Goldman's Hit ETF Looks Like the Future of Active Investing

or California to begin with. They have a huge San franc office there. Um. But I met him at black Rock and then he moved to Goldman when they started their et F business, I want to say, like six years ago ish um, and they have been very successful. Um. It's it's interesting. Goldman is just thought of business monster Wall Street company that has a lot of power and influence. But you know, when they came into E t F, it's a meritocracy. It's a terra done for them too,

and so there was nothing given. They had to earn all of it. And you know they've had some successes, some not so successful, um so even for them, uh that they've had to sort of start from scratch and be a nubie in the E t F industry. So we have one of their funds they caught our radar in the past week was GSLC. We've been watching this one since it came out. It's the um Active Beta e t F UM. It's a basically a e t F that has value, quality, momentum, and low ball all

packaged together. Those are the factories. And then it just hit ten billion dollars, which puts it in the top one hundred biggest ETFs. Now it's very rare for anyone outside of Black Rock, Vanguard and State Street to be in the top one hundred, and to do it without doing like a plane beta e t F you know, like a regular index to do something it's a little activish is a real feat and so I figured the ten billion we would, uh, you know, it was a

good excuse to talk to to talk to Goldman. Also joining us is Katie Greifield, who's an et F reporter for Bloomberg News. This time on Trillians. Goldman's e t F Guy Cole, Welcome to Trilliance glad to be here. Thanks so much for having me. Okay, I gotta ask you, Are you the only Goldman employee in California? Did I get it right? Not exactly right. We have a pretty

good presence in in both Los Angeles and San Francisco. Um, there's not a lot of asset management, though, there's a good amount of private wealth investment, banking and some other divisions. So I'm I am one of the lucky ones on the asset management side. And I have to ask, because you're there right now and the whole West Coast seems to be on fire. Um, how are how are you faring with the wildfires? I appreciate you asking. Um, it's scary bride orange skies and um, lots of smoke oake.

And I think the thing I'll say is we're very fortunate to be safe where we are in the in the Bay area. We live in the East Bay, and somewhat fortunate also that at least during this pandemic, we're not expected to be in crossing bridges and all that other good stuff. Right, So working from home is a

benefit as well. But the real thing that I would want to say is just incredibly grateful and thankful for firefighters and all the men and women out there who are working, you know, literally days and nights for weeks in a row to to keep us safe. It's it's yeoman's work that they do. It's incredible and we're all very fortunate to have them, uh working as hard as they are. So I gotta ask about this product that Eric mentioned in the intro g s l C, which has just been on a on a terror for you

guys at Goldman. Can you describe it because it sounds like a smart Beta fund basically, right? Is that? Is that how you describe it? Yeah? I think so. I mean, you know, look, I think the the Goldman brand name within smart Beta is active Beta. Eric alluded to the four factors and are offering value, quality, low volatility, and momentum. So what we do is is we equally wait each of those factors when we rebalance on a quarterly basis. And the reason I think that's important actually goes back

to the naming convention. Right, active Beta it's a little bit of an oxymoron um beta. You get some of the traditional benefits with g SLC and our active Beta suite that you do with pure passive right, tradeability, transparency,

low cost, tax efficiency, benchmark awareness um. But you also get some of the what I would say are are kind of key attributes of active management, which is, you know, leveraging factors and and kind of tried and true methods to try to achieve a little bit of alpha, you know, to try to take a little bit of volatility off

the table. And I think we've been successful not to break our arms, you know, hadding ourselves on the back, but I think we've been successful in raising assets because the products have done exactly what they're supposed to do right, low cost um four years straight of of alpha relative to the index, taking vall off the table. Um investors have taken notice, and we've been the beneficiar area flows

as a result. So cool gotta ask. Looked at the holdings, you guys are cheap, but the holdings basically kind of look like SNP holdings. And I can get SMP five stuff cheaper elsewhere. Why would I invest in g s l C when I can do something like SMP elsewhere. It's it's a good question, and I would I would say two things. One is you can't get it much cheaper elsewhere. Right, G s l C is nine bits.

You can't get too much lower than that. UM. But but I think you bring up a good point, which is, you know, look by design, as I mentioned, it's benchmark aware, right, we look at incorporating the factors that we talked about, but we do so equally, right, So we are in my view, there's three ways that you can construct a

multi factor product. You can do what we'll call factor timing, right, Hey and Q three were overweight momentum and underweight value as an example UM or vice versa or whatever it may be. Number two is you can you know, kind of put what I would call persistent overweights in place, something like the Faum of French model, which is well followed and and a lot of E T f s out there, you know, kind of benchmark to a Faum of French type of model UM where something in the

neighborhood of about seventy percent is in value. As a result, you've got a lot of eggs in one basket. With either of those, you're making bigger bets um relative to the benchmark with G s LC. To your point, Joel, and I think you hit the nail on the head. You're not taking as big of a bet, right, we're making very small tweaks to the market cap weights. Our view is on that, I think, um, look, we like

market cap waiting. We just don't necessarily believe that the size of the company should be only in put into how much of it you own. So while there is like you said, definitely you know, pretty good overlap, call it low active share relative to the benchmark, you'll see a lot of of a lot of the same names,

but different weights in those names. Right, So, where Apple and Microsoft and Amazon are the biggest holdings in the S and P, they are some of our biggest holdings as well, they're just not as significant because of it currently anyways, right, modest underweights based on how they score in those factors, and so you know, and in reverse, when you look at the bottom of the index, the very few, you know, the very smallest weighted names at the bottom of the index, News Corp. And you know

some names like that, Um, they start out at such small weights, but if they score well based on our factor kind of ranking, you're gonna see some pretty good overweights. So again you're gonna see a lot of the same names but with different weights. UM, to how much of those you own. And the idea is we think, you know, look, if companies show the attributes of those factors, we want to have a little bit more of it. Call it a modest overweight. Where companies do not show those attributes.

Of course we're going to have a modest underweight. And so small tweaks to all of the names rather than biby tweaks to some of the names. Is kind of the way I like to think about it. Yeah, and you know you talked about benchmark aware and this e t F. I I'm going to actually go out on a limb here and say this is really the future of active management. UM. I wrote a Bloomberg opinion piece about three years ago. I want to say I called this actually UM where I referred to this e t

F as the T two thousand terminator. Uh, you know, from terminator to the liquid nitrogen one that they send from the future to try to kill the the other terminator. Anyway, long story short, it's very futuristic to me because it is using quant quant uh research. Right, It's got value growth, all this stuff, and it does it all in one shot. It doesn't pick one because I think it visers maybe

don't know which one to pick at what time. But here's the key thing to me, which I think is might be a little cynical, which is you get Goldman's name, but for Vanguard's fees. And I do think if it didn't charge nine bibs and you charge thirty, it would struggle more. I think there's a real priority for cheap and I just want to ask you this is that

I give Goldman and JP Morgan for that. The Wall Street banks have been really good about just going there quickly and ripping the band aid off in terms of having some products that are what we call dirt cheap. Um, what was that like? That decision to go there immediately? Because you see like some of the bigger mutual fund legacy firms coming in, they're all thirty to sixty BIPs. You came in at nine with some pretty secret sauce

kind of stuff here. What was behind that? Yeah, it's a great point, and I think it's a really important one as to also why we've been successful with the asset rays, right, which is let's just take cost off the table. Right. You think this is a scale game. Um, you know, when you think about competitor pure passive offerings the obvious behemoth in US large cap as Spy right, and Spy is also nine BIPs. So basically you're paying the same freight, but you're getting opportunity for a little

more bang for your buck. Again, whether that's alpha less of all, ideally both. And that's been the result for our for our shareholders. And so what I would say is is the logic being it being a scale game.

And I think going back to the logic as to why that's helped us raise assets is couple the low cost with the benchmark awareness, right, that allows advisors to think about it as core and and yes, you can go after more of the portfolio and they have a fear of getting fired I think, or at least getting um feedback from their clients. So why is this underperforming GSLC will never really straight from the index too much because it's got a lot of the index in there

or the SMP rather. That's right, cool. Can you can you rewind the clock and and like put us in the room, did you have the the dryer race pen and go up to the board and we're like nine basis points And who got that through the management committee, because I have to feel like Goldman would be like, we're not selling something for nine pips. You know, it's really I learned this after having joined the firm a

little over five years ago. The mandate within all of g SAM and this is for our mutual funds and our e t s is to be below the average price of the morning Star peer universe. So where I don't necessarily think folks always think, you know, low cost

provider when they hear the words Goldman Sachs. In the case of our asset management business, it really is UM, it really is applicable and and you know, I won't let you maybe all the way behind the curtain as to what the white board looked like in that room, but I think the the discussion ended in a really smart place where we realize that the go to market strategy and the ability to compete with you know, the Big three as you like to refer to America, right,

and I think that spot on. In order to compete we needed to be really thoughtful on price, and and that that feedback has been really obvious from clients and again in the end via their dollars going towards those these products. UM and it's it's proven really successful. Well, I wanted to ask about the inflows. They've been very steady all year. You know, g s LC has taken in cash every month. I think August was particularly strong.

And I know that model portfolios are focus for g SAM, Goldman bought s and p S model portfolio business last year. So rocking it all together, I wanted to ask, you know, how important have model flows been for G s l c S growth and if not model flows, you know, where is that demand coming from. Yeah, it's a great question.

So specific to our models business, you know, we do have some of the kind of G SAM models um incorporating, incorporating G S l C and our other e t s Really candidly, I think we've been really thoughtful there too. Our models are not chopped full of exclusively Goldman offerings, right, so we're thoughtful about where we don't have offerings, right, we have twenty or twenty five e t s. We don't have the you know, the kind of catalog of

e t s that some of the competitors do. And we're really thoughtful about incorporating our peers, right and other issuers into our models where it makes sense. Where it's the right exposure. UM, So i'd start there. In terms of the flows generally this year and and kind of historically into g s LC, we've been really fortunate that it's a very wide swath of you know, call it

investor types. UM. Obviously you know approvals that all of the wire house platforms has been helpful and certainly extremely helpful in the early days. UM. You know, across our I A s and independent broker dealers, we seen tremendous flow and more and more. We're also you know, involved with with institutional clients and bank trust apartments and you know key platforms and so forth, and other models external model providers where we've seen a lot of growth. And

I think success beget success. Assets beget assets, Liquidity begets liquidity, right, and we've been we've leveraged that into being able to have kind of more and more conversations with different client types.

I would kind of focus on institutional, especially there right where you hit kind of key milestones in terms of asset levels and all of a sudden, pension plans be a public or corporate, you know, insurance companies, hedge funds, all kinds of different investors have have taken notice, um and as a result, we are very widely held across a number of you know, client types. UM. You know you talk about fees and costs. Obviously it's a huge

thing in the e t F world. I give you guys credit for actually forcing the cost fee war that kind of broke out in E s G. Um you came out with just it's the Goldman Sacks just large cape equity e t F twenty BIPs. At the time, I think it might have been the cheapest or close to it. This is before Vanguard vanguarded that category. But anyway, UM, I want to also talk about the et F a

little bit. You teamed up with Paul Tutor Jones, the billionaire hedge fund manager, and I actually like this because I do find that there's a disconnect between like what like hardcore E s G people who live in Manhattan think, and like regular Americans, you know, that sort of gap that we have in the country, and just polls America for what they want out of out of companies and then invest that way. And thus it owns a company like Exxon and Amazon which can be screened out of

some of the other systems. Can you talk about this alternative approach to E. S G. Yeah, it's I'm really excited about just UM. You know, the issues we measure UM and how we prioritize them. I think you're really important. So, based on the most comprehensive surveys literally ever conducted, we engage about seventy two people UM since inception, and you know, call it about fifteen to twenty thousand people a year to identify what the most important issues are regarding kind

of just business behavior. Right, So, despite kind of the current narrative of a nation divided UM, we find that Americans across age, gender, partisanship, you know, ideologies, income agree on the steps that corporations need to take UM to act more equitably. And and we asked, you know, we ask in these surveys just capital does and then we leverage that index that they've created. We've asked the American public to to kind of prioritize, you know, what is

that the corporations need to do? What is just business behavior? And you know, the results are we've identify fied the order of importance really kind of seven key issues that I'll touch on really quickly, workers, UM, customers, products, what

kind of products. Are these these companies you know, bringing the market, environment, community, jobs, and then finally kind of management and shareholders and so you know, we take all these inputs and deliver what I think is really unique in the E. S G space, which is a a benchmark neutral, a sector neutral UM exposure to the Russell

one thousand. So basically with just you own five hundred names out of the one thousand names in the Russell one thousand, the idea being the five hundred that you own are all of the above average names based on all those inputs and how they rank, And I think

it's really it's really interesting. Right. So the bottom line, right, to compare to the corporations that are excluded, the companies that are included, Right, So the just five hundred relative to the Russell one thousand, the five hundred that make the cut are they pay thirty three percent more to their media and US worker UM, They're ten times more likely to have conducted gender pay analyzes UM, they employ

thirty eight percent more workers in the US UM. They use less water, they use less fuel, they use less electricity, the emit fewer greenhouse gases. They give more to charity. So the result of all that, you add it all up, and I think it's really compelling. What's interesting is is, on average, you see about a seven percent higher r o E. You see about a seven percent higher return on equity in the names that make the cut into just relative to to the names that kind of don't

make the cut. So to your point, Ericin, I want a case in point, because I think this is really interesting. Right, you talked about how other issuers will will maybe you know, kind of very specifically exclude energy as an example. Well, let's just you know, you mentioned x on. Let's just use Xon and Chevron as a really quick example. If Xon and Chevron are the only two names in the benchmark and we're just going to keep one of them, well, one of them is doing more in terms of you know,

giving back to their community. One of them is doing more in terms of research and development of solar and you know, renewable energy and so forth, and so it's all relative. They get ranked versus each other, and the one that's doing a better job quite simply gets you know, remains in in in the index. And um the result I think is compelling because you get low cost us large cap core exposure to the Russell one. But you also kind of scratch that E s G. H Eric,

you're such an E s G skeptic. Yeah, thank you for not saying hater. I don't hate it. I just find it's active management and you need to know that does does the framework that coal is laid out for just intrigue you. What do you? What do you make of it? Um? I like it better because also companies like Excen could very well be part of the future in in terms of providing some of the clean energy solutions.

I'm generally of the feeling that demand follows supply and that if you change your life as a consumer, that's where all most of your E s G focus should be. The companies will follow you. If you stop demanding gasoline, excens not is gonna start selling, you know, the clean energy stuff. UM. I don't know we should beat up companies for just servicing demand that in a legal way.

That said, Uh, if you are into E s G and you want to invest this way, I like just I think treating workers and employees is probably the most important thing for me too. I think companies can be greedy corporations, and if you're rewarding the ones that are nicer to their employees, especially massive companies that employ like tens of thousands of people. I like that. I think for most of people that might be more important. And say,

climate change, Can I add something in there? I I because I totally agree with with everything you said there, Eric, and I would just say it's intuitive that if if a company is treating its employees and shareholders and you know, customers better, um, you would expect that probably more talent be it kind of coming out of college or transitioning to a different kind of career path or whatever it

may be. It's it's intuitive that somebody would want to go work at a firm like that, So you're gonna probably acquire and and keep better talent um, and as a result, you're probably going to see better performance. So I think that you could almost make the argument that

there's like a just alpha that exists. And I'll button that up by saying, since Inception just has outperformed its benchmark, uh, and you're to date, it's actually been really pretty compelling, So you know, I do think it's it's really an interesting story, so cool. I want to talk about the

opposite of E s G, which is funds, UM. You have a really interesting product in your lineup, g v I P, which is the Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund Industry v I P and E T F, which I think is interesting because it doesn't try to replicate hedge funds strategies per se. Instead, it combs through thirteen F filings and tries to identify the favorite stocks among hedge funds UM. But I wanted to ask, you know, hedge funds on

average haven't really done that well this year. They were up about two percent in the first eight months of twenty that's according to hedge fund research, which is kind of surprising since you know, we've got volatility out the wazoo. You know, you have countries with different outlooks, you know where they are and controlling the virus, and hedge fund managers just haven't shown up. And I do want to make the point that g v I P is actually up eighteen percent year to date. It's eating the SMP

five hundred, which is up less than five percent. But you know, given the hedge fund managers haven't really done this year and a year they should have shines, is that a marketing challenge for a product like this it is a challenge, I think. I think it's a really good question. I think it is a challenge to be really candid. Um, you would think performance that you referenced, right, I mean it's it's not just beating the index. It's three x the SNP year to date or something to

that tune. Um. You know what's interesting is when you get under the hood why that's happening, right. I think

often it goes you know, maybe unnoticed. But with g v i P, we're only giving you exposure to what hedge funds are doing on the long side of their books, right, So we kind of take a look at what are you know, what are the most widely held holdings across a very large universe of hedge funds, and it gives you the offer to and then we give you exposure to you know what, what you get with g v i P is fifty stocks equally weighted at two percent each, where what you hold are the fifty stock that are

most widely held across that hedge fund universe. So you get kind of a you get a you know, not that concentrated kind of position. But importantly you're only looking at the long side, right, And so often. I think what goes unnoticed, as I was getting ready to say, is is hedge funds often make their their money on the long side, right short the short side of the book can sometimes be where they have misss. When when the short side of the book is wrong, that doesn't

negatively affect the long side of the book. Um And g v I P is exclusively tracking the long positions. Um and and you know it's proven with a with an index track record that's now something in the neighborhood twelve or thirteen years and the E t F with four or five years now, um, you know, the performance is spoken for itself. I want to follow up on g v I P while I have you. So, the SEC is considering changing disclosure rules. You might see fewer institutions,

you know, filing each quarter. I'm curious how that would affect g v I P. If you're not if you don't have that data to pull from, how do you construct your holdings? Yeah, it's definitely an interesting question. What what's As we've kind of navigated this potential decision right from from the SEC to remove the mandate of of report of you know, of asset managers and hedge funds

and others having to report their holdings. I think it's still the reporting will still account for over of total assets held in the US UM, but I think less than ten percent of asset holders will have to report anymore. So it's kind of an interesting kind of ninety ten rule there. UM. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out. UM. You know, I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject, but my guess is is

that that that does not end up happening. To be really honest with you, I think the transparency that it offers is a benefit to investors UM and and especially in E t F Land, we know what a benefit transparency is. UM. I have a hard time of believing that that, you know, the SEC and any other powers that we are going to look to actually take transparency off of the table. UM. So I'm hopeful that it

doesn't happen. It's beneficial to US as an industry, and I think it's beneficial to end clients as well to know, you know who owns what. UM And Cole, real quick, I gotta bring this up. Cole was on E t F i Q like a year ago and we talked g V I p and I compared it to Buzz, which is the e t F that scrapes Twitter for stock picks, and Buzz was was sticking it to g v I P and I said, what's a bunch of people on fin twick can beat the hedge funds? Um that question was not in the prep note. So he

still hates me for that. But I want to just follow up here and say that g v I P has caught up. It is now tied with the Twitter e t F and so anyway, just to just to give g v I P. It's do, it's tied with the fin Twick crowd. The the small ish but growing firm based in Canada who managed Buzz actually reached out to me to see if they're as a way we could partner up on some marketing opportunities. So you know, no, no good deed goes unpunished. It was a good conversation.

I appreciated it. I appreciate it as always, Eric, good to keep me on you keep me on my toes. Okay, cool, let's talk about things that you can maybe control a little bit more than what the SEC decides to do. And I want to bring it back to like what what you think is capable of being innovated in the E t F space going forward. You know, we've talked about g s LC a little bit and and sort

of what you guys brought to bear there. We we've had Kathy would on the podcast before and see what she's been able to accomplish with ARC, which is a real innovative way of playing with E t F as a rapper and an active strategy. I'm curious, how do you compete with that and and where else do you think we can can innovate in e t F s going forward. Is it just more themes, more thematic stuff, or or is there a real innovation to be tapped into.

You know, the direction I'd like to go with. The answer to the question is really on fixed in um joel Um. I think that you know, when you look at the world of E t f s, equity e t f s make up about something in the neighborhood of six or seven percent of the total equity market. Um fixed income ets make up less than one percent of the total bond market. So I think there's a lot of room to run. And I think historically also clients, you know, be a certain asset classes or subasset classes.

Think that active managers can do better in certain places, you know, less less efficient marketplaces and so forth. Fixed income has historically been one of those places. Right. I want an active manager for fixed income because you know that manager he or she can can weed out the

bad stuff or whatever it may be. Well, now what we're seeing, and we certainly have some offerings that do this as well across our what we branded our Access Suite with our fixed income ets, but we put some kind of liquidity screens, technical screens, fundamental screens in place. Call it in the end smart beta fixed income. Saying on the innovation theme, I wanted to ask about active non transparent funds or as I know this podcast like to call them ants. UM. I know that Goldman has

filed for an ants funds. I'm curious just in looking across the et F landscape and where there's still innovation to be had. I mean, where do ants factor into that conversation or do you see fixed income as the bigger opportunity here? You know, that's a that's a that's a tough one. I think that there are benefits to UM. There are benefits to different parts of e T F structure, right and and um, you know what gets put into active non transparent, what gets put into traditional kind of

forty act um. You know, I think it remains to be seen about a tremendous amount of success there, right, And and UM, I will just say I think if it's good for the end client, it good, right And and that's kind of the way we think about it. And you know, if we have demand from clients, we want to have solutions for our clients. And and I'll maybe just leave that one there. I think the answer

are going to struggle. I know, coal you've got you can't really say that, but um, active stock picking it's tough. I think the new active is what we discussed. Um it's smart beta like g SLC, it's E s G and it's thematics. These are more rule based, cheaper. They're all active. I mean they're just kind of not active

under another name. But anyway, UM, speaking of non active, which is the beta, Um, you guys came out with really these these Beta Van Guardian type Beta E T S called actually it's like a market beta, so basically we call him the core. These are the things that go in the Courier portfolio they'd compete with i VV or spy. Gesus is one of them, right, so you

look at the performance, it's basically the same thing. I frequently refer to these as the McDowell's E t F remember that coming to America, where it's like basically the SMP five hundred, but like tiny little tweaks, like instead of the Golden Arches, it's the Golden arcs. And so you know, JP Morgan has some. Bank of New York has some, you guys have some. It's smart, I mean,

why not. You've got a built in client base, and if a client an advisor needs just basically like US Equity Beta, you can use yours instead of going to Vanguard black Rock, which I think could be some natural headwind to their Juggernot growth, which arguably could be somewhat good because they're taking in so much, so much of the cash. Is that really the what they're there for is to say, hey, look we've got that for for any of your clients or customers that have portfolios. You

can then plug in Gesus instead of IBV. Yeah. I think that's exactly it. I mean, you know, look, we didn't bring them out to compete with ourselves. But what again, just going back to the theme of client feedback, right, we have UM, we have E SG, We obviously have the very successful g SLC and the other you know

offerings in the active beta suite. That said, we have plenty of clients, UM, you know and and opportunities out there who have said, you know, we're just not interested in active beta or or kind of anything that's not just benchmark hugging. UM. We we you know, we have plenty of folks who have told us that they're not yet ready if you will, or maybe they don't believe in the factors or whatever the case may be. And

so we want to bring solutions to all parties. UM. And and by bringing you know, uh G S US and and you know the others UM, we've we've i think really helped clients UM by offering a solution that they didn't otherwise have, at least not from us, right and so UM, there are plenty of good partners who who want to do business with us and and but they don't want to necessarily make a leap that they're

uncomfortable with. And so again, all driven by client demand, we brought these products to market to UM, you know, to kind of scratch that itch for those clients. UM. And you know, look, I think UM, the Active Beta suite, the G S l C, the G E M for emerging markets, the G S I E for international developed those will continue to be, in my opinion, UM, the bell weathers of our product lineup. UM. But you know,

if clients, it's it's all about options, right. We now have a more robust menu from from which clients can select. Did you expect Eric to transition from coming to America to E t F S Did you see that one coming? I didn't exactly see that one coming. I was gonna dry only give coal. Yeah, I only give coal half of what we're going to ask, because you don't want

to have the whole thing scripted. Okay, cool. I'm gonna ask you a question that I asked a lot on trillions and on a preface it with a caveat, which is you can't pick one of your own? What is your favorite et F ticker? That's a good question, man, I do like one of ours, but I won't I won't go with a uh, you know, against the rules plug. This is silly, but one of my favorite ones has always been move Um the vadak Um Agri business, agriculture. Yeah,

that's a pretty good one ticker. Symbol recognition matters, right, I mean, the the good ticker is really really helpful. Go Findberg. Thanks so much for joining us on Trilliance Out of Ball. Thanks guys, thanks for listening to Trilliance until next time. You can find us on the Bloomberg Terminal, Bloomberg dot com, Apple Podcast, Spotify, and wherever else you'd like to listen. We'd love to hear from you. We're on Twitter, I'm at Joel Webber Show, He's at aerb VAULTUNUS.

You can find Katie at k Greifeld, and you can find Cole at Cole Fineberg and Goldman Sax Goldman Sachs. This episode of Trillions was produced by Magnus Hendrickson. Francesca Levy is the head of Bloomberg Podcast by