With William L. Silber, Author of ‘The Power of Nothing to Lose: The Hail Mary Effect in Politics, War, and Business’
William L. Silber, author of the book ‘The Power of Nothing to Lose: The Hail Mary Effect in Politics, War, and Business,’ joins the podcast to discuss his thesis that individuals, including investors, can become reckless gamblers if they have nothing to lose.
Silber has a career dating back to 1966 in academia and Wall Street. His comments are pertinent in the present day of cryptocurrencies, the ‘retailization’ of options trading, NFTs, and meme stocks, among others. So is his recommendation (not investment advice) to reduce risk exposure.
When people have downside protection and limitless losses, “they tend to become reckless and almost gamblers” (3:48)
Rogue traders and the skewed payoff that makes them go rogue (14:41);
- What to make of the present day and investors’ collective risk appetite, especially regarding meme stocks? (17:32);
Background on the guest (24:55);
- A valuable lesson learned at Odyssey Partners in the 1980s: what’s an exit strategy? (27:47);
Is this a time for investors to reduce risks and sell stocks? (30:26);
- Precious metals and their place in a modern portfolio (36:52);
More Information on the Guest
Video Highlights from our YouTube Channel
Nathaniel E. Baker 0:36
I am here with William Silber, a former professor of finance at NYU Stern, currently Senior Advisor at Cornerstone Research. Now, Bill, the reason I have you on this is because you are publishing a book called The power of nothing to lose. subtitle, the Hail Mary effect in politics, war, and business is being put out by Harper Collins, and is available for people to order and I can we’ll put that link in the show notes later on. And I read the preview of the book. But maybe you can just enter your own words kind of tell us a little bit what this is about, and what this means for risk from an investment perspective.
William L. Silber 1:22
Yeah, so the best way to to get into this, I think, is to explain how this book got started. I’ve been thinking about it for a long time, 30 years, while teaching at NYU. I teach a course in investments, which is how to choose among different securities, stocks, bonds, and real estate. And I quickly realized that the same principles apply to normal people and generals, presidents, making decisions under uncertainty. And the one focal point that was that jumped out was when people have downside protection, limited losses, they tend to become reckless, and almost gamblers. And this turned out, this became important during the course, which was kind of technical. And mathematical students get tired of that. So I invented a little game. Towards the end of the semester, that would divert their attention a little bit. And that is, I took a list of 10, securities, commodities, and ask them to choose the one that had the biggest profit over the last month of class. And if they chose correctly, they would get one and a half points added to their grade. And if they chose incorrectly and got a bad one, nothing would happen, except we would sympathize with them. So the question is, how do they choose? What’s the strategy? Well, of course, some of them try to guess about prices, which is a fool’s game. Nobody knows which way prices are going to go. So what’s the strategy? And the strategy, the optimal strategy turns out to pick the security that has the biggest volatility today, that would be Bitcoin. Why is that? Well, that gives you the biggest possible upside. It also gives you the biggest possible downside, but who cares about the downside? Why you don’t lose points on the exam for picking the worst. So the best strategy would be the riskier security back then it was crude oil. Today, it would be Bitcoin. And that’s all because of downside. protection.
Nathaniel E. Baker 4:09
Interesting. Now, how does the price of thing things affect things? Because with Bitcoin, we’ve had a huge run up, obviously, over the last couple years. I know, there’s been a lot of volatility in there. But as we record this, it’s past 45,000, I think, which is kind of what was the high 60? I don’t even know. But it’s more. Yeah, but it’s pretty high. I mean, compared to or was, so what it how does that change things? I mean, wouldn’t that limit the upside?
William L. Silber 4:35
Well, you know, at any point in time, the price of a security the price of a commodity, the price of bitcoin is a balance between buyers and sellers. It’s, I believe, the best possible estimate and we can disagree, but the consensus of the market is that that’s the price. So I can’t tell you Whether that’s too high or too low, I rely on buyers and sellers, the collective wisdom to tell me, that’s the fair value. But we do know, going forward, Bitcoin is just going to be more volatile both to the upside. And the downside, compared with anything, just like we knew 30 years ago, that oil was the most volatile thing, you know, somebody could stop producing, or somebody could suddenly there could be a frost and demand would increase. So the one that has the biggest volatility suddenly becomes the most attractive. And by the way, that’s also the principle underlying something that most of your listeners are familiar with, which is call options and put options, both of those place high value on big risky security. So it’s not as strange as it sounded when I just mentioned it.
Nathaniel E. Baker 6:08
Interesting, okay. But still there is it’s something you mentioned that the fear of having things to lose. And when you don’t have that, when that is removed from the equation, it creates people, it makes people more reckless. And your book cites several examples from history. But to go back on that, once you’ve gotten some gains, like oil at $20 a barrel. I mean, okay, I know, we had negative futures on oil for a second for at some point, but generally, it’s not something like that, it’s not going to go negative in real terms. So if it’s very cheap, you have a lot of upside. And it’s very, when it’s very expensive volatility or not, you have more downside, so the price of things doesn’t factor into this at all.
William L. Silber 6:53
Again, that’s the same principle as options, because even if the price is low, if you’re risking the same amount of money, you can always lose half. So, you know, even if I buy $1 stock, well, if I’m only risking $1, but the right way to compare them is I’m gonna put $100 in this or $1,000 in this and $1,000 in that. And the half, I can always lose half is my half my money no matter what the prices, I’m going to add. Can I ask you a question?
Nathaniel E. Baker 7:29
Of course. I may edit it out. But go ahead.
William L. Silber 7:31
Sure. No, no, this is, this is relevant. That’s nothing personal Believe me. I would ask you. When do you buy a call option on a stock and don’t overthink it? Just give me your knee jerk reaction when you buy a call option?
Nathaniel E. Baker 7:49
Well, me personally, I don’t.
William L. Silber 7:51
Well when will someone buy a call option?
Nathaniel E. Baker 7:53
an investor? I would think when they want to have less risk, but more potential return. And they’re ultimately bullish on this stock,
William L. Silber 8:02
So that’s a very sophisticated answer. I expected nothing else. But the knee jerk reaction of most people is, oh, I buy a call option option, when I think the stock price is going to go up. Well, that’s true. But if you think it’s gonna go up, why don’t you just buy the stock and save the option premium? Right? And the answer, which you said very clearly was, I think it’s going to go up, but I’m worried that it might go down. And I buy the call option for downside protection, because my loss is limited to the premium. So this is a perfect example of now that I’ve already paid the premium, I want this stock that is the that is the most volatile, because it has the most potential upside. So that principle is what gets translates into when people presidents generals, ordinary people view as have view themselves as having nothing to lose. They have downside protection for whatever reason. They can afford to gamble and they do. And message of the book is that is okay when they themselves bear all of the costs. But what happens when they become reckless, and other people bear the costs like a G gonna roll who attacks to gain the glory of victory, and who bears the cost the poor foot soldier. So that’s when we have to worry about reckless decision making you want to buy an option on the stock, you’re going to lose the premium, I don’t care. But if I’m a general, and I’m about to lose the war, and then I say, All right, I’ll take a shot. That’s when we have to worry about the collateral damage of these reckless decisions that are promoted by nothing to lose. I think I went a little too far there. But that’s my, that’s the argument.
Nathaniel E. Baker 10:47
A couple of anecdotes there. First of all, I’m not sure if it’s just maybe we’re taking this metaphor too far. But it was just generals who have who are losing. Because there was there’s a book I saw, I picked up once about the closing hour of World War One, or the closing hours, they had agreed on this armistice, November 11, at 11 o’clock, and some of these lower or middle ranking officers decided that they would take this opportunity on the on the Allied side to attack even though they knew. And so they knew that the war was over, and that they had won. So there was several casualties on this land, these last couple of hours of fighting on the Western Front.
William L. Silber 11:28
Your example is a perfect illustration of the collateral damage, have nothing to lose. The Americans had nothing to lose. That was the war was already won. But the reckless decision making and I don’t remember who the general was, as you were speaking, though,
Nathaniel E. Baker 11:47
William L. Silber 11:49
Pershing was the general. But on the other side, th eGermans had a general that was in fact, rolling the dice at the end, because he said, Look, we’re losing anyway. And we’re gonna we’re going to we had we, we might as well take a shot. And there were lots of casualties as a result, so that you’re you were precisely correct. When you said they had nothing to lose After all, the war was won. So they might as well take a shot to get a promotion perhaps.
Nathaniel E. Baker 12:27
Yeah. Interesting. And also, another real quick anecdote reminds me of a conversation I had with a hedge fund manager several years ago, where he told me and he was kind of making a joke, a kind of nod. He said that he loved gambling. And he loves gambling so much. He does it every day with his investors money.
Unknown Speaker 12:47
Well, you know, this is there is a chapter in this book called the rogue traders. Hmm. And in point of fact, almost every trader for a commercial bank or an investment bank, has this skewed payoff, big upside with limited downside, what’s the big upside? Well, if I make a lot of money, I’m going to get a big bonus. On the other hand, if I lose a lot of money, I never ever have to repay the bank for the losses. So you would think, well, you’re gonna lose your job, right? Well, you might, but you’ll get hired by another firm, because you start with a clean slate. So traders, at banks have the have this skewed payoff, big upside limited downside, which is why they often gamble. And if they are not monitored properly, by the own management, they can bring down the entire company. That’s the story of Nick Leeson, who worked for baring bank, which was a 200 year old financial institution helped Thomas Jefferson finance the purchase of financial Louisiana Purchase. And in 1995, Leeson lost so much money, that bearings had to declare bankruptcy, precisely because traders face skewed payoffs, big upside, limited downside, which makes them become which gives them the incentive to become gamblers. And that’s why you have management to try to rein them in.
Nathaniel E. Baker 14:56
And the Volcker rule to Don’t forget which
Unknown Speaker 14:59
Volcker rule was this was initiated. I hate to bring up my last book, which was a biography of Paul Volcker. Volcker, the triumph of persistence. We were I was writing that book precisely when the Volcker Rule went into effect, to try to eliminate to try to reduce the danger to financial institutions, because of reckless trading. I’m not going to go into the whether that was the best way to do it. But that was the idea behind the Volcker Rule.
Nathaniel E. Baker 15:41
Interesting. This all begs the question, we talk about these things, kryptos options, and there being a lot of appetite for it nowadays, and certainly a lot of appetite for risk. And it sounds like we are in a bit of a situation where people have kind of become gamblers. What do you think about that, about the present day about people’s view on risk? And is there a lot of gambling going on now, in securities markets that will end ugly?
Unknown Speaker 16:12
Well, you know, look, I, I think that most people with most of their portfolio, has been taught that diversification is the only continuously available free lunch in the market, it never goes away, you can always reduce your risk by diversifying. And in fact, you can adjust your risk exposure by changing the fraction that you hold in stocks and and commodities and real estate, versus CDs, which are nothing but protect you, but protect you against losses. So I think most people have learned that lesson. However, there are some who say, I’m going to take a flyer, I’m going to buy and I’m going to be very specific now. I’m going to buy an out of the money call option on a mean stock aisle, everybody knows what I’m talking about. Because we see it in the newspaper, I’m gonna buy an out of the money call on a meme site. What does that mean? When blackberry was trading at $14, a few months ago, a $20 call so that I gave you the right to buy blackberry $20, cost $1. So for $100, you could have the right to buy blackberry at $20, a share blackberry selling for $14, you know, you’re never going to exercise that option. Until blackberry goes above that. So you have $100 loss most of the time. But if blackberry went to $30, you would make $10 a share. If it went to $40, you would make $20 a share. And that’s the dream. I view those people as buying a lottery ticket, it’s the same thing as buying a lottery ticket. Should you do that? Yes. If you want entertainment, not if you want sensible investments. So I view buying out of the money call options on name stocks, as a substitute for the lottery. And when should you do that? Tell me what your entertainment budget is for the month. If it’s $500, you can buy $500 worth of that, that that’s pure gambling, it is not investing. Why do you do that? Because you have downside protection. The most you can lose if you buy that out of the money call on Blackberry. Is the premium you paid. It’s $100. Oh, my Blackberry is $40. I can buy this call at 20. We know that blackberry can double, triple or quadruple. The answer is those are highly unlikely events. Even though you read about these things doubling and tripling in the newspaper answer is you only read about the winners. You don’t read about all the other mean stocks that went down. There is something called selection bias in the newspapers. What selection bias. You hear about the winners? Not the losers
Nathaniel E. Baker 20:00
Sure, but it’s also a market where everything is going up. And so you’re going to have more winners and just wait until things turn the newspapers or websites now nowadays, I’m coming from that business. Unfortunately, I can speak to that. But they will also chase negative stories just as much as they will positive ones because believe it or not, those sell more newspapers or website clicks than the positive ones. But yeah
William L. Silber 20:27
you know, I see a lot of stories about I grant you that big negative stories like Archegos a few months ago. Big negative stories, but not the ones ready that do nothing. When people buy call options, they look at the upside, and they should because that is all that matters in terms of their payoff to them. But forget the most. The normal statistics is 90% of call options expire. worthless. That’s not a big story when they do nothing when they go down a lot. Yes. Not when they do nothing.
Nathaniel E. Baker 21:10
Hmm. Very interesting. All right, Bill Silber, here. I want to take a short break and hear from our sponsors and then make some announcements and then come back and talk to you a little more. If you are a premium subscriber. Don’t touch the dial you will not get the break.
Bill, this is the segment of the podcast where we like to talk ask the the guests a little bit more about themselves, and about their background, how they came to this stage of their career. And so yeah, maybe you could tell us a little bit about that. I know you’ve had a long career in academia and elsewhere. So yeah, take us back and tell us how you ended up where you are now.
William L. Silber 22:05
So I started in 1966, which is like 150 years ago, but it’s only about 70. Okay, or less than 60. When I started at NYU, I had a PhD from Princeton. I started at NYU in 1966. I was seven at the time. Actually, I was 23. And I stayed at NYU for my entire career with some diversions. I quickly learned that I liked financial markets. And I actually wrote a whole bunch of academic papers on the subject. And suddenly I said, I want to be able to try this stuff, not just report on it. So in about 1982 was when the futures markets opened at the New York Stock Exchange on the stock index futures was pretty easy to become a floor trader. So I actually turned in my notebooks, and became a floor trader, on the futures exchanges. And I don’t know if people have ever seen the movie Trading Places with Eddie Murphy. It’s the best movie about commodities you ever want to watch. So watch it. That’s what I did for a living. It was the most exciting thing I ever did. I traded for two years full time. On the New York Mercantile Exchange where oil options oil is traded. I traded on the COMEX, where gold was traded. And I earned a nice living doing it. And then I went back to academia and stayed there for a while. And then along about 1988, a well known hedge fund called Odyssey partners, which was run by Leon levy and Nat and jack Nash, legendary investors asked me to come and trade a portfolio run a portfolio for them, which I did. And I just recently recounted a story that I learned at Odyssey which is relevant for today. And the question is, what’s an investor’s exit strategy? Simple. What’s an exit strategy? Well, let me tell you a very quick story. back then. This is before the Euro was invented. with something called the Exchange Rate Mechanism where you had the Italian lira, the Spanish preset, these were all those currencies, they were very high interest rate currencies, the Spanish preset, it would yield 12%, the German Mark yielded only 4%. So you could buy the peseta sell short the mark and earn the differential. Well, I introduced this to Odyssey partners, and we had two very, very profitable years. So the third year, I suggest to jack Nash and Leon Levy, let’s double Odysseys allocation to what was called the carry trade. It’s the carry trade where you carry a 12% interest rate with the 4%. So jack looks at me, and he gives me a little newspaper article, maybe two inches long, with the title mutual fund introduces carry trade to small investor. So I said, so jack says, when the public gets in, we’re out. The exits aren’t big enough. So you have to worry when everybody is in one direction. Everybody loves the stock market. Everybody loves the bond market, you got to worry. Are the exits big enough? when some people want to get out? And I think some extent, people should be thinking about that today.
Nathaniel E. Baker 26:54
So do you think that this is a time to for people to reduce risk and sell stocks?
William L. Silber 26:59
I’m glad you asked that question. Because I write on a weekly linkedin post. And it gets about 10,000 views on LinkedIn, a couple of likes, and a couple of Who told you that that’s right, and so on and so forth. And about two weeks ago, I the headline in my LinkedIn posting was it time to reduce equities exposure. And the first sentence said, I am not calling pop in the stock market. Nobody knows. No one knows if they tell you don’t listen to them, especially if they want to invest your money. So the time to lower your stock exposure is because if you normally hold, let’s pick a number 80% 75% of your net worth, in a risky mutual fund, say an index fund, and 25%. In CDs, even though they don’t earn anything, they prevent risk, they lower your risk. In the past three years, the stock market has gone up 50% from August of 2018. To today, it’s about 50% or 75%. Our location is now way above 80%. Much riskier than you thought you got into it is time to and I call it rebalance your portfolio sell to get back down to 75. You say well, what happens if the stock market goes up, you still have 75% in risky securities to earn it. But if the stock market goes down, so that prices of your equities are now only 70% you can then add to your portfolio to bring it up. Buy low at 70% sell high at 80%. Just like a pro without knowing anything, because they don’t either. So the idea was just rebalancing your portfolio after a big run up is sensible. I don’t even want to say prudent. It is perfectly consistent with how you should approach investments in a modern framework.
Nathaniel E. Baker 29:54
Hmm, fair enough. Now what do you do with the proceeds because As you say, bonds have run up a lot, you know, your savings and CDs aren’t yielding anything and in fact, less than inflation, and you have inflation. So what do you do?
William L. Silber 30:09
So I would do one of two things with with the proceeds, I would either hold CDs, which have enough, I know they are nothing. But when I take 5%, from my index fund, and put it into CDs, I’ve reduced my risk exposure, I know that I’m earning nothing. If you want to buy tips, Treasury inflation protection securities, that’s also a good allocation, I know they have a negative nominal yield. But the yield, including the repayment for inflation, this year, is going to be at least four and maybe 5%. So I would reduce my risk exposure, the cost is pretty high these days, because, you know, I used to get one or 2% in CDs, okay. Now I’m getting nothing. But the objective once again, was to do what reduce my risk exposure,
Nathaniel E. Baker 31:14
then why lock it into CDs? Just put into savings.
William L. Silber 31:16
I would put it into three months, CDs and roll it over until the Fed has to raise short term rates, and I’ll be ready to cash in my three month CDs and earn three or 4%, whatever the rate turns out to be the nice thing about three months CDs, is you get a new chance every three months. You don’t lock any you’re not you don’t lock the in a penny. It’s not. It’s a three month maturity.
Nathaniel E. Baker 31:45
I get that but savings is a zero month maturity. And you can it’s even more liquidity and
William L. Silber 31:50
You could do that I don’t mind if you do if you like the savings account. Do that.
Nathaniel E. Baker 31:55
Cuz I don’t know what the yield or the the yield is on three months, CDs versus savings? It depends probably where you’re going but can’t be
William L. Silber 32:02
there’s no difference. So if you prefer, if you meant by savings accounts, yeah, I would say Perfect,
Nathaniel E. Baker 32:11
But then you still have the fact that your money is earning less than inflation.
William L. Silber 32:14
I understand that, which is why I said maybe you want to buy some TIPS
Nathaniel E. Baker 32:19
William L. Silber 32:19
you have to be careful when you’re buying tips to make sure that is in a non taxable account, because you pay taxes on the accrual associated with inflation, even though you don’t get it till the end.
Nathaniel E. Baker 32:37
Yep. Not to mention, if you sell you get a capital gains and stuff.
William L. Silber 32:40
That’s correct, you got to be careful.
Nathaniel E. Baker 32:42
Alright, this is all very interesting stuff, Bill. So I’m curious now, as far as your views on other parts of the market, and I imagine, we don’t have to cover kryptos again, or options, since those are by their nature, risky investments. But what about some other things and your views on on them? You know, other asset classes, you know,
William L. Silber 33:07
Can I fill in the blank for you?
Nathaniel E. Baker 33:09
William L. Silber 33:10
So you mentioned Cryptos, we talked about that. But we didn’t talk about precious metals
Nathaniel E. Baker 33:16
William L. Silber 33:17
And precious metals, gold and silver, belong in every ready risky portfolio. They are a hedge, when everything goes bad, they will go but they will be good. When everything else is good, they will be bad, but you don’t need them. If you keep your holdings to between 3% and 5%, of your risky assets. So I would hold a diversified portfolio of stocks. In my risky allocation, I would hold 95% in stocks and real estate and so on. And three to 5% I would put in precious metals, gold and silver, and just leave them there. Don’t touch them. They are there to counterbalance, movements in stocks and bonds. When the world comes to an end, you’ll need a silver dollar to buy a loaf of bread.
Nathaniel E. Baker 34:34
Fair enough. you wrote another book, another one about silver. And you know obviously about precious metals from from the COMEX. And from your career, but I’m curious that is it. I imagine you’ve studied this, the risk protection for precious metals. And the reason I bring this up is because I remember oh eight and 2008 everything sold off including precious metals. So back then it wasn’t a good good hedge but from what you’ve said you think they are
William L. Silber 34:59
well, So it depends on when you look, and precious metals really did pay off in 2008. If you look at the time, right before and right after the Lehman bankruptcy, which is which occurred in September of 2008, if you look right before, and then six months later, precious, precious or two weeks, actually two weeks later, precious metals were up 20% 20% Yes, 20%. And the stock market, of course, had declined over the next six months by almost 40%. So it was a huge and it protected, then if you look in the middle, precious metals did start to decline below their original level. Why was that? That was that, you know, safety net brought on by the Fed, which was the correct thing to do. However, if you held on to precious metals in your portfolio, and waited till the big problem of sovereign risk, if you remember in 2010, and 2011, Ireland, Italy were on the verge of bankruptcy, they couldn’t repay their their sovereign debt. If you take precious metals at the peak of sovereign risk in 2011, gold is up 250%. And silver is up 400%. Not because silver is better than gold. It’s a better hedge it is why far more volatile than gold. I would hold both of them. Keep it in your portfolio. I recommended silver when it right when I had in March of 2000. after April of 2019. I had finished my silver book. I was being I was being interviewed at the time. And I wrote an article for another from Market Watch. That’s not a mean Market Watch is a platform. Silver was $15 an ounce. I said Now is the time to buy silver. Why is that? It went from $42 an ounce in September in 2011. down to $15 an ounce why is that the world became a much safer place. The time to buy ready, portfolio insurance, portfolio insurances, things that move in opposite directions from stocks, it’s time to buy insurance is not when your house is on fire. It’s when nothing is happening. The time to buy portfolio insurance was when silver was at $15 an ounce. It’s now depending on when you look 25 or 26. Not because I was right, that silver was cheap. I was right that you buy portfolio insurance, when the premiums are cheap once the premiums are cheap, when silver and gold are relatively inexpensive because the world is a safe place.
Nathaniel E. Baker 38:33
I wonder if you have any thoughts on how to get that exposure? You mentioned silver dollars? Are you saying people should buy actual physical gold and silver or ETFs or futures? Or what
William L. Silber 38:44
That’s a great question. So first of all, I give my grandkids silver dollars on their birthdays. Why is that? So again, so so they should know that they have silver dollars. These are the American Eagles which are one ounce of pure not because that’s going to take them through a tough time but to be aware that there is something called a precious metal that belongs and I want to be very clear as a small part of your portfolio. I once had an interview and this was with Paul Volcker when we were talking about his book, I hold precious metals ready and I hope they go to zero. Hmm. Why do I hope they go to zero? because everything else is going to be up. So I give my grandkids so silver dollars. And I hold some of them just as you know, just to have around but I buy ETF the ETFs the gold and silver ETFs if you had a nice backyard with a nice trench that was protected from everyone. You can buy physical silver and gold and bury it there. Keep it like, like, everybody must have a French grandmother some time in their background. Your French grandmother would say, never leave home without a bar of gold buried in the backyard. Why is that? Not because of inflation. But because of sovereign risk. We in the United States Don’t think about the government being overthrown. Or maybe we now have a little bit more of a probability associated with that. But in Europe, governments get overthrown during war. That’s why the French are big gold holders. So physical gold and physical silver is the ultimate protection. Most of us can’t safeguard that. Although there are some places where you can buy that safeguard.
Nathaniel E. Baker 41:05
Yeah, there are storage facilities and safety deposit box and such.
William L. Silber 41:09
I’m not predicting the end of the world. Just saying, This is like an insurance policy. You don’t predict your house is gonna burn down. But you have insurance.
Nathaniel E. Baker 41:26
Gotcha. Very interesting. Bill Silber, thank you so much for joining the Contrarian Investor Podcast today. Maybe in closing, you can tell our listeners and how they can find out more about you, about the book. As I mentioned, I’ll put that link in the show notes. You mentioned you’re on LinkedIn, I took a look and you are not on the Twitter. So where else can people find you?
William L. Silber 41:47
So people can find me on LinkedIn. And if you if you want to connect with me, I will be happy to connect with you just put my name
Nathaniel E. Baker 41:56
Careful with that now, but Okay
William L. Silber 41:58
well, I want to know, I will look at your resume and see whether it is appropriate. I’ve got right now 10 people on a list that I will not connect that I did not connect with. But if you are normal, your resume suggests that you are normal. I will connect with you. The second thing you can do is you can look at my website.
Nathaniel E. Baker 43:18
Wonderful. Well, thank you. Again, thank you all for watching and listening. And we look forward to speaking to you again next time.