Lead-Lag Live

Seth Cogswell on Diversification Myths, Active ETF Strategies, and Mid-Cap Investment Opportunities

• Michael A. Gayed, CFA

Share episode

Unlock the secrets to achieving true diversification in your investment portfolio with insights from Seth Cogswell of Running Oak. Ever wondered if your large-cap portfolio is truly diversified, or if it's just another tech-heavy collection? We tackle the illusion of diversification, using SCHG as a critical case study, and reveal how active ETFs can be leveraged to balance exponential growth with sustainable returns. This episode promises to equip you with a strategic, risk-aware approach that navigates the volatile markets of today with confidence and foresight.

Join us as we challenge the misconception that large-cap growth portfolios provide adequate diversification. With 60% of SCHG concentrated in a mere handful of tech giants, there's a whole world of mid-cap investments that are often overlooked. Drawing from Invesco's research, we delve into the potential of mid-caps, which have historically outperformed their larger counterparts. We make the case for active management, an approach that not only distinguishes between various market capitalizations but also steers clear of unprofitable companies, ensuring the preservation and growth of your wealth over the long term.

Finally, we explore the power of quantitative investment strategies. Discover how a rules-based, unemotional approach to investing can provide stability, reduce volatility, and serve as a foundational element of your portfolio. From the promising undervaluation of mid-cap stocks to the impact of emerging technologies like AI, we cover it all. Seth and I dissect the current market dynamics and offer practical strategies for financial advisors seeking an efficient growth style. By balancing growth and value, our conversation offers a roadmap to constructing a portfolio that stands the test of time, acting as a reliable anchor in a sea of market fluctuations.

DISCLAIMER – PLEASE READ: This is a sponsored episode for which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC has been paid a fee. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in the episode or make any representation as to its quality. All statements and expressions provided in this episode are the sole opinion of Running Oak and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC expressly disclaims any responsibility for action taken in connection with the information provided in the discussion. The content in this program is for informational purposes only. You should not construe any information or other material as investment, financial, tax, or other advice. The views expressed by the participants are solely their own. A participant may have taken or recommended any investment position discussed, but may close such position or alter its recommendation at any time without notice. Nothing contained in this program constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments in any jurisdiction. Please consult your own investment or financial advisor for advice related to all investment decisions.

 Sign up to The Lead-Lag Report on Substack and get 30% off the annual subscription today by visiting http://theleadlag.report/leadlaglive.


Support the show

Speaker 1:

Over the last decade, a handful of companies have gone up a whole lot and then many have not. So, using SCHG, which is a Schwab kind of growth beta option with low fees, it's a great portfolio for what you want and for that reason a lot of people have owned it. And if you look at the underlying, if you actually go under the hood, SCHG has 60% of the portfolio invested in just eight big tech companies. Those are all very correlated. So you got 60% invested in a tiny, tiny sliver at the very very top, and then that leaves 40% to be invested from basically the very top all the way down to upper mid and then over into core, and so a lot of people believe that they're getting significant diversification and exposure across large cap when you're not.

Speaker 2:

This should be a good conversation with Mr Seth Codswell. This is a sponsored conversation by his firm, running Oak, and I named this conversation running towards efficient growth Because, in a world where everyone's talking about the government needing efficiency, maybe your portfolio does need some efficiency as well. And with all that said, my name is Michael Guy, a publisher of the lead lag report. Join me here is Seth Cogswell. This is again a sponsored conversation by Running Oak. Seth, we've done the whole tell me about yourself thing, so I want to try something a little different and I want you to tell me right away about run the one thing that I really want people to take away from run is yes, it's an active etf.

Speaker 1:

Yes, uh, we launched it a little over a year and a half ago. Uh, yes, if I'm gonna brag, it's grown from two to almost 300 million a year and a half ago. Yes, if I'm going to brag, it's grown from two to almost 300 million a year and a half, which is pretty good. But the main thing that I feel like many miss and I really want to take away is it's a strategy that we've won for four decades. We have a 12-year audit, almost 12-year audited history, and so, yes, it's a new actively managed ETF, but it's really just a new way to access a strategy that's about as time tested and proven as it gets. It's performed extremely well over the last over a decade and, again, the ETF gives investors a new way to access it where they don't have to worry about a $250,000 minimum. It's much more tax efficient and, you know, it's easy to buy and sell. We now have some 12-year-old clients, so anyone can invest with us. All are welcome.

Speaker 2:

I think we should define the word efficient when it comes to investing. When you say efficient growth, what is it?

Speaker 1:

Our goal in the long run is to exponentially grow our clients' assets. To a certain extent, everybody would probably say that's what they're doing, but I believe that we're much more intentional about it than almost any. Our strategy and our process, our process is very rules-based, so we do the same thing over and over with that intent, and there's really two main ways that we look to maximize that exponential growth in the long run. The first is maximizing earnings growth, because nothing drives price performance like earnings growth. You buy a share of a company, you get a share of its cash flows. Those are going up great. More cash is excellent, and so as that rate of growth is increasing, or if we maximize it, that's going to have an upward pressure on the growth rate for our clients pressure on the growth rate for our clients.

Speaker 1:

However, nothing kills exponential growth like major drawdowns. And so, as important as it is what we kind of put into the machine, it's also maybe it actually might be more important what we don't put in there or what we pull out. And so we're very disciplined on valuations, because the last thing you want to do is own an asset that should go down. That's not a recipe for success. We also pay attention to some very simple risk metrics, such as debt.

Speaker 1:

Companies have taken more debt over the last decade than any time in history, and they did so not to create more valuable companies, but largely just to buy back stock, which has some benefits, but it also adds risk, and that risk means that that exponential growth down the line in the long run is put at risk. It increases the odds of major drawdowns, and so again, we're pulling those risks out. We're trying to feed the best possible companies, growing at the highest rate, while very intentionally avoiding the things that'll derail us or maybe blow off a leg. And so the output is again that higher earnings growth rate, but also smaller, fewer drawdowns, because nothing kills exponential growth like large drawdowns. And that's what's so efficient about it really is that it's efficiently delivering precisely what clients need and want higher exponential growth so that they have more money there, putting their hard-earned money out to work and also ensuring that it's there when they need it and avoiding again those drawdowns how tight is the link between um exponential growth and sustainable growth?

Speaker 2:

right, because you may argue that if something grows too quickly, uh, it's only a matter of time until gravity sets in I'd have to think about that a little bit more.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, I think a perfect example and this will be a topic later in this conversation is the difference between small cap, mid cap, large cap. As a company grows more and more, at some point it gets a little unwieldy. It gets harder and harder to continue to grow at that high rate. So Apple is a perfect example. In order for Apple to double its revenues in the short term, they probably have to come out with a car. It's hard to imagine any other option, whereas many, let's say, mid-cap companies, they have a proven product. That's what's gotten them to mid-cap and they're probably well-run companies, which is why they're at that size. But they're small enough that if they launch another product then their revenues could double pretty quickly.

Speaker 1:

It just yes. There's definitely a law of large numbers where you know it's possible for a company to kind of get ahead of itself. It's possible for a company to kind of get ahead of itself. It's also possible, I guess, maybe to bring growth forward and then you don't get it down the road, which, frankly, we wouldn't mind. While we don't trade much, we own the average company for four years or so. Now, if that's the case, then we're likely to be prompted to take our profits and move on to something else.

Speaker 2:

As you know, the fund space is very saturated, right? Tons of equity products out there and I can easily argue that the vast majority of them are just variations of beta. Right, they're not. They're still basically tracking S&P-like performance. Run clearly is not, and the overlap is not there at all. So you put something together that's distinctive from that perspective. But if somebody's looking at these options of equity funds to choose from, why would they choose run? And then maybe more broadly, why would they choose run here, given what looks like just unrelenting momentum in the S&P and NASDAQ?

Speaker 1:

Well, there's three major reasons to choose run and this will be a longer discussion, but if I'm going to lay out kind of the main takeaways right now.

Speaker 1:

First, there is a large gap in the portfolios of most people that many of us are probably very unaware of. So over the last few years since launching RUN, I've gotten a better view into how portfolios are constructed at the largest of firms and just the general way in which it's done. It leaves a huge hole, precisely where you want to probably be over-invested right now as opposed to under. We'll go into, we can go into more detail on that. The second main takeaway is just simply, in a number of ways, the area in which we invest, which I'd say is upper, mid, lower, large, but let's say mid-cap in general, this is maybe the most timely mid-cap has ever been, for a number of reasons, or certainly since I started first and then the last is we run Running Oak, fill that hole and help clients take advantage of how timely mid-cap is right now in a way that few managers can provide. Yeah, I do think it looks like mid-cap is kind of in a way that few managers can provide.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I do think it looks like mid-cap is kind of in a sweet spot here. Right. Large cap is arguably very crowded. Small caps have a lot of these zombie company dynamics holding back the large averages. Let's talk about mid-caps in terms of the cycle that we're in or going towards, and when we look at the mid-cap uterus, how diverse is it Meaning? You know, are we talking about thousands upon thousands of names? Are they all largely sort of the same in terms of growth trajectory? Let's talk about some of the commonalities for our stocks.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, I think it's important to recognize that it's a diverse industry right to recognize that it's a diverse industry right and not just from, let's say, the cutoff of small to large, but also from growth to value. So they're all over the spectrum and I think, going back to sort of that hole that many clients have in their portfolio, when many larger firms help clients build portfolios, they usually begin with large cap growth for an obvious reason that's usually one of the bigger drivers of returns, especially over the last decade. If you're not all in on large cap growth over the last decade, you're not real happy at the moment. Large cap growth over the last decade you're not real happy at the moment. The problem is firms invest in these large cap growth or core-ish portfolios thinking that they're getting significant diversification, cross-large from growth to core, and the problem is that's just not true and that's largely because over the last decade a handful of companies have gone up a whole lot and then many have not. So, using SCHG, which is a Schwab kind of growth beta option with low fees, it's a great portfolio for what you want and for that reason a lot of people have owned it. People have own it and if you look at the underlying, if you actually go under the hood, scag has 60% of the portfolio invested in just eight big tech companies. Those are all very correlated. So you've got 60% invested in a tiny, tiny sliver at the very very top and then that leaves 40% to be invested from basically the very top all the way down to upper mid and then over into core. And so a lot of people believe that they're getting significant diversification and exposure across large cap when you're not Taking that one step further.

Speaker 1:

Firms then often maybe in an effort to simplify things compliment that with SMID. Smid, by design or kind of by definition, walks the line between small and mid and it kind of checks the box as far as diversifying away from that large cap exposure. But it's going to be concentrated around that line between small and mid because that's their area of focus and that leaves that upper mid cap space completely either underinvested or completely uninvested. And so you get this gap from lower large but maybe even just below the top eight companies all the way down down to, say, the middle of mid-gap where investors have little to none investment, and there's a lot of reasons why this is exactly where you want to be invested right now. This is not a place to be underinvested or not invested at all. This is the place to be all in.

Speaker 1:

I mentioned a second ago and we were just talking about kind of how timely mid-cap is right now. Invesco recently published a piece that showed that mid-caps over the last 33 years had outperformed large by 54 basis points, which is crazy because large has decimated everything over the last 10 to 15 years. So for mid to have still outperformed by 54 basis points over the last 33 years is very remarkable. Taking that one step further, we had a client recently share some metadata research that provided CAPE ratios for small, mid and large.

Speaker 1:

Large, as expected, is very overvalued. Now, according to Ned Davis, the current CAPE ratio of large cap is 100%. There's twice that of its long-term mean. Small cap, shockingly, is a little bit overvalued, and then mid is actually under. So you know, michael, you and I've been doing this long enough and I guess probably many people watching this. How often do you ever see the asset class that is outperformed over the long run be the cheapest? That never happens, and that's the case right now, where you can actually get precisely what you want most, what is outperformed most, the cheapest it's crazy.

Speaker 2:

I think that's compelling, but then somebody listening is going to say, okay, well, makes sense. Then why not just go passive as opposed to active?

Speaker 1:

Well, I think that I don't know. I think that you want somebody behind the wheel and actually thinking about what you're investing in. It's you know you don't have to go that the lines between small and mid, mid and then mid-large are made up lines right, they're just somebody. Just I mean, a lot of the platforms don't even agree on the lines, so they're pretty much meaningless. If you go a ways down the spectrum and get into small, as you mentioned, a very significant percentage are zombie companies. They don't even make enough cash to pay for their interest payments on their debt. You don't want to own those. You definitely want someone helping you avoid those. Those are not. That's not a good long-term investment. Investing in companies that are basically insolvent and aside from that, it doesn't necessarily have to be insolvency, I think last I saw 50% of the Russell 2000 is unprofitable and there's probably some early-stage companies that are unprofitable that are investing in themselves. They'll end up being great companies. But long-term investing across the board with zero discretion in unprofitable companies is probably not going to work out very well. And again, the line between small and mid is a made-up line, right, so you can just keep working your way up. There's actually large-cap companies that have way too much debt or unprofitable. So you know, you definitely want someone with an eye toward risk with some sort of strategy.

Speaker 1:

Right, I mean passive. I think one of the things that too many people forget is passive was created to just simply be kind of a benchmark relative to sort of the US economy. Right, it was never intended to be an investment. There's nobody really making any decisions whatsoever. There is an S&P committee that actually is maybe making a little more, some more decisions or using a little more discretion than people would want or even realize, but still, for the most part part, it wasn't even created to be an investment. And so you know, obviously I'm a little biased, being an active manager, but you very much want someone focusing on the qualities that you want in your portfolio that are going to help you grow your wealth. You worked, you worked really hard to save up this money. If you're going to invest it because you want to grow it, because you want it to be there down the road, you probably want someone overseeing it and actually focusing on risk and doing what they can to ensure that it's there.

Speaker 2:

You know I've addressed this in the past, but every strategy has an Achilles heel, an environment where it's not ideal, and you were just time-tested. You've been running it, you know, and it's been running for 35-plus years as I understand it. You know ETF obviously not as long, right, but you certainly have the experience to see how it's performed in different cycles. What environments does this type of a strategy not really work that well in?

Speaker 1:

Kind of teeing me up. I love it.

Speaker 2:

Good job.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, the environment where our strategy will struggle is the one that we have recently been in. We are very risk focused. The CFA Institute did a report a little while back which concluded that most managers do a great job selecting companies. They do a great job timing their buys. They do a horrible job selling, and that's one of the major pluses of sort of our rules-based, very disciplined process is it enforces us, it forces us to sell when a company hits our price target by doing so. That's effectively anti-momentum.

Speaker 1:

In addition, we're also, as I mentioned earlier, we're focused on debt. As individuals, we know that if we take on earlier, we're focused on debt as a. You know, as individuals, we know that if we take on too much debt, it's not going to end well. It's the same for small businesses and it's the same for large companies. And but over the last decade, companies have taken more debt than any time in history, effectively mortgaging their future for no other reason than to buy back stuff. That really benefits CEOs because they're compensated based on stock price. But long run, if you're going to hold a company for the long run, you don't want to be wildly leveraged. That adds risk. But investing away from companies that were doing that and that were generating this false or sort of artificial demand for their stock is also anti-momentum.

Speaker 1:

Lastly, our portfolio is equally weighted Coming into the last several years. Equally weighted portfolios that outperform their cap-weighted counterparts over every single rolling decade. It's a good bet that equally weighted over the long run is going to outperform cap-weighted. However, because momentum was so hot over the last decade, equally weighted portfolios struggled. So again, that's anti-moment. So in a whole lot of ways our strategy is anti-momentum.

Speaker 1:

Meanwhile, a few months ago momentum hit the 99.8th percentile in history. So the only time that was even comparable to the last decade was the tech bubble, literally our worst case scenario. And meanwhile our strategies performed roughly in line with the S&P without with minimal mag seven exposure. So that's one of few strategies that has provided or S&P like returns without ton of mag seven or S&P-like returns without a ton of Mag7. And it did so in a period where our strategy was as out of favor as it gets and the S&P was as unfair. And then, relative to our peers, we performed in the top three percentile or so over the last decade or two. So imagine, I mean, if we're top three percentile and hanging with the S&P in our worst environment. How is it likely to perform in its I mean, in any environment? That's not the worst, and it certainly seems like we're heading into an environment that would be ideal for our strategy, one in which earnings consistency is favored, where higher earnings growth is favored and where we're very disciplined around valuations and risk.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I mean, basically it's the argument for an era where fundamentals matter again, right, I mean that's kind of what we're addressing. We're thinking, Thinking Right, or at least which we've.

Speaker 1:

A rock would have been the best investment manager over the last decade.

Speaker 2:

Right, exactly right. So I mean we may be in that cycle now. Like I always say that you don't know what cycle you're in until two to three years after the cycle has already taken place. Right, so we may be in that cycle now, but if we aren't, what would bring back a sort of sense by investor that they should focus on earnings growth as opposed to just pure price momentum?

Speaker 1:

I mean, everything works until it doesn't. Right, we all have a tendency to get excited. I mean, I think that's actually our investment process is rules-based for a reason, and that's because we know that we have a tendency to get excited. We have emotions and that can lead to us making suboptimal decisions, and that's you know that momentum is effectively that right, you're, you're more or less riding a wave and it works until it doesn't. And we, you know, as I just mentioned, momentum hit the hottest point in history and history, and people have investors, myself included plenty of times. But recently investors have sort of been taught that anytime the market goes down, buy, and that's worked.

Speaker 1:

But the problem is there's probably still such a thing as a market cycle. Markets are going to go up, they're going to go down, valuations get. Even if the economic cycle is dead and the service industry has made it that it's no longer boom bust due to inventory issues, to inventory issues, there's still going to be emotions at work in the stock market. Valuations are still going to get carried away as people get excited about new products such as, potentially, ai, and then we'll come back to reality because, ideally, america as capitalism, you know, to the greatest extent we've seen in history, and that means creative destruction. It means that poor behavior is punished, but that capital then is reallocated where we want it, so that we keep moving forward, keep developing and innovating where we want it, so that we keep moving forward, keep developing and innovating.

Speaker 1:

So again, all that to say that there probably will be a bear market someday, or even just a correction, and those who have invested for faulty reasons, such as potentially just they were told to invest in this portfolio because it's cheap and there's nothing else going on. You know, passive, by definition, is going to be overweight, the most overvalued companies at the top. We're just very fortunate that we haven't seen a top yet for a long time. We're 15 years into arguably the longest bull market ever 2022, you consider maybe sort of a baby bear, but at no point was it especially depressing, unless you were a Cathie Wood investor. So there will be a time where people realize that thinking that, being disciplined, that focusing on risk you know, focusing on earnings growth I mean really just fundamentals because we're investing in companies what those companies are doing matters in the long run. Over the last 15 years that hasn't really mattered, but it still does. There's no arguing that.

Speaker 2:

Talk to me about how somebody should think about allocating, not investment, advice. But when you talk to financial advisors, do they think of this sort of efficient growth style, investing as satellite, as core to their equity allocation? How do you think through sort of the positioning side? Yeah, so we help advisors. How do you think through sort of the positioning side?

Speaker 1:

Yeah, so we I mean we help advisors, we help clients build portfolios and how to best utilize us kind of within a larger portfolio. Our strategy, the universe, is companies over $5 billion trade on US exchanges, which basically it ends up walking the line between mid and large. And that's one of the reasons why our portfolio, relative to almost any other mid cap portfolio, is especially timely when we talk about that gap that I mentioned earlier, because that gap is mid large and our investment is focused on mid large, so it fits that gap better than most and by investing in kind of that mid-large space versus the smaller side of mid, you're going to have more liquidity. Generally speaking, those companies will be larger and lower risk and again, it's extremely timely, but it's also over the long run. That's also just where you want to be Now because of that lower risk or that risk focus and where it sits it walks the line between growth and value. We want to maximize earnings growth, but then we're very disciplined around valuations. The end result is that it performs sort of like core and then our universe is again mid-March.

Speaker 1:

The portfolio is diversified across companies. Right now we have 56 holdings. Over the long run we're usually in the 60s. It's diversified across industries. It's very risk-focused again, whether it's the companies that we decide to invest in, we're very focused on risk when we select those companies, but also our portfolio construction being equally weighted. All those things contribute to, you know, it being a very diversified portfolio that walks the middle of the road and that's how we recommend people use it.

Speaker 1:

Ideally it's sort of this rock in the center of everyone's portfolio and I like kind of that term rock, not only because the initials of the company is RSC, but also because that rules-based nature of what we do means that it's very consistent, it's very reliable you know what we're doing at all times. Just like a rock, it's also very focused on risk, so it's going to be hopefully a little less impacted by market volatility, kind of as that sort of center of your portfolio, and then you can complement it easily with more innovative growth, value, income, small cap, things of that nature. So our largest clients use us as 15% to 25% of their equity portfolio and ideally, if we can earn it the key is we have to earn it but ideally you use it as a as again, sort of that rock or that centerpiece of your portfolio that you don't have to worry about. That helps you sleep at night because you know exactly what we're doing and then you know you compliment it elsewhere.

Speaker 2:

So we talked about the strategy. We talked about the environment, the cycle it has to do. Well, let's talk a little bit about you, as the guy who brought this to market you and I had lunch slash dinner a few weeks ago Got to know you a little bit. What should?

Speaker 1:

people know about Seth. The thing to know about me is that I took a 99% pay cut to launch Running Oak. Uh, because I'm I want to provide the most value I possibly can to the world. Right, but which is not. It's not, uh, you know fluff. It's important for me to be able to sleep at night. Integrity drives everything we do. It's important for me to be able to sleep at night. Integrity drives everything we do, and so we are always going to be there.

Speaker 1:

I mean, one of the big value adds that we hope to provide versus other firms is because of the quantitative nature of our strategy. It frees us up to communicate much more freely. So we're not these massive institutional managers. We do one thing. We do it really well and we want to have a positive impact on your life, whether it's an advisor or an investor, and feel free to reach out to us. But you know, the main thing is really just, I learned the hard way when I was young and dumb that being extremely active, swinging for the fences, it can be great at times, but in the long run it's exhausting and it's probably not a recipe for success. And I came back home to what I had grown up hearing about, which is the strategy that my father created that is again time tested and rules based and unemotional. And you know I've I've been around the block, I learned from my mistakes and I came home and, and you know the the things that I love so much about the strategy is what will provide so much value for our clients.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, and I mean personally, I just love that it's different, right? I mean again, it's like so much of the of the equity fund landscape is just cookie cutter knockoffs of everything else. I mean, what you're doing is really the way investing should be in terms of looking for high quality companies that have the earnings growth and managing the risk, certainly from a portfolio positioning perspective, with the equal weighting side of things. You think we're finally getting close to that end of large cap being the only game in town, largely.

Speaker 1:

I don't know, I also, I have so little control over it. I kind I don't know. Um, I also, I have so little control over it. I kind of don't care either where eventually it'll end, right. I mean, valuations can only be so done for so long, investing solely based on the size of a company. There's there's no other asset where you would invest solely based on the size of an asset. You're not going to pay more for a house because it's bigger without actually going in it. Right, I mean, it could be condemned, that's just not the way it works. But that's the way that the equity market has worked to a very significant degree over the last decade. But the fact is, we have performed roughly in line with the S&P, even when people were doing that. So fine, yeah, if the market keeps going up, we're going to go up too, and it's fine. We will continue to provide the growth with a focus on risk. So even if at least our clients can sleep better at night because they don't have to worry about it ending, and and then if it doesn't, then I think we're perfectly positioned.

Speaker 1:

But the other thing, uh, kind of I guess, sort of adding on to some of the things we were talking about earlier. As far as timing, um, again, that hole where people own none of that happens to be the spot that is outperformed over the long run and is the place that's undervalued right now. If the market continues to go up, if the current dynamic continues, at some point people are like, hey, this asset class has still continued to outperform shockingly over the long run and it's undervalued, and so, even if just some more demand comes in there, that'll be a nice little tailwind for our strategy. Meanwhile, if the market, if things do change and market struggles, you can't sell what you don't own. And so I mean, first of all, when markets do struggle, it's usually where the excesses of the bull market are kind of wrung out. That's where the bad behavior is punished.

Speaker 1:

If large cap simply reverts to its long-term mean, that would be a 50% drop, at least according to Ned Davis. If mid cap reverts to its long-term mean, it would have to go up. If mid cap reverts to its long-term mean, it would have to go up. So it's kind of like 01. In 01, you had the tech stocks. The indexes were down significantly, but the areas in the market that didn't participate in that run-up did quite well, value was up, high quality was up, our strategy was up, and so it's possible that large could mean revert and mid does too.

Speaker 1:

But again, if mid mean reverts, that means it goes up, and then, and you know once again, because nobody owns it, there's nobody to sell it either. So not only do you have that potential mean reversion, you also have a complete lack of selling pressure. So I, you know I try to only worry about what I have control over. It's been like a hard one lesson, but I regardless. Our strategies performed well over the last decade through kind of our worst nightmare, and if it continues, great, and if it doesn't, even better.

Speaker 2:

And if it continues, great, and if it doesn't, even better. Seth for those who want to get access to you and your research and learn more about the fun. Where do you go?

Speaker 1:

to. You can go to our website, runningoakcom or runningoaketscom. Always feel free to send me an email. Seth S-E-T-H at runningoakcom my colleague Jeff. Feel free to annoy him too. Jeff at runningoakcom my colleague Jeff. Feel free to annoy him too. Jeff at runningoakcom. We're here to help. You can also find us on LinkedIn NASDAQ. If you want to see our most recent research. You can search for Running Oak on NASDAQ site and see all of our most recent letters. We'd love to hear from you and work with you.

Speaker 2:

Again, folks learn more about Run RUNN. Great conversation, Seth Cogswell. Again, this was a sponsor conversation under lead lag live. Appreciate those who watch this and I'll see you all next episode. Thanks, Seth, Appreciate it. Thank you. Cheers everybody.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Michael A. Gayed, CFA

Host