Microsoft was a 500 plus billion market cap in 99. And then it went back down to a hundred fifty billion market cap, and now obviously it's an 800 billion market cap or whatever it is. So you can have a great company and nobody doubts that Microsoft is a great company, but you can be a great company and be overvalued Amazon is a great company to question is yeah. How do you value it? How do you value when it doesn't it doesn't make a profit. Well, I think the reality is you you value it, you know basically as an And if the option is cheap enough, then that's great. You know Amazon at whatever it is 800 billion market cap today. Is that a cheap enough option? You know, I don't know to Google and Facebook as examples, you know, Google Google and Facebook together today capture more than half of the online advertising but Dollar in the world and together they capture almost. Quarter of the global advertising dollar that includes, you know, the guys who pay me to put their logo on the rugby shirts of my club that includes the ads that you see in the New York Times. So a quarter of the global advertising dollar is going to Google and Facebook can it grow much from here, you know, you start reaching problems of size, right? And yeah, these companies are terrific companies. Can they keep growing at 30 40 percent their earnings as they have for the past? Decade Google is obviously trying to do different things to keep that growth going. Facebook isn't Facebook is like we're super concentrated and that's what we do at some point. You reach a market size. And that's that. I totally agreed that you know, you start looking at the overall size and asking how how big can you get right the law of large numbers just catches up with you at some point, but I do think it on this sorry to interrupt you. There's two things that catch up with you. The first is indeed the law of large numbers and with some of these businesses we have to question him. The second thing is we live in a world where governments are very jealous of their power and and you've seen this time and again in country after country and when a company gets too big and you start with Microsoft in 99 2000 governments will go after them simply because governments hate competition. They don't want they don't want somebody who's more powerful than them. So and I think you've obviously you're reaching that point with with a lot of these companies here in the US where the government is trying to look at them. Hey, hold on we're going to break you up or we're going to regulate you and you can say well, you know, these businesses are so profitable they can you know, they can deal with the increased regulation cost. But that was the same story for the bank's before them. That was you know, increased regulation is no great news. Yeah for sure and I think that you're exactly right that that while I advocate often times and I'm always saying I think that the most dynamic the most Resting things are going on within the tech sector. I do think that you especially in large cap Tech that if there is a if there if Microsoft Microsoft or Amazon Microsoft has previously under government, you know regulation if that happened to Amazon. It's going to crush Tech as a whole. It's not just going to be one company that well I think here, you know, you have to look at the different Tech models because you've had different Tech models for the growth but some companies like Facebook have grown a lot. Acquisitions, you know Facebook bought WhatsApp and they bought Instagram and they bought Oculus. What do you think given everything that we you know All the Troubles Facebook has had in the past 12 months or so if they want to turn around and buy somebody else now it's going to get much harder for them. So growing through acquisition, which is when you're very big, you know, one of the things you can do, especially when you share price is fairly high for, you know, if you're trading at 35 times P you buy some of these trading at 20 times p and That's earnings accretive immediately that path to growth is increasingly becoming close to them or it's going to be much much harder. So that's your first challenge your second challenge. I think is it's become pretty obvious that in this whole, you know trade war between the US and China the US has decided to make tech one of the big battle fronts and you know and fundamentally that's I think that's also quite bearish on Tech now take didn't choose to be the Battlefront. The government has decided to make take the Battlefront to make transfers of Technologies to make so let's say you're a company like apple and normally you produce everything in China, but roughly a third of your sales are there and now you're stuck in the middle of a trade war that you don't control that frankly. There's little you can do about and on which you have very limited visibility but becomes very challenging but couldn't you view this as the tray towards if there is a resolution that's that's achieved. I mean for a long time Bill Gates is complaint. Tim Cook is complain that basically trying to just steals General intellectual property and couldn't you make a case that for us tech companies if something better than what is existed for the last 20 years, which is basically nothing could be better. I'm not so sure first, you know. Maintaining intellectual property rights is very challenging. And so you can push China to improve on that front, but it doesn't mean that China will they might say they will I'm sure but you know, how do you enforce it after that? It remains challenging but secondly more importantly, you know Apple, you know, or apple and is a the poster child but a lot of these big tech companies have been the biggest winners of globalization. They've you know who has benefited more from globalization from China's arrival on the scene and apple apple had an apple I struggle to find anybody who's benefited more than ample they get to produce phones. Well, they don't even produce it themselves. They get to Outsource it for peanuts through Foxconn two armies of workers in China, and then they turn around and sell that good those goods at massive markups to the same Chinese. But couldn't you say the same thing that who's benefited more from the tech boom in the US than China like and that's the whole point of free trade, right? You know, if only one side benefits then there's no point in doing it. But while you could easily say that, you know us industry perhaps as you know, being penalized by the emergence of China Etc. I think you'd struggle to say that US tech has been massively penalized by the rise of China its us industry. Yes USD Ecology. No, look. This is a sector that is now as a bigger slice in ESP than it's ever had. It's got higher higher profits than it's ever had. And a lot of these profits are linked to the cheap manufacturing they get to do in Asia. I guess. I just have a hard time believing that it doesn't hurt Apple to have a factory where you produce your phones in China and you pay for those phones to be produced and they make them and they just they do everything that you want and And they take all those ideas and at night and said during the day they make another phone and it looks just like it or but some Samsung did that first, right? So yeah, you could say HTC or walkway or whoever is making apple like phones but frankly, you know some sung was there as well and so it was Alcatel. It's what's it's not that hard so you so, okay. So intellectual property rights, not a big deal I can have you on record for that's not that's not what I'm saying at all. Tall, I'm not saying intellectual property rights. I'm not a big deal, but you're saying that you can't really enforce them with China but yet they exist between the US and Europe the well I'm saying they're very hard to enforce I'm saying for sure. We should put pressure on China to enforce them more and for sure China will say yeah, of course, I'll enforce the more what happens concretely. I'm less certain. Sure. Sure. I agree with that. I think it's going to be hard to get them to change. Let's shift gears for a second and talk about your NCAA bracket. Your listeners are going to judge your ability to predict everything in the future based on this it's not doing so well. It's not doing so well, but I bet your winner still alive. Yeah, my winter still alive. So I've got to do going all the way as a you know, I kind of have to force because they look pretty good. Did you see the game yesterday? I did see the game yesterday but look UCF, you know, the first day had two months ago. I see one guy was like 7 to in another 7-6 7-2. Yeah. 7:6 it's like you know, that's hard to go around. Did you see that video or the picture of the seven six guy and his knee and he's the same height as the other guys is like guards and forwards. So first first there's that secondly, you know coach Dawkins. I think that just done a remarkable job with that program obviously very close to Coach K. So I think that was a very moving moment for Coach K for Coach Dawkins and those UCF kids played it, you know, that was a great catch. Game, they played they played out of there out of their skins and and frankly. So do I think Duke was tested but you know, that's what good teams do as well. They come through when they're tested and maybe you know, when you looked at that last ball that rebounded like all over the room except except going in I start to think maybe you were too it's a team of Destiny. So that part of my bracket is okay the rest. I think I had Kansas in the elite eight. So that didn't work out. Okay and things long as your winner still in it. Alright. Yeah, so you and I have something in common we both work with our fathers what I think I find Charles to be one of the more colorful individuals I've ever met in the investment World talk a little bit about him and what your Dynamic is like between you and him so he's like, I'm very lucky to have a dad like Charles for several reasons first. I think he is a genuinely original thinker he he's a true out-of-the-box thinker he He sees things that most people don't and you know what he comes up with is genuinely always very far from consensus, you know, sometimes ride obviously sometimes wrong, but he he he is a true thinker. Secondly, he's he's always been an extremely generous guy generous with his time and generous with his money generous just all around and You know, I've always thought Charles was sort of a missed you should have been a university teacher University Professor first. He's you know, he's got the sort of Adam Smith absent-mindedness like sort of like it wasn't his wallet. Yeah, actually it well. Yeah little story first time. I think he came to visit you before we even got in business together. First time. He came to Evergreen. Yeah. I think he showed up and said, oh by the way, can I 50 bucks because I lost my wallet want to be for the taxi in money for the taxi and you know that I'd love to say that's been a unique occurrence, but but but it hasn't so he does have that absent-minded Professor thing thing going which can make, you know running a business sometime if your rating is the wrong word, but somewhat frustrating when but you know, the flip side of that is a sort of creativity and a genius that you don't find. Find elsewhere so and he's not a nerd. He was a great tennis player, right? I don't know. He's got a note at all. He was actually a very good athlete he know he was at an extremely extremely good tennis player. He was in the top 50 players in France and to your point about his outside-the-box thinking he first combined the sport of tennis and cigar-smoking. Right? Did he used to smoke a cigar? But at the same time they used to frustrate the hell out of me. So he you know, I was I played a lot of tennis growing up partly because my dad played a lot of tennis and I was never a great player. I could hit the ball around but he would oh, yeah, he would play with me and smoke a cigar the same time and beat me well into well into my early 20s, which used to drive me. Absolutely nuts. Okay getting back to investing one of the things that has sort of ETFs have fueled the Flames if you will that active investing is Dead trying to pick out this stock versus that stock is just stupid. And you should just buy the S&P or by some ETF and never think about it again and frankly, if you've looked at the track record of how active managers have done during the last bull market a lot of and done that well and so there's I think that there's this there's a lot of people that are talking that that basically we're all going to own ETFs and that's going to be the way the world and being an active investor is basically dead. Do you agree absolutely. Laughs kidding? Now like I think first of all, there's three different kinds of ETFs, you have your fixed income ETFs your equities ETF and your commodity ETFs the fixed income of the three the fixed-income ETFs are most likely the dumbest of the three if only because the way fixed income indices are built is in essence the more company or country borrows. The bigger weight is going to be in the index so, you know early on in my career. Argentina went bust in 2001 and I think when it went bust if Ike if I'm quoting from memory, but it was roughly 30% of the Emerging Market Bond index. And the reason for that was that Argentina was of course a massive borrower and the more Argentina borrow the bigger it became as a part of the Benchmark and the higher the interest rate. So it was almost impossible for anybody who was Benchmark to underweight Argentina because the interest rate was high and so No, you basically were taking negative basis risk. And of course when Argentina went bust, you know, you you lost a lot of money. So, you know, if you're a fixed income investor your first job is to say okay how sustainable is that I'm going to get my money back and because it's not that we turn on on on Capital its first and foremost a return of capital and so that's why I think you know for the fixed income part of the portfolios. You really have to do your homework and I don't think there's any going to I'd love to say it's an easy solution go out and buy a bond ETF, but there is no solution that avoids hard work that avoids, you know, like you guys do at Evergreen if you want an income part of your portfolio. You either need to do your the work yourself or you need to Outsource it to somebody to do the work. You can't Outsource it to a benchmark and you can't Outsource it to the broader wisdom of the market because You're gonna end up with is a portfolio dominated by the guys who borrow the most which is not not what you want. So so that's your first part of ETF. So I'd say, you know, when you tell me in the future will do nothing but ETFs if you think in the future, you need an income part to your portfolio, then you still can't do that with ETF. You still need a professional manager or you need to roll up your sleeves and do it yourself. So that's that's option. That's second thing is, you know commodity ETFs And here, you know, I think history has shown that commodity ETFs are just a sucker's game. They work for very short periods of time. But if you want to play a short bounce in a commodity, but more often than not what ends up happening, you know, whether you look at the soft commodity ETFs or the old ETFs, excetera is that the professional Traders just pick the role of the it is because most of these commodity ETFs played through the Futures game. Yes, and everybody knows that yeah. Well if You have the erosion and but everybody all the Traders. No, you know, the only TF is coming in on Wednesday for the for the role and just get their pocket picked. It's just like an easy target. So commodity ETFs also make very little sense and the and then that brings you to the third batch the the equity ETF where you know, conceptually, yes. You're right A lot of these in a bull market have done better than active managers. For a very simple reason first and foremost when you buy an active manager in essence, what you're doing is buying an insurance policy, you're buying an insurance policy against a bear Market what you're doing when you buy an active manager more often than not is just like you buy a fire insurance for your house and you hope not to have to use it the when you buy an active manager you're paying for the protection that that's somebody during a bear Market will say, you know what this doesn't smell right we need to reduce. Risk, we need to do that. We need to do this. When you do that position a portfolio differently to whether to whether the so today. Yes, you know 10 years into a bull market. Everybody says why who needs an active manager not a lot of people were saying that in March 2009 when the S&P 500 was down 45% just like, you know today you might think. Well, you know what? It's been 10 years in my house doesn't burn down. Why should why should what should I buy insurance? Why should I need fire insurance for my house? And you know, maybe you get away with it. Maybe you don't so active investing is not dead. Well, well, I'll go one step further for me passive investing in equities is like saying socialism works better than capitalism because when you passive invest in essence you allocate Capital to Evers biggest charm. So today you allocate Capital the marginal dollar of investment through passive investing will go to Amazon will go to Microsoft Etc. And that was the whole premise that socialism was based on and socialism you give Capital to the big companies. You don't give Capital to whoever marginally is going to allocated the more efficiently. So if we move to a world where more and more money is invested the what's going to end up is invested passively what's going to end up is the average person will get the average return and that average return will be much lower than where what it should have been historically. If you actively manage money and you say okay, where is my marginal dollar going to get the biggest bang for the buck? Some will get it right? Some will get it wrong, but the system will end up with higher active return. So logically, you know with this in mind The Regulators should be pushing back against indexation. They should be pushing back against ETFs. Of course The Regulators are going exactly the opposite way Regulators are pushing everybody to go into index funds Regulators are pushing. All around the world pushing every everybody to just buy the benchmarks because if you're a regulator, that's your job done. Right? It's like, you know, nobody's going to complain about if every private investor just buys The Benchmark sure there's no scandals. There's no madoffs. There's no this there's no that for the regulator and makes the job a whole lot easier. Yeah. So they'd rather do that. Even at a cost of much lower returns for everybody. So The Regulators wouldn't mind killing active investing and making a dead and speaking of making a dead end being Killed, didn't you take me Alpine riding in Whistler and for listeners that don't know what this is loyal explain it and if you're ever up in Whistler, you can look up Alpine riding.com and go do it. It's it's fun if you're not me. So Alpine writing is one of the companies that we've seeded in in Whistler and basically the best way to describe it is to think if you ever gone downhill. Mountain biking, you know, the downhill mountain and Whistler is the mecca of downhill mountain biking, you know that down in a mountain biking can be quite dangerous. The injury rate is actually saying like 10 times the rate of the injury rate of skiing partly because of course when you fall you fall on hard much harder stuff than on snow, but one of the most common injuries in downhill mountain biking is you go o TB which means over the bar so, you know, you have to break violently and you basically Fly over your bike and you either land on your head and can get a concussion or you'll in on your shoulders and can get a broken collarbone either way an unpleasant experience and a crappy way to spend your holiday. So what you saw facing this this constraint in France starting about five six seven years ago, you start to see downhill scooters. So they look just like downhill mountain bikes have got the same suspensions. I've got the same Wheels, but instead of sitting on a seat. You're actually basically standing on a little platform. One this means that your center of gravity is much lower and you basically get a workout on your core and it becomes almost impossible to fall unless you're called Tyler. Hey, so I chord is apparently very weak. Yep. So Tyler our kids and I all went down from the top of Whistler Mountain to the bottom on on these downhill mountain scooters. And as we went down I told Tyler don't worry. Nobody's Fallen yet and it's almost It's almost impossible to fall on these things. And I think tile you wiped out what three times three times and my son wiped out I think for so I clipped him by one there. You're just the whole God family who basically mountain bikes. All summer is like what's wrong with these people that they keep falling off these things. What the hell are they doing? That's right. So and for once I'm glad I didn't take your advice because you said my wife would do great on one. That would have been the end of her marriage. So finally listening to you not listening to you work for once. Yeah, so So sorry about that, but anybody else feel definitely free to comes by Whistler. But so this company Alpine writing is both a producer and a tour operator of these downhill scooters and hopefully they're going to start going to see them across a lot of North American resorts starting this summer cool. It's really really really fun. It is super fun. And you know, you didn't hurt yourself unless you have a weak core. Yeah. Yeah speaking you you talked about socialism and how the indexes are a little bit like socialistic in their structure. But I mean, let's be serious about it for a second income inequality is becoming a real issue. It's certainly becoming an issue here in the US I would imagine that you know in France it's as big of an issue trying to less so but possibly down the road talk about. How did how do we solve this dough? Are we going to go to in the u.s. We're going to go to Some type of guaranteed income. Are we going to are we going to just are we going to go to a tax system? That's incredibly predatory for for really really wealthy. I mean where does to me? This is a big deal because I think that the one thing that makes the u.s. Great and makes capitalism great is that if you have a really good idea and you're really smart person and you decide that you you're going to take this idea and you want to run with it, what's the greatest place to go do it? And I think for a long time people have said the u.s. And my biggest fear is when the answer is a different country besides the US and so I worry a lot about predatory taxing and in this and people using the income inequality debate to political means so it's a huge topic, but I'd love to hear your thoughts. So I think there's just two different issues actually be behind behind that one of them is indeed income inequality. And that way you see today in the u.s. Is Executives at companies that public companies that get paid. You know thousands of time the median salary of their average worker and that's something that's you know, fairly new of the past 20 years or so it that Gap didn't used to be that big. So that's one issue and then the other issue is, you know, that the Divergence not of income but of assets and the device also for the Divergent of assets. So basically what you have today, and I think why the ink the in Come in equality is now such a problem is that because of the zero interest rate policies. What we've done is we've built up the prices of all of our Assets Now going back to our finance lessons stream of future earnings is counted by an interest rates on what you tack on a risk premium and add a residual value. Well today we have governments that tell us we want that companies go bust. So that's your risk premium coming way down and will keep interest rates at zero. So with that the price of assets goes absolutely through the roof and we've seen Equity markets and we've seen it in real estate. So the zero interest rate what the zero interest rates policies have done is really create a massive Distortion in our economies between people who own assets and are therefore very wealthy on paper and people who don't own assets and now see the price of these assets Get Out Of Reach so, you know, you're young guide starting to work in Seattle or starting to work in New York or something to work in Boston and you think don't I'll never be able to buy an apartment on them and be it's just gone too far. I never be able to pull together the deposit to do it. So so that's you the first culprit for this sort of societal problem that we face is the zero interest rate policies the second I think to be honest of the the massive Divergence between the pay of CEOs and the average worker is a very u.s. Problem. You don't find that problem in Britain. You don't find that problem in France. You don't find that problem in most of the countries and here. To be honest, I think it's u.s. Boards not doing their jobs where you have, you know guys who get paid absolute fortunes for doing fairly mediocre jobs. Now, I know that the whole logic is we want to hire the best and you know, those are those other salaries Etc. But the reality is, you know, that Talent bench is actually quite deep I think to and here again, You come back to I think it's also linked to the negative interest rate policy in that when you put interest rates at zero or negative rate and you push up the price of the asset price through the roof. It's easy for any CO2 say, oh look at me. Look at what I did. You know, I've got the share price to go up hundred percent over the next over the past 10 years. I should get paid a lot of money. And so you see this time and time again in the US and to be honest. I'm not quite sure how you get out of it. The you know, maybe it does go through a period of predatory taxing and Etc now and it will be a painful period the beauty about the u.s. System is that it has many ways to self-adjust and many ways to correct itself as Churchill said the great thing about the u.s. Is they'll always come to the right solution having tried all others first, they'll come to the right solution in the end. So, you know when it comes to income Quality, look, I do believe that. It is undeniably a societal problem. That will have a political cost. I would throw a different spin on it. I would say that technology is causing an income inequality problem. And where I'm going with that is you think about what it used to take to build a billion-dollar company right first you'd have to go out and you'd have to buy land hire workers build product. You have to I mean you take a long time. I mean that stuff doesn't happen. You kind of walk before you run and And it took a lot of capital it took a lot of growth it to people and now you have 50 guys in a garage in Silicon Valley the right code and for two years and then they sell to sell Instagram to Facebook for a billion dollars or whatever. They sold it for the ability for these people to make money through ideas. It's capitalism without Capital right it is and you know that's got to be a huge problem because it I think to society feels unfair look at it. What they did. What did they do? How much money did how many workers did they like? There's something weird about the way that that money is being made now. So it's I don't think it's weird. You know, I wrote a book about this back in 2005 called our Brave New World. I updated in 2012 with a book called two different for comfort and I touched a lot on these themes but to your point it used to be that you know, so I went I went through school in France. So, you know in France you get indoctrinated in Marxist Doctrine. If you're if you're a good Marxist, you think look there's three factors of production land labor capital and it's the interaction of these three that you know, basically generate economic growth Etc. But now in this day and age there's a fourth one and that's knowledge and indeed to you know you to to use your example of Instagram knowledge today. Is a new part of the equation which completely turns economics on its head and partly because you know land labor and capital are both constraint, right? There's only so much land that you can use there's only so much Capital that you can use as only so much labor that you can use and that's why you cannot mix was called the Dismal science because it was all about dealing with factors that were yeah. It was just us signs of scarcity but not only is knowledge. Not scarce. It also can Feed upon itself, right? You know, I can be a smart guy. If I'm all by myself doing my own thing, you know, it might not be that great and all of a sudden you put me in front in the middle of those 49 other guys that you talk about in the Silicon Valley and perhaps, you know, all of a sudden the little knowledge. I have gets gets grown much faster. And then you compound that with the fact that the data is aggregated. Remember when we used to think that you got a lot of knowledge if you have the Encyclopedia Britannica and your house, right and now it's like like you got in your pocket you can you have in your pocket and you can spend and you can find people who around the world are specializing in thinking about the same things that you want and you can build upon each other and that's one of the weird one of the one really weird things about the world that we live in today, but it's not only that it goes much further as part of this. So, you know, you've mentioned technology out the other obvious one is globalization where you look at a simple example, you know, if you're truly outstanding in something all Your Market which always used to be local? Yeah is now global very quickly, right? So you take Reynaldo who moved from Cristiano Ronaldo Used to Be a Real Madrid and Juventus salts, you know bought him for crazy amounts of money turns out that basically Juventus made almost the entire transfer fee on the sale of shirts because you know, all of a sudden Reynaldo moves from Real Madrid to Juventus and of course all the Juventus fans by the shirt, but also you have like, you know, however many hundred thousand of people In China India Korea Etc that that by this this guy's shirt and that pays for the transfer fee and it's fascinating to me because you think about if you're the best chef in your village in the 1800's guess what that meant that meant that you had people coming in all the time. If you are the best chef in the 1900s. Guess what that meant. You might have a few restaurants around town. If you're the best you're the best chef in the late 2000s, maybe were Savvy enough to have like, you know Nobu in Hong Kong Nobu in New York, you know you could have Franchise and now you can if you're the best chef in the world, you might never leave your kitchen and you can sit there and hand out cooking lessons and teach and I mean the ways to make money. Yeah it a you you do web classes you do this, then the other imagine put things in perspective, you know with this Ronaldo experience. Imagine if today you were Michael Jordan, I mean Michael Jordan made a lot of money back when he was playing if he was Michael Jordan today he make one more zero sure. Just just with the sale of Michael. Odin shirts in charge sure or though the sale of Michael Jordan shoes in China today if he was playing today, but it's also a little bit. I think it's a little bit weird to in today's world when you think about access to information. Okay. Let me give this analogy if like you set up your phone and you put on all the apps that you like right? You have you follow the people on Instagram that you like you read the what you go to the websites you have logins or you subscribe to the things that you like Right. You read Fox News. If you're a republican you watch MSNBC. If you're if you're a Democrat, whatever does it strike you at all that the world's become allowing people to become more and more focused and not aware of other opinions or other. It's really easy to reinforce. What what you like now, there's there's no doubt. So increasingly you're silent and that's why I think you you have to make and that's the big downside of social media. So you have To make conscious efforts to to come out of your silos to 2. Otherwise it is it is too much. It is much too easy, you know social media is there to feed you know to make you feel good and so it's all too easy to to just you know, stay in your comfort zone. It's and and not grow. It's a little turn our world to go go. Try this go type bullish report on Amazon. Guess what you're going to find a news article go type bearish report. On Amazon, you're going to find a news article. So you wake up that morning and you want something that says that read that confirms your opinion. You'll find it you want something that confirmed you as bearish it's out there sort of a stranger's and and and you're absolutely right. And you know, I think in that comes back to sing often say the role of money managers our role as money managers whether you know us at Gaff Cal you here at Evergreen all role isn't as much to forecast the future. Of course, you know, we need to look ahead and think of the Potential pitfalls Etc. It's not as much to forecast as to adapt. Our role is to adapt and indeed in that respect if you get to siloed if you get too confident and and all you look for is the basically the same background noise that reinforces your own convictions and makes it more challenging to adapt and and so are you know our jobs as money managers is to build portfolios. They can obviously withstand different kinds of environment number one and to adapt these portfolios as the environment changes whether it changes in the way that we thought it would or changes in a different way. Either way. We have to adapt you mentioned a book that you wrote in 2005. You're also running a book. That's out now. Yep, what's it about? So it's written it's cable by it. People can buy it on Amazon on Amazon. It's called Clash of Empires. Not only can people buy it, but people really should buy it. the book is basically about the rise of China obviously as a growing Empire and when I say I'm pyre I don't mean that China is going to go out and invade Pakistan or Indonesia or South Korea or whoever but that the history of every Empire is first and foremost a road building exercise, you know Empires build roads to bring in Commodities cheaper to the to the Heartland and Out finished goods to the outer Realms and when you listen and when you see everything that China has been doing in recent years, you know, the one belt one road program The Silk Road fund the building of canals of Telecom lines Etc. It is very much an imperial roll out now. Obviously, you can't have an Empire on somebody else's dime historically all of Asian trade has been denominated in u.s. Dollars. All of Asia savings were denominated in u.s. Dollars. All of these just working capital was kept in u.s. Dollars, but as Two rolls out this huge infrastructure project. Obviously, the trade is starting to shift from US dollars to Renminbi. The savings are starting to shift from Redmond beat from u.s. Dollar to Renminbi. And so as you start to see the rise of the Renminbi as a trade currency as a reserve currency, I think this has massive macro implications for exchange rates for interest rates for geopolitics for commodity prices for a number of things all of which are review in the book cool. You are He spent a lot of time in China when you look forward, you know, it's fascinating because when you went there, you basically said that that you talked about Apple being a huge beneficiary. China used to be the place that you went. When you're looking for somebody who could produce you're good at the cheapest cost. Absolutely that's for sure the history of the last 20 years. It wasn't as much of the cheapest cause but China offered something very unique. It offered first world infrastructure at Third World prices because you can go today to Bangladesh or Indonesia wherever and get much cheaper price than you could in China, you know, if you're let's say Walmart and you go into Bangladesh and you say hey, I need you to produce 500 thousand white t-shirts for me. You can get them at a cheaper price and Bangladesh, but the reason very often you still use China is you know, you don't know if when you come back in six weeks time if the t-shirts and Bangladesh will be ready or not in China, you know, they'll be ready in Bangladesh. You might have had strikes you might have had power outages you might have had the cotton not coming into the port for whatever. China was unique and is still unique and that it offered first world infrastructure at Third World prices, but are those prices still third world because it isn't anymore. No. No, it's not. It's not it's definitely not as cheap as they used to be and that's why you see you know, I would say the lower value added stuff the things like textiles shoes Etc is increasingly moving to Bangladesh to Bangladesh to Vietnam Etc. So what is China what that's what I was going to go. This is where does the next? X20 what is trying to look like 20 years from now, so that's that's a very important question, you know this China continue to evolve and basically become more of a first-world nation and know when you travel around Beijing and Shanghai it already feels that way or does it get stuck in the sort of middle income trap that a lot of countries like say Brazil or Malaysia have been stuck in I think one one huge. Question mark over China's development path is the fact that China is now getting old and that demographically, you know, the China will now be facing serious headwinds, which will curtail its growth going forward. I am well the one-child policy catch up with them. Oh, it's already catching up. It's so they've already abandoned it. But the problem with China now is the number of women and age bearing in in childbearing. Being aged is already falling. So, you know without women in child bearing age. It's hard to have kids. And so with that, you know, you know China demographically is already in a bad spot and it's going to take a generation before that before if it ever turns around the reality is they've gotten rid of the one child policy, but you've barely seen a pickup in and births for a few reasons first culturally. It's not become accepted that you just have one child, right? Secondly, you know, it's just living spaces what happens in China, you know in the past 30 years the country's evolved from being basically peasants who lived on farms where you wanted to have lots of kids because help out to help out and you throw them out outside and let him sort themselves out to a country that now mostly lives in cities and in cities in sort of 800 square feet Apartments, so and there's no World War just in general people are having less kids. Let's kids, you know if you go Go to New York or two here in Seattle. You know how many people who live inside the city like, you know, true urbanites how many kids they have one, maybe two you don't see a lot of people with four five kids in inside of cities and so as China organizes and partly, you know, it's women work women don't want to have like four or five kids anymore. They want to have one too. So it's a China is there as well just like just like a lot of places. Well Lily, I think that You and I could sit here and talk for a longer than most people could listen, but I do think that hopefully people enjoyed listening to us for the for the first time on our podcast. And if this thing doesn't turn out to be a colossal failure, I would assume that you'd be a return guest and I want to say thank you for for coming doing it. Absolutely. My pleasure. Okay, cool. Thanks. Thank you.
In our pilot episode, Evergreen Gavekal CEO, Tyler Hay, hosts finance phenom Louis Gave to dish on the current economic climate and a variety of personal topics. DISCLOSURE: This material has been prepared or is distributed solely for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation or an offer to buy any security or instrument or to participate in any trading strategy. Tyler Hay, David Hay and Louis Gave have investments in Aedelhard; this is not a recommendation or offering for an investment in this company. Any opinions, recommendations, and assumptions included in this presentation are based upon current market conditions, reflect our judgment as of the date of this presentation, and are subject to change. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. All investments involve risk including the loss of principal. All material presented is compiled from sources believed to be reliable, but accuracy cannot be guaranteed and Evergreen makes no representation as to its accuracy or completeness. Securities highlighted or discussed in this communication are mentioned for illustrative purposes only and are not a recommendation for these securities. Evergreen actively manages client portfolios and securities discussed in this communication may or may not be held in such portfolios at any given time. Louis Gave’s has an equity ownership in Evergreen. Louis’ views and opinions are his own, and are not necessarily the views of Evergreen. 