John Bryson:
Hello, and welcome to the Portfolio Intelligence podcast. I'm your host, John Bryson, head of investment consulting at John Hancock Investment Management. As always, the goal of this podcast is to help investment professionals deliver better outcomes for their clients and their practice.

John Bryson:
We've seen a lot of volatility in the markets over the last couple of weeks so I thought now, February 5, would be a great time to invite Michael Scanlon of Manulife Investment Management to the podcast. Michael is the lead portfolio manager of John Hancock Balanced Fund and has been in the investment industry for over 20 years. Michael, welcome to the podcast.

Michael Scanlon:
Hi, John. Thanks for having me. I’m looking forward to our chat.

John Bryson:
Excellent. I mentioned we've seen a lot of volatility, certainly last week and it's faded a little bit this week, but can you talk to us about what's driving that volatility?

Michael Scanlon:
Sure. I think it's a combination of a couple things. One is, it's obviously been well covered in the press, that there's been some increased retail activity in a number of speculative stocks that have moved around pretty aggressively in both directions. Then, in addition to that, we're two-thirds of the way through earning season, and similar to what we've seen in the second and third quarter results of 2020, we're seeing it again here in the Q4 results where the estimates are proving to be way too low and companies are coming in pretty well in excess of what the street expectations are. So just to quantify that for you, reported results this quarter are running about 20% ahead of where the street was coming into the quarter, which is resulting in some stocks getting pops that are reporting good results. And then, if a company does miss or is guiding down, obviously that's the inverse result.

John Bryson:
Understood. Now, we talk a lot about what's going on in capital markets, but on this podcast, we try to bring unique ideas also. You mentioned retail investors are driving some volatility in the markets. What we're seeing out there is some hedge funds are going short on stocks and some retail investors are actually driving against that position. We don't talk a lot about shorting stocks, but can you tell us about what it takes to short a stock, how and why someone would do it?

Michael Scanlon:
Sure. Shorting stocks is something that both individual retail investors can do. Obviously, there's dedicated hedge funds that are shorting. So when you think about the folks that are doing it, it could be everything from a very large institutional investor all the way down to retail investors.

Michael Scanlon:
From a logistical standpoint, how you actually short a stock is, if you're an individual, you log in to whichever broker you're working with. Typically, it's as simple as just switching the drop-down menu from buying a stock to selling it short.

Michael Scanlon:
Now, two things to keep in mind there. Behind the scenes what actually happens is, when you try to establish a short position, the broker that you're working with takes the stock and borrows it, and then ultimately sells it. In addition to that, the return profile of a short's a lot different than a long position in a stock when you have an adverse outcome.

Michael Scanlon:
So if you own a stock, your downside is basically capped at that stock going to zero. If you're short of stock, your maximum potential loss is infinite, because if the stock keeps going up, it gets more and more expensive. So in addition to just executing the trade, what the broker also is going to make individuals do is post what they call margin against that position. Basically, that's just some cash to give a cushion against that position should it go against the investor so that the broker is protected.

John Bryson:
So with that margin position, and the fact that a short position could cost you an infinite amount of money, that kind of builds upon itself. Where the situation could be, if the stock goes in the opposite direction, all of a sudden the person that wanted to short it is now a buyer of that stock to cover their position. That's what we're seeing driving a lot of volatility. Is that correct?

Michael Scanlon:
Yeah. That's what's commonly referred to as a short squeeze. That's the situation where a position starts going against an investor, well, a short seller, and at that point they really have a decision to make. Do they want to buy back the stock and realize the loss and close out their exposure? The alternative is that they could receive what's called a margin call. The broker could go back to that investor and say, "We'll keep your short position on the books, but you need to post more capital against it because your losses are increasing." That's a move by the broker to protect themselves.

John Bryson:
Got it. Now, you're a long-only investor. Do you see a positive role that short sellers play in the market?

Michael Scanlon:
Yeah. Short sellers are always framed as villains, but they do serve a purpose. I mean, if you think back to some of the biggest scandals that we've seen in the last 10 or 20 years, some of them have actually been uncovered by very diligent and good short sellers. You think back to the collapse of Enron, it was Jim Chanos, a noted short seller who's been doing this for a very long time, who uncovered that fraud and ultimately led to the downfall of Enron.

Michael Scanlon:
So you could make a case there that that protected future investors from even bigger losses should Enron continued. In addition to that, there was a very well-known story that was covered all over the press, and even with a full segment on 60 Minutes, a couple of years ago where Lumber Liquidators wasn't being clear to its consumers that it had formaldehyde in its flooring products and ultimately there was a short seller who uncovered that, made it aware to investors and obviously there was changes made there before consumers were actually hurt from having that flooring in their homes and breathing in those fumes.

Michael Scanlon:
So I think it's easy to frame a short seller as a villain because basically what they're doing is they're betting against companies, but if you look at it from the opposite view, they're also protecting investors from potential future losses whether it's accounting schemes, outright fraud, whatever it might be.

John Bryson:
Got it. So they definitely have a role in the marketplace. 

Michael Scanlon:
Yeah. I always think about short sellers as analogous to an enforcer on a hockey team. Most of the time you think about those folks being kind of a waste of a roster spot, but there's also a job. Policing everybody out there on the ice, making sure nobody's doing anything wrong. And so, there is an argument to be made for them.

John Bryson:
Excellent. Now, a lot of people that are learning about short selling now are feeling, "Well, it's okay. It's just giant hedge funds getting hurt." But it's more than that. Who else could get hurt when a short seller gets squeezed?

Michael Scanlon:
When you hear about short sellers getting squeezed, and obviously in the situation that's been in the media in the last couple of weeks, everybody defaults to, it's the hedge fund and it's just some super wealthy person running their own money on that hedge fund. But you really have to take it one step deeper than that, whose assets are the hedge fund actually managing? Big investors in hedge funds are pension plans, whether it's public or private endowments. Those are the asset holders that are giving these hedge funds money to run. So sure, the individual hedge fund or that manager of the fund is going to take a financial hit and very likely to. But in addition to that, there's the pensioners or the recipients of the endowment down the line that are also going to be hurt by negative outcomes.

John Bryson:
Got it. Hopefully, our listeners can learn some of what we're talking about and be able to share it comfortably with their clients. Because that's what we're trying to accomplish her—is to make sure people are comfortable with any topics that their clients are coming to them about.

John Bryson:
Now, I want to pivot a little bit here. We're talking about the frothiness in retail markets where we've seen volatility in certain securities, certain assets like silver, an so on. Some people are calling this a sign of a market bubble. I'm also hearing things in my conversations like the growing popularity of SPACs (special purpose acquisition companies), interest in no or low-earning companies like electronic car companies. There are other signs of a market bubble. What can you tell us about SPACs? Maybe you can educate our audience on SPACs a little bit. And do you agree that these are signs of a market bubble? Where do you stand on that?

Michael Scanlon:
Yeah. SPACs are, even though they become increasingly popular in the last handful of years here, and obviously this year, we're just seeing a flood of them come to market; it's a vehicle that's been around for a long time. Basically what these SPACs do is, they come out and they're actually sometimes called blank check companies. They take these companies public and they don't own a business because they don't have revenues. They don't have expenses; they just raise some money. Typically, sponsored by somebody who's well known. Somebody that works for a venture capital firm, private equity, maybe the former CEO of a very successful company, something like that. They take this company public, they then raise proceeds for the IPO, which they essentially take those and park them in the bank. Then they go out and look for a business to purchase.

Michael Scanlon:
The reason why folks have been pointing to these as being increasingly popular is, the traditional IPO process is time-consuming and expensive. These companies that are IPO-ing have to pay the investment banks to actually get investors on board, structure things, so on and so forth.

Michael Scanlon:
Now, if you have a SPAC that's already public, what the SPACs are doing is, they're basically just buying these companies and then turning their company into that. So they're avoiding the very expensive IPO process for these larger companies, and it's almost like a backdoor way for companies to go public and avoid the aggravation points that are really in the legacy IPO market.

Michael Scanlon:
Now, you also asked me, do I think that this is representative of a bubble or those kinds of things? A watched pot never boils, and nobody rings the bell at the top of these things so it doesn't seem like the issuance of these is, the record levels that we're seeing, that it's getting a little bit frothy—it certainly does. Do we know if all these SPACs are going to be well run or if they're making good investment decisions on the companies that they're buying? We don't know that, and we probably won't for a while. So it's something definitely to be aware of and thinking about going forward, but right now, even as we're conducting this, there were a few more SPACs that came public today. So the train is still rolling here.

John Bryson:
Got it. Now, you've shared with us some great insight around what's driving the volatility. We talked about short selling and the volatility we're seeing recently. You've navigated these types of markets before. What advice would you give our investors to navigate the current volatility and the future volatility that we know is going to happen because it just never goes away?

Michael Scanlon:
Yeah. We hit on a number of the items on which short sellers tend to have a shorter term investment horizon. They tend to want to short a stock where there's going to be some sort of near-term catalyst, which is going to result in a negative reaction for the stock price. You partner that with just the explosion that we've seen in quantitative and short-term trading focused firms. It's almost like that brings us back to an environment where there's this time arbitrage opportunity for taking a longer term deal in stocks. So if the majority of the market is focused on having a one-minute, a one-day, a one-hour or one-week type investment horizon, that introduces a lot of opportunity for folks that have a longer term investment horizon, which is, frankly, that's how my team thinks about investing.

Michael Scanlon:
So with the explosion of very short-term focus money that we've seen in the markets, especially over the last 10-plus years, post the global financial crisis, I do think that good old-fashioned Peter Lynch investing with a multi-year investment horizon is, it seems like it has a lot more skewed in its favor going forward, because there's just a lot less people trying to chase those gains. The more and more people that are trying to chase gains at the same game, obviously the potential alpha generation gets reduced. So if you traffic in a place where there's just less money flowing, that tends to be a place where you could have a better opportunity to put up solid performance numbers.

John Bryson:
Well, Michael, it's been great talking with you. I definitely want to have you back on our podcast. You bring some real unique and interesting insight, so thank you for joining us. To our audience, if you'd like to hear more, please subscribe to the Portfolio Intelligence podcast on iTunes or visit our website, jhinvestments.com, to read our viewpoints from folks like Michael Scanlon and other managers, and to get a bunch of other insight to what's going on in the market. Thanks everybody, for listening to the show.

Hello and welcome to the Portfolio Intelligence podcast. I'm your host, John Bryson, head of investment consulting at John Hancock Investment Management. As always, the goal of this podcast is to help investment professionals deliver better outcomes for their clients and their practice. Today, I'm joined by Thomas Mucha of Wellington Management. Thomas is the geopolitical strategist at Wellington, where he conducts research on the macro and market implications of geopolitical risk, with an emphasis on connecting this insight to actionable investment ideas.

 

John Bryson: 

Thomas has had a successful career in journalism focused on global business, economics, and geopolitics in publications such as Global Post, CNN, Crain's Chicago Business, and Time Inc.'s Business 2.0 magazines. And I'll also say that Thomas was our most popular podcast in 2020. So Thomas, welcome back to the show. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

John, it's a pleasure to be back and thanks for having me. 

 

John Bryson: 

You got it. Hey, listen, a new era dawns. We've got a new Biden administration. I want to talk to you about what we should expect in the first 100 days. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

Sure, John, and there's a lot of focus on this and I think it's the right position for us to be looking at right now. So after these first 100 days, there has been, I think there will continue to be a lot of executive focus and further executive actions and on a variety of issues, climate, immigration returning the U.S. to the Paris accord. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

But for the next 100 days, I'm really expecting an intense focus on COVID and economic stimulus. I think this presidency will be judged on these interlocking issues. So immediately after that, I think we'll see attempts to pass a large infrastructure deal, which they also view as part of sustaining economic recovery, as well as climate; so really a strong domestic focus. And from my perspective, the foreign policy side, John, I think the Biden team will begin enacting a more multilateral approach. Now they're going to try to repair relations with key allies in Europe and in Asia. They're going to resume American participation and hopefully leadership at key global institutions like the WHO, the WTO, NATO, et cetera, et cetera. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

But again, there's a big domestic element to this new direction in U.S. foreign policy. I do expect much more coordination across a variety of U.S. government agencies. So think Defense, State, CIA, Treasury, Commerce with Congress, all of this coordinated by the National Security Council. So I think we're going to see in these first 100 days a return to process, a return to more predictability in terms of how government has worked more traditionally in the past or tried to work in the past. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

Meanwhile, John, at the same time, all of this is going on, over the next 100 days I think we'll see more serious investigations of the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol. I think we'll see more arrests related to that. And of course, the Senate now has a constitutional duty to address impeachment, which I think they'll like to finish quickly. So it will certainly be a busy 100 days, but I think the focus is likely to be on COVID and economic recovery. 

 

John Bryson: 

Excellent. Yeah, certainly a lot of headlines will continue to pop up and keep us interested. So as I mentioned, the first 100 days, we know they're important, but that's not everything. If we go longer term, what do you think some of the areas of focus for the Biden administration will be over the first four years. And how does that fit into some of the longer‐term structural themes that you and I have talked about in previous conversations whether it's climate change or political dysfunction, inequality, or the multipolar world that we've talked about? 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

Yeah, there's a lot on the agenda there. And I do think COVID in the economy will drive much of the agenda for years to come. So this isn't just a 100 days issue, but as we get deeper into the administration, John, I'd expect the policy focus to expand to all the other crises the country is facing: climate or racial and social justice issues. And in particular addressing economic inequality, which, in my conversations with Biden transition officials, really comes across as a key goal and a unifying principle that underlies much of their policy agenda. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

And on the foreign policy side, I think it's going to take time to repair relations with key allies. It's going to take time to rebuild institutional strengths, so that certainly goes beyond a 100 days too. With regard to specific foreign policy goals over the next several years, returning the U.S. to the JCPOA with Iran will be a key aim, but not immediately, due to the COVID focus in the U.S., and also Iran has big presidential elections in June. So there'll be focus on that as well. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

I think North Korea is likely to be an early test and a year's long focus. I think Kim Jong Un will want to return attention to stall nuclear talks elsewhere. Managing relations with Russia, that will be another long‐term challenge starting with an extension of that new START treaty on nuclear weapons and moving on from there. In terms of the longer‐term structural themes that you pointed to, John, I think these three things—the multipolar world, political dysfunction and inequality, climate change—these trends are all accelerating and COVID in particular has had an important impact on them. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

I think it's made the world more divided, it's made economies less equal, and I think it's likely to make a global coordination on climate that much harder. So from my perspective, the key structural takeaway is that both the U.S. and China are emerging from COVID in much weaker positions. Both those governments have suffered huge hits to their reputations due to how both failed to manage the crisis effectively. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

And I think both U.S. and China will struggle to direct global events in their preferred directions. And that speeds us along the path that we were already on, this much more crowded, much more contentious, and much more unpredictable multipolar order. So as a result of all this, I think geopolitics will continue to be a risk factor in multiple regions around the world for years to come really. 

 

John Bryson: 

Excellent. Really, really insightful. Now let's bring it down to market implications. Whether our listeners are Democrats or Republicans, lean right or left, voted for Biden or Trump, it doesn't really matter. What matters is Biden's administration is going to implement some policies that have an impact on the market. Kind of take what you've talked about in the first 100 days in the first four years, and how do you think people should consider that in terms of market and investment implications? 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

Right. John, I think the market and macro impacts from here will be hugely dependent on the direction of the COVID crisis. I mean, that's the key factor to pay attention to here. It's underlying everything here. And we're cautiously optimistic given the vaccine outlook. And we're also expecting fiscal and monetary policies to play a positive role, not only in the U.S., but also in Europe, in China, and elsewhere around the world. So we have a mostly pro‐risk stance over the next 12 months given that, but the risks to this do revolve largely around the public health picture. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

So I think that's the key variable to watch, regardless of your asset class, regardless of your strategies. From my own geopolitical perspective, my investment advice remains the same. I think we should think somatically and think long term. And the keyword here for my investment perspective is adaptation. We've already seen trillions of dollars being reallocated as a result of these big structural changes in the world order, in inequality, and especially in climate adaptation. That's already happening. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

And the policy backdrop, not only in the U.S. but also in Europe and China, I think supports a continuing focus on climate policy and especially investments that help people adapt to these structural changes in temperatures and water access, droughts, and flooding, increased storms, and everything else that the climate science is indicating. So yeah, I think we need to think long term and over the short term, and watch the direction of the COVID crisis. 

 

John Bryson: 

Excellent. I love how you always bring my mind from focusing on the short term to the long term, because that's how we're going to be successful investors, so thank you for doing that. I'll keep asking the short‐term questions and you'll keep pulling me to the long term. 

 

John Bryson: 

All right, so the next thing I want to talk about always with a new administration coming in, there's thoughts around the impact of tax policy, and what should we expect? And again, tie that to the market implications for us. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

Sure. So this is an area, John, I think where the short term matters. It's a key question. I think the tax policy direction here, it's going to be fluid, but I think it's likely to be moderate given the fifty‐fifty split in the Senate. And Biden's genuine goal of working in a more bipartisan manner. I think the president believes what he says. Moreover, I think the current mood on the Hill is largely against significantly higher taxes, particularly given the state of the economy in these times of COVID. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

And I think that means from an investment perspective and from a long‐term inflation perspective, deficit spending continues. And over the short term, I think this means the players to watch on Capitol Hill to gauge policy direction are now different. And in particular, I think there's greater political influence for the moderate Democrats in the Senate, Joe Manchin, Mark Kelly, Mark Warner, Kyrsten Sinema, Jon Tester. This is a new cast of characters; they're all moderate Democrats. And that means in the fifty‐fifty split, they're going to have a lot more say in the direction of policy. And that to me, suggests more moderation and more centrist policies are the likely outcome. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

And so, that tends to put me in the more positive camp on the market implications. But again, we're going to have to watch the political developments very carefully. There's going to be a lot of noise, but really the structural backdrop here of the tight Senate, I think, it's going to limit the Biden administration's ability to do too much in this area. 

 

John Bryson: 

Okay, excellent. Now, so far we've focused the conversation mainly on the U.S. and that's where a lot of the questions I get and my team gets from investment professionals, but it's a big world out there. Let's broaden the conversation. I know that China has been a big focus for you. I know the China‐U.S. relations has been a big focus for our last administration. What should we expect out of the new administration going forward? 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

Well, John, as you say, I think this is the most important thing to watch from a geopolitical perspective. And frankly, I have a more positive view on U.S.‐China relations, at least over the next 12 months. And that's because I expect more predictable management of these longstanding structural challenges in the relationship. I also think both the U.S. and China are incentivized to pull this relationship back from the brink. And I think they're going to look to find areas of mutual agreements starting with COVID climate and eventually on trade. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

But most importantly, I think it's this return to predictability and this return to process will by itself add more stability in the relationship. And I think that reduction in uncertainty is likely to be a market positive, even as U.S.‐China relations remain tense and confrontational. As for what that U.S. policy process on China looks like, as I said before, there's going to be much closer coordination across government agencies. There's going to be a lot closer coordination with allies in Europe and Asia, reflecting that multilateral theme. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

I also anticipate more consultation with U.S. businesses to gauge the supply chain and other impacts of future U.S. policy moves regarding China. So all of this is going to take months. And so, I don't expect any quick reductions in tariffs or other really significant U.S.‐China breakthroughs. Now on the flip side of that, John, there will be important points of friction in the relationship. And the Biden's team's goal of using human rights and democracy as a bigger part of U.S. foreign policy, this coalition of democracies approach that you've heard them talk about, I think that's going to be front and center. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

And so, that means China's weaker policy and Xinjiang, its recent hard line moves in Hong Kong, and especially the democratic future of Taiwan. I think these will all be rough patches to be managed by the Biden foreign policy team and by Beijing. And these things could get worse. So the end result of all of this, I think great power competition remains the dominant policy U.S. position on China really for the foreseeable future. And national security implications will underlie all the policy interactions with China. But again, I do feel more constructive about the next 12 months or so at least. 

 

John Bryson: 

That's excellent that you feel more constructive. You said two interesting things there. You mentioned friction points and national security. If we stay with U.S. and China, technology can be a friction point between the two nations, and the national security implications can be high. Can you dig in deeper for us on that? 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

Sure. I think technology really is the whole game as national security strategies in this great power world are increasingly centered on technology and innovation. Specifically, I would point to semiconductors, which are at the heart of this because they are in every advanced military application that you can think of. But this technology push extends to all sorts of areas, including advanced missiles and missile defense, hypersonic weapons, and other emerging space technologies, aerospace and maritime technologies, advanced communications, including 5G; think about robotics and automation, autonomous vehicles. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

And especially, and we've talked about this before, but artificial intelligence as applied to national security, that's a critical area of focus for both the U.S. and China. And then beyond that, the military and national security applications of quantum computing, which are many as well. So I think technology is an ongoing and long‐term race. It's a race for innovation. It's a race for talent and it's central to this emerging great power competition. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

And from an investment perspective, John, what's so interesting about this is everything I just mentioned is a dual‐use technology, meaning it has both civilian and military applications. So as investors, I think we need to broaden our definition of what constitutes a defense stock. It's not just bullets, bombs, tanks, and planes. And then from the structural side and over the long run, I think we should expect more, not less, supply chain disruptions, more regionalization of supply chains, further decoupling in sectors that are deemed strategic to national economic and especially military power. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

Obviously, that starts with tech, but I think it's likely to expand to pharmaceuticals, to biotech, to medical supplies, to capital markets, to finance, and any other industries that help drive economic and therefore geopolitical influence. So these are big changes in the relationship and I think we should begin to think about what this means from a long‐term investment perspective. 

 

John Bryson: 

Excellent. When I listened to you, I think that I've got to get on your reading list or I've got to get into more of the Wellington Management discussions because you bring so many different points of view and insight to the conversation. I love it. 

 

John Bryson: 

So the last thing I want to do is continue this foreign policy discussion and broaden it a little bit more outside of China. So what additional insight and trends are you paying attention to around the world and what might the market implications be for us? 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

Sure. So obviously, the usual suspects are still out there. I've already mentioned North Korea; I've mentioned Russia. I'm like everyone else in national security: I'm paying attention to Taiwan and the South China Sea, Iran. But the biggest underappreciated risk I think in this great power world is an increase in what's called shadow wars. And these are national security strategies that fall just short of kinetic military conflict. So this includes cyber offensive and defensive strategies. That's at the top of the list. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

But also more reliance on intelligence gathering, more use of economic and financial sanctions, and tools. Continuing interference in the domestic politics of countries through propaganda and other overt and covert means. And I think this shadow wars risk is particularly acute following the recent solar winds hack on U.S. governments and businesses allegedly by Russia, which the Biden administration has vowed to immediately investigate. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

And beyond the geopolitical aspects of this, I think shadow wars has an important investment impact. It's a rising risk for corporations who are now part of this larger, great power battlefield. And I think they can expect further attacks, and that means higher cost for cybersecurity, for data protection. And on the flip side, plenty more investment opportunities for us for cybersecurity and defense technologies, and cyber consultants, and on and on and on. So I think the shadow wars are coming, John, and that's another aspect of the geopolitical competition that has investors we need to spend more attention with. 

 

John Bryson: 

Okay. Excellent. So you shared a lot with us. We covered a lot of different topics. I get a positive vibe from you overall going forward, but sum it up for us, sum it up for our listeners. If you take the conversations about the next 100 days under Biden, and then you bring that conversation globally around investment opportunities. So wrap it up for us. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

Sure. I think there are lots of challenges that remain and there are interlocking challenges. But I do remain cautiously optimistic for a lot of the reasons that we've discussed here; COVID trajectory being the top of that list. But the most important message that I'd leave you with, John, is that great change offers great opportunity. 

 

Thomas Mucha: 

And if you can marry the bottom‐up acumen and the bottom‐up investing skills with these right topdown themes, I think there's plenty of opportunity out there. Not only for the next one year or four years or that, but over the long term. And that's really where I think our focus should be in. I'm optimistic about the future. 

 

John Bryson: 

Excellent. I love how you said it. Great change equals great opportunities. Thomas, always a pleasure talking with you. I always learn something interesting and unique. So thanks so much for being on the call. 

 

John Bryson: 

For our listeners, if you want to hear more, please subscribe to the Portfolio Intelligence podcast on iTunes or visit our website, jhinvestments.com to read our viewpoints on macro trends, portfolio construction techniques, business‐building ideas, and obviously much, much more. Thanks so much for listening to the show.