Gatekeepers and Keymasters

Joel and you're me. If that's okay. I'm not sure whose shoes I'm wearing. Either way, big shoes to fail, so I will do my best to keep up. You even came a little late, which is normally what I do. And I was here early, which is normally Joel. But Joel has to leave early, so I might just bolting them halfway through. God, don't do that. I'll have to round things out. No, No, this is good. So we have a great episode. I think this is a unique one.

It's wanted I've been wanting to do a while. You don't really see much written about this topic, which was the gatekeepers of the E t F world. What does that mean? So the metaphor I like to use is, let's say you're you make salad dressing and you're trying to get it into Whole Foods. Whole Foods has a gatekeeper. If they accept your salad dressing, you're in the You're in the money, right, your your your whole life changes.

So the E t F industry has something like that. So, um, Rachel, talk a little bit about, you know, why this is important and what the platform can do to an E t F. Yeah, So, I mean this is something we've seen kind of in the E t F industry over the last I say five to ten years. We used to talk about the spaghetti cannon and the idea that you would just kind of fire ideas at the wall and see what sticks. Well, increasingly you need to have,

I don't know, a rotating spaghetti cannon. You need to paper that wall with a kind of Jackson Pollock esque sort of canvas in order to actually get your product to the masses, because having a great idea isn't enough anymore. You need to get that great idea out to the masses. And one way of doing that is to get your e t F onto a platform. So those platforms are often run by class some of the biggest banks out there, what we call the wire houses and kind of the

industry terminology. And once you get onto those platforms, you have access to all of the financial advisors that use their architecture. Now that can be a huge step up for some of the ETF issues out there, because, let's not forget the big three are really dominant here. We're talking of assets. You know, they're getting huge amounts of flows because they are so dominant in this space. So if you are a smaller issuer, you really really need to find a way to get your distribution so that

you can even compete with these guys. Yeah, you frequently hear the smaller issuers at the conferences sort of you know, grape to you or on Twitter. You can't get on the platforms. The platforms. So we have with us today two people who know this world very well and are going to take us inside the platform world Gatekeepers, and we're joined today by Marianna Bush of Wells Fargo. Marianna, welcome,

thank you very much. It's a pleasure being here. We also have John Mayer who is from global X who is an issuer trying to get on the platforms sort of like refer to them as the key masters, but he was also a gatekeeper in his former life at MARL. Welcome John, Thanks Eric, thanks for having me so this week on trillions, gatekeepers and key masters. So welcome guys. I'm very excited to have you guys here. Um, before we start, I just want to get a sense for

the platforms and how much they actually take in. So there's twentytfs right, give or take a dozen. How many would you say are on the platforms out of that? Like, so, what what? What percentage are we talking here? It's probably so it's an exclusive club. It's hard to get into. Marianna, let's start with you. I actually met you over a

decade ago. I was in data. I used to call Marianna the George Martin of Bloomberg, you know, the fifth Beatle, because she would come at us with such great suggestions for the funds data base. Why don't you have this? Morning store has this? And they would turn into great ideas. So I always thought you'd deserve like a little cut from the Bloomberg. But UM. That that aside, talk about what you do it wells fargo and how it involves et F s UM. I've been with the firm for

a while. I started with them in We've gone through a few name changes, but except for the first two years, UH, since then, I've been doing pretty much the same thing, covering close end funds and since the mid nineties covering exchange traded funds. And what does that mean covering them again? You're you're I'm considering you sort of a gatekeeper. You are vetting them so that they get onto a platform and then the advisors that you service can use them.

By covering a fund, whether it's on a close end funder and exchange traded fund, it means doing research on them, trying to understand them very well. In the case of an e t F, UM making sure that we understand the index methodology of the benchmark that the e t F is tracking, UM, understanding the risks, the volatility them, the liquidity UH efficiency metrics of them, doing research DP research on them, and trying to identify which are the e t f s that best fit a specific exposure.

And in the case where UM they are tracking different ets are tracking exactly the same index. What are the differences between them besides the easy factor which is expense ratio? Um so, just covering them and recommending them to UH to the to our advisors and John, when did you first meet Marianna? Was as part of that role or are you kind of doing something to gentile? I actually think it was two decades ago that I met Marianna

when I was the closed and fund research channel. Is that pain Webber, which obviously no longer exists, and then UBS purchased pain Webber, and then I left UBS in two thousand seven went to Merrill Lynch to do the same thing, covering closed down funds. Um so it's in Maryland two thousand seven to two thou seventeen, covering clothes in funds and then cover I wouldn't say covering E t F s. I was managing their et F model

portfolio business WI started. I started doing that in about two thousand nine to interject that model portfolio is what exactly is that and how does that kind of relate to us? So that the coverage aspect of Marianna was talking about, Sure, well, model portfolios is a good way to think of it. As it's kind of a managed portfolio of using the components of something. And the component that what we're talking about now is is e t F s. Now, those e t fs have to be

approved by a particular firm. So there's a different group that actually is kind of the gatekeepers within Mery Lynch and in that group actually has to approve the funds based on some of the things that that Marianna just brought up, assets, exposures, spreads, So in other words, sees the gatekeeper of the platform says, okay, this is good enough to be the platform. And then you were the model maker, so you choose from amongst what's on the platform, and if you're in the model, you get like a

billion dollars instantly. So it's like depends on depends firm. Right, So yeah, if you're a big Meryl, yeah, because we see we actually see when Meryl rotates. You can tell in the flows it's just this giant spike out of nowhere and you okay, Meryl probably rotated in you know, out of this into this. But those ets have to be on the platform first. That's the first step, right,

That's that's correct. And and there's periods of time, or like where I may have thought a certain fund should be in my portfolios, but it was not approved on the platform, so that there would be a process behind the scenes, like I was talking to, I would be talking to the gatekeepers out of the firm. Would you consider using X Y Z fund? Uh? They would say no. I say please, UM, and try to make my case

more than just saying please. So so to to Eric's point, I mean, we can definitely see in the flows, you know, when we see a big rotation by those models. But I'm curious to your point about kind of getting onto the platform first, Marianna, can you speak to sort of the criteria that you're looking at or that the firm is looking at when it's deciding whether this e t F versus this ETF is actually available to financial advisors

to either bio order to put into models. UM. Currently, my team and I are in the Well's Farrego Investment Institute and within that, within the Global Manager Research Division, and so we serve a number of lines of businesses.

The biggest one is Well's farre Go Advisors, the brokerage firm, but also the private bank and family wealth, and so it is possible that there may be a search request from one of those lines of businesses, that there are clients there's demand for a specific exposure or for a specific e t F. Sometimes we may also decide that our master list is missing a certain type of e t F, a certain exposure, and so therefore we will UM look into what's available, UM impair them contrast of

analyze them and figure out which is the most optimal one to to add. Well, let's go over that, because do you start with a list let's just say it's a tech ETF or let's go dividend. I think that's just makes sense. They're divid in d TF. Right, there's them, right, How do you trim that list to come up with what is going to be put on the platform from twos?

Good question? Assets. It's is definitely a factor, and I would say is an important factor because while the factor appears to be very simple and very plain vanilla, I think it does uh keep us from taking certain types of risks, a lot of types of risks. Uh. The more assets there are, the more liquid the e t F is, UH, the cheaper it will probably be uh not only from an expense perspective, but also something that maybe not that many people focus on is from a

udity perspective, bitas spreads um. Closure risk is something else that just looking at assets will help you to identify closure risk, or at least try to stay away from that. You wouldn't want to recommend an e t F that doesn't raise enough assets and then a few weeks later, a few months later, the sponsor decides, Oops, we couldn't raise enough acids, so let's just um close the fund or maybe change the index too, hopefully it will be more successful then. So assets is a very simple, but

I think a very effective. And do you have like a particular bar you're looking at fifty million, a hundred million, a billion, Like if I'm an ECFS, you are how much have I got to raise before I am eligible to be considered. There's nothing written in stone, but I think it is very common um for the minimum to be a hundred million dollars. Certain broader exposures I would say they can easily go to get to a billion dollars.

So it depends. So John, you're a global X, you probably have I don't know a bunch of ets that are blow a hundred million, just a just think you have a bunch of big ones to um take those small ones or new ones? What do you what do you saying to Marianna to get her to add them? Please? UM? So, I think we have seventy three between seventy three and seventy six funds and we have uh twenty five funds

that are a hundred million dollars or more. When we have certainly some new funds, that we should come out with that two million and a half million dollars in seat capital. Now, different firms require different things. Some firms are more quant based and in terms of how they look at uh covering certain funds for the stepping back once one moment. UH, certain firms won't even look at you if you have just one or two funds out there.

They want a significant firm, a firm that has every aspect, whether it be product management and marketing and research and sales and all that kind of stuff. Global X certainly falls into that kind of category. We have about eleven billion dollars in assets UM. But certain firms required at least three months of his trading history, and it doesn't necessarily matter if there are a smaller fund. Other firms require million fifty million or a hundred million. There's certain

exposures that certain funds aren't going to cover. There's some new funds out there that some of the wirehouses are not quite ready to cover yet. We haven't one of those funds. Um Yes Marijuana e TF. You caught X which which went up like ten percent to that. It's one of the tamer tickers, believe it or not, like you you kind of sometimes you guys, when I see you're filing, I'm expecting something wild and you take it down a notch. Actually now, I mean global X is

very thoughtful and how we market our our funds. Um Uh pot x are cannabisy TF is one of our newest funds, and we thought long and before we came out with that fun But but I digress. There's certain other firms that just you're automatically on so usually not the wirehouse, and that's where there you get a huge amount of But are you talking to Marianna constantly? Do you shoot your emails? Like how do you? How do you how often are you talking to her to try

to get her to cover more of your stuff? Global X does. It's not me personally. We talk, We talk we know each other, but maybe somebody else at global ex that will reach out to how many global x cts do you cover? Are? Do you do you have you allowed on out of seventy three I I don't know the answer right now, but not all right and not no, not at all right? Okay, please every second?

Every second? Um, do you ever point out like, let's say an e T F has a nice run, right, it's up a lot, or it's assets just one over a hundred million? Do you fire out emails to the platform? But I'm sure there you know it's in terms of performance. I don't think that's necessarily helpful. I mean, these are index funds um and they go up and down based on the underlying exposures, and I don't think they're necessarily

judged on on that portion. They're they're more judged on fees, assets, liquidity, exposures and the actual firm. But certainly, if a fund gets to scale, there's going to be a group of people within our firm. That's that's calling the Marianna Bushes of the world. I would say on on performance, I would it shows up in a slightly different way for E T s. I would say, Um, if it happens to be it's really an index, not the the e t F, but an index that or an exposure that

is doing really, really well. Chances are there's going to be more demand for that exposure, especially if it's a unique and niche exposure. And that's where we're going to start seeing the demand from the financial advisors or from the client saying you don't offer this, I'm interested in this e t F and this exposure. Can you please look into that? So that's how performance is going to show up. And maybe performance is measured a slightly different

way with e t S, for example tracking error. Um, so it's it's a different way of well attracts the index, right, which is its job in life, right, but the performance Sometimes ETF will just have a shardy object moment and um, nobody can ignore it like pot a year ago or robotics. And you're saying that advisors itself might come up to you and say, hey, starting to get some inquiries about this,

and that's when performance would matter, right. Well, Well, there's certain firms where the interest by the financial advisor is the first point that is required before a firm will actually look at the fund for the due diligence process. So the tell where the dog, and sometimes that tell is really strong for us. It is a factor, it is an input. It's not necessarily I don't think I would say it's the number one factor, um, but certainly if there's demand, we certainly want to serve our clients.

And so there's demand, we want to meet that demand. Uh. Now with demand also it is possible that it is a hot area and it may not become hot it maybe like the parents would be like, look, let's see x IV. You don't trust me on this. But there were times at Meryl where I really wanted to cover include a certain funds within the models that I was managing, and I would have to go to the due diligence department and say this is the reason why I want to include X y Z fund and over time they

usually would kind of work with me. So again, the tail wagon the dog. So when we're looking at kind of what makes it onto the platform, So you've got all of these different inputs. You've got that the assets that that you want to see from a fund. You've got potentially track record and that kind of an amount of time trading. You've got maybe the issuer like how established they are and potentially kind of that demand and

performance kind of aspect. John, when you don't get onto a platform, what does that kind of look like for you guys? I mean, is it a question of well, we've we've got to get on one, so we're going to keep on lobbying, or do you think about other kind of strategies to kind of get distribution. Well, so there are certain firms that on day one that that a E T F trades that you can you can buy UM that particularly TF like SWAB and Pershing and

Commonwealth and Raymond James and RBC to name a few. Um, there's there's there's several others. Then there's other firms where there's three months requirements, so that that's the starting points. Now if there's major interest, obviously the assets will grow that certainly will help get onto some of the other platforms over time. There's certain platforms like Wells which takes about a year before they'll consider, and there's kind of different firms in between. And then in that time we

do a lot of marketing. You know, we have we have sales sales to both internals next ternals that so it's still kind of an end goal. Like even if you're kind of like pursuing other other kind of methods to try and kind of like boost the assets and the other short term there's still long term kind of or medium term like outlook is we want to get on the wirehouse platforms. Is that important? It's very helpful. Um, It's not an absolute You can still be successful without

being on the wires. But if you get to a certain scale, and if you're a firm like globle X, where we have a decent amount of assets, UM, we have a defined process in terms of every functional area, it's likely we will get onto the wires at some point. But then you have the other shops out there with one or two ETFs. They may never get on, but they still can achieve scale. Is it How quickly do you feel the effects of getting on the platform? Um?

Is it very obvious that yep, that fund you know within a year you assets double kind of thing or not necessarily. It really depends on the exposure in the demand and and need a perception of the needed in the market. So it also depends on what's what's out there, and we're you're competing against so we could be the only e t F that the financial technology e t F or autonomous vehicles or um robotics, well there was a bunch of those. If you're number one, meaning the

only fund out there, certainly helpful. And if you're too you have that great ticker and lower expenses, that's certainly helpful as well. But bots was an interesting example. Robot came out first, but bots passed it in assets. Was platforms part of that? I I think platform was certainly part of it. We dedicate a lot of time to research. A research team headed by j Jacob said, you know,

we have four or five people working with him. So and that particular fund is a lot more defined then it's competitor, so that we and if we can articulate that properly, that is helpful to the market. Maybe if you're lucky and something happens in the news, that helps to right. We saw that with hack, you know, back in twelve I think you know when we saw kind of like suddenly a really big interest in sort of security and cybersecurity just after it had launched and suddenly

asked its went skyrocketing. But I just want to circle back to a point that that John made about a sort of you know, et f issuers that may have like two or three funds and may never kind of

get onto a wirehouse. UM, there's been a bit of kind of a sort of conversation or griping depending on on your perspective, from some of those smaller issues, and like the SEC has actually said it will look into kind of whether sort of investors are losing out from smaller issuers finding it tougher in the marketplace to get

their funds distributed and to keep their funds going. Like, Marianna, do you have any kind of sort of sympathy for that perspective you know of of the smaller issu where that's you know, really got a great idea but they just can't get that distribution. Are they right to be angry that the wirehouses won't take them? Well, I can, I can understand, UM. But from our perspective, our clients our highest priority, and then number two our clients, and

then number three are clients. So we're not here in the business to support um other businesses except for our clients. So we have to think if they have a product that makes a lot of sense, and we think there is a need for that. We're absolutely going to be looking at that, um, but we have to think of our clients. Of course, you know, you also have to think about it. And I'm trying to put my hat on when I did work at a wirehouse risk these larger firms are risk is the is the first thing

they think about all the time. And you know, if you really look at and I'm kind of dissing some of my old portfolios and a lot of portfolios out there, they're beta mills in a sense. Um they're looking to track their benchmark maybe you know, with a little bit of tracking, are like a two hund basis points. And that's because it's being directed by the firm, because the firm does want to take a lot of risk. And you can kind of drill that down to almost every

business line and that yeah. They um somebody at a conference of the day and they I think it was because we're talking about the Goldman GSLC, which is this smart beta fund that literally is very much like the SMP. And he was like, it's all about don't rock the boat. That phrase stuck with me, like, just whatever it is,

make sure it's not too doesn't deviate too much. A lot of the newer, smaller indie ones tend to be the more the ones that deviate more, but those tend to pop when they work, they go up much more than the ones that have more beta. But I could see the platforms being again a little more conservative with those.

I would see it a little bit differently because sometimes I see those that they pop, they do well, they start raising assets as long as they're outperforming, but then as soon as they start underperforming, then they start losing assets.

And in fact, I love looking at the UM Shares Outstanding chart on Bloomberg because that strips out the the market and you can truly see is that fund growing, is the number of shares outstanding growing, and then you compare that with performance or out performance underperformance, and then you see that inflection point where it starts to underperform, the shares outstanding starts coming down. So that's a chart that I love seeing on Bloomberg. This is a great

point and we study this a lot. When that when e t F has its the stars aligned and it goes up and people buy it UM, you do tend to see the flows will come back out, but not all of it comes out there are definitely people who forgot they own it, don't care, or just really into the story. Currency HEDGDTF cybersecurity robotics is going through this now. But if you take their assets from today versus where they were when they first launched, they they grew. You know,

they're probably a couple of billion. And once you get in the cauld billion, your trade, um, I don't know, ten millions dollars worth of shares a day, you're kind of up and going. So even though you have that ramp up, even when you come down, you're you're full of life. So it's not like you go out of business after that moment. You tend to hang around and

then maybe you catch the next wave up. But that's definitely the life of a high active share kind of ETF which will either really crush it or really get crushed. But do you like if you have advisors. Like one thing I find is interesting is like take the factor world, Like do you look at factory TF and smart data right, you look at value and growth and stuff. If you take some of the value et f s like there's some that market cap weight, so they tend to be

move a lot more like the market. Then there's some that are hardcore. You know, they're they're holding mall stocks. Right. Do you look at that that active share, that aggressiveness, the concentration of holdings, And do you ever have an advisor who will the pure stuff is better for them? They want hardcore value versus you. You probably need like

something more like closer to the market. Yes, And that's why we for our financial advisors love showing them UH weighting methodology selection methodology G because you're right, it may be just UH selection based on value, but their market cap weighted UH. But then you may have a different uh waiting UH. And so you're going to get different results.

You think you're comparing to e T s that are very very similar, but the reality is that their exposures end up being different and therefore the performance ends up being different. So you have to truly understand uh. And John and I were talking about earlier today about kind of that education, that full understanding of the exposure the

index that you're getting into. Unfortunately, too many people still make the mistake of purely focusing on the expenses UH and nothing else, and they don't realize that you're comparing apples and oranges or apples and Kiwi's UH, and you think, oh, this has a lower expense ratio, I will pick that one when the difference in basis points in expense ratio is very small compared to the difference in performance due to the very difference in exposure, so that that is

very important I think to focus on. I'm curious, like just you mentioned the differences in the index, is like, what do you guys think of these active non transparent products and how the gatekeepers should think about these. I'm going to rebrand these the ants active non transparent because

I think this is going to catch on. But what do you think of these kind of products and whether there's something that should be getting through a kind of the gate keeping process and how you'll think about them, whether it be different to your current evaluation process or kind of the same, but maybe with a few sort

of tweaks to accommodate their differences. We're certainly watching and we're keeping track of what's happening UM at our firm, the Global Manager Research in the worlds FARAG Investment Institute UH. The the coverage is separated between passive and active, and so these actively managed nontransparent ets will be covered under the active working groups. I I expected this question to come up today, So for ants, I I kind of asked around on ants, and yes, I agree with Marianna,

these are gonna be viewed more as mutual funds. But I have a couple of comments just about the active non transparent UM structure. The question is is it needed. Probably not UM. You have mutual funds, you have ETFs, well they do well. Well, it depends, I mean, it depends if certain mutual fund assets are poured it over

into uh this particular structure. That if they can poured over their their track record, because if they can get some sort of scale, scale, you gets scale, and if you start from zero, it's gonna be a lot harder. But I think that this is gonna be a heavy

lift on the side of the industry to get this done. Well. Yeah, I mean, if they're getting if they're being weighed against mutual funds, if they've got the ants and the mutual funds stacked up against each other rather than the kind of traditional E t F s, I mean, how does that change the criteria in terms of like what those products will have to do in order to compete with

the mutual funds, do they automatically look better or not really? UM. We were talking about performance earlier and I mentioned that performance is measured in a different way for for e t s for passively managed cts. UM. I would argue that for these actively managed not transparent, they will be treated more like the actively managed mutual funds. And are they beating the benchmark? Are they are they worthwhile relative to a passive product? So I think they will be

treated differently. One other comment on ants UH say, UM expenses are will likely be lower, but you have to remember many mutual funds and inaggregate they haven't been outperforming their benchmarks, and they probably haven't been outperforming the benchmarks because managers probably haven't been taking enough risk and there's just a lot of smart money fighting smart money. But if you have the dirty base points lowerings senses, that

actually could be a big help. Combined with tax efficiency. UM. Maybe now you have to think about the total cost of ownership, not just the expensure because the biggest spreads are probably gonna be wider than very liquid passively managed TTF, but even beyond that, and even the licensing fees if if you need to pay extra even beyond that, what's in it stockpicking? Nobody wants that right now. That's the

bigger problem. Somebody had said the other day, if you have a bad show and it's on cable and you move it to Netflix, um, it doesn't make the show better. And I think that's the bigger problem. I'm sorry to be cruel. I'm just looking at the data and I talked to people out there and I just embarished unless people like like you said, move money over. But by the way, just people listening if you are interested in this AUNT concept. We had a good episode with Dan

McCabe from Proceeding about three episodes ago. Um, and we threw everything at him, all these objections, and he was pretty good. He had he has a plan. I'm not sure it'll work, but um, we'll know next year. These are going to come out in like in mass starting

in Q one, I think. So. We mean, we've talked about kind of what it takes to sort of get on a platform and kind of like how you guys are thinking about it in terms of which funds make it on and which don't, and then how to kind of go about getting those kind of funds on for issues like a global expert. Others as well, like what a kind of like the top tips of how to kind of get onto a fun platform? Is it just a question of patients and hard lobbying or other some

things that you can do to sort of stand out? Well, I mean it's patience and persistence certainly helps, UH and exposures and making sure that your funds are competitive relative to the peers out there. But if the firm isn't constructed in a way that is positively perceived by a gatekeeper, you can have a really hard time getting on a platform. We don't have a hard time getting on platforms. Do

we have one or two funds here and there? We have more tyfficult time, sure, but inaggregate you know of our seventy three funds. No, we're on all the platforms we need to be on. You used to be on the on the one side, probably getting pitched and lobbied and wind and dined constantly. Then you moved to the issuer side. How is your life changed? Nobody calls me anymore, nobody looks like the weirdest think we can always talk. So you know, do you miss it? Do you miss

the attention? Because I imagine you were swarmed at inside et F s and these conferences by UM issuers. Well, I complained about the attention. When I got the attention, I missed the attention. But here's like a celebrity. Here's a quick little story. So three years ago I went to the Inside ETFs conference in Hollywood, Florida, and we had just we were just about to do a very

large trade, probably the biggest trade of my career. I think it was between five and six billion dollars and a lot of household names like Emerging Markets and UH Developed, Developed Markets International, and a bunch of sector funds UM. Some of our traders at Merrill Lynch had to cancel the trip because this trade was so huge. Remember when I left, there was about fifty billion dollars in the twenty portfolios that I rant. It's probably like eighty million,

eight billion at this point. Anyway, got to the conference, literally I was rushed by issuers, by market makers like was that you guys, Like, what what's going on? Can you tell me? We're about the trade. I'm like, what are you talking about? But I'm not sure we're talking about I mean obviously they knew I knew, and now we walk around in obscurity, Marianna, do you get do you get a lot of attention when you go to the conferences? And is it annoying or you like it?

We do get a good lot of calls, We do get a lot of lunches, um. But I really appreciate that because we learned a lot, and we always want to be listening to stories because we may be missing something and we may learn something. I I'm constantly learning something new. And the more we dig, the more we ask questions, the more I realized, Oh, there's a little, so much more to learn. So we truly appreciate the

patients and the willingness to tell our story. Uh, tell their story, and hopefully they are patient, and hopefully they have a very good story to tell. Uh, and hopefully their fact sheets are chock full of great insight. UM. It is sometimes disappointing when we see a fact sheet and we feel that it's missing kind of some of the key information that should be there. And UH, we'll give them feedback and we'll suggest you know what. I remember several years ago it was an emerging market fund

and they did not even have a country breakdown. And we still see sometimes those kinds of cases. So being on the issuer side and to leverage off. Marianna just said, we have to be on points. We have to really get our story out. And while I was joking that we don't get a lot of phone calls, but we make a lot of outgoing calls and we have to articulate our message very well because we don't get too

many opportun unities to get in front of people. We articulate the message well, hopefully we'll get storytellers research based. So we fight. We fight for every issue. Told me the other day that that's that's called conversation alpha. We just trademarks, did you we trademark conversational alpha. Expect my blog post any day now. It's basically like the idea that an advisor can have a conversation with the client

and that creates value about this theme or story. And that's so that's the pitch from theme ETFs is it'll give you a conversation alpha. No, we actually just trademarked it. Thank you both very much. This is fun. This is a lot of thanks very much for inviting, thank you for listening to trillions um for more. What am I saying I forget what I say. You can find us find the one. You can thank me as well stepping in. I am, I am alright, So thank you very much

for tuning into Trillions this week. Um and I want to thank Rachel Evans for filling in for Joel Clutch something. Yeah, this is amazing never leaving. Uh So we have some handles here for Twitter if you want to follow. Rachel is at Rachel Evans Underscore New York and why oh and why Sorry New York's too. Rachel is at Rachel Evans Underscore n Why Um John is at John D. Mayor. That's m a I e er different than the musician and Marianna, who doesn't do Twitter. Um Is would like

you to follow at WF Investing. Trillions can be found on iTunes or anywhere they have podcasts. Isn't that what he's says? It just sounds so much better. Okay, I feel like I'm just like just not giving it the classiness of needs all right. Trillions is produced by Magnus Hendrickson and Francesco levia Is, the head of Bloomberg Podcasts. Goodbye It was awful. Look, I like the conversation