Site icon The Contrarian Investor Podcast

No Recession Imminent, Watch for New Highs in (Certain) Stocks: Edward Olanow (Szn 4, Ep. 12)

editors

Edward Olanow, portfolio manager and director of investment solutions at Weiss Multi-Strategy Advisers, joins the podcast to supply a surprisingly bullish outlook on the economy and on certain segments of the stock market.

Content Highlights

For More Information:

Video Highlights

Transcript

Nathaniel E. Baker
Edward Olanow, of Weiss Multi-Strategy Advisors joining the contrarian investor podcast today. And we’re thank you so much for joining us, you have some views that are quite contrarian at this time, I will introduce them really quick. And then let give you the stage to kind of present them in a little bit more detail. But first of all, this idea that stocks are going to recapture their all time highs, which were set, I believe, last fall, that’s the first extremely contrarian idea you have, considering everything that’s been going on in markets this year, and at the end of last year. And secondly, you do not see a recession for the US economy, at least not in the next year or two. So let’s start there, maybe we’ll start with a big picture of the economy first, what gives you reason to be so bullish

Edward Olanow
First, thank you for having me on your show.

Nathaniel E. Baker
Thanks for coming on.

Edward Olanow
Some of the views that we have, I think, first and foremost, one of the things that gives me great confidence is, despite everything that we’ve seen to start the year, I would have expected if you would have told me the regime change that the Fed put forth, you know, the war in Ukraine, a high price flying through with inflation at 8.5%, that we would have seen a lot more carnage in the equity markets. And even more so in the fixed income markets. Despite you know, some of the sell off that they’ve witnessed year to date. What continues to give me good confidence heading into the end of the year, let’s say is that we still have very strong nominal GDP, I think we’re just in a higher nominal GDP growth world. And it’s something we’re going to have to get used to for a number of reasons. One, taking into account the backlog that we have for orders, autos housing, that’s not going to be curtailed by 5% mortgage rates, which, you know, in the grand scheme of things, both at an absolute level, and at a real level are still quite low. We also have a fact that, you know, there’s 11 point 3 million jobs that are unfilled out there right now, unemployment rate is still very low, the Fed is just starting their tightening cycle, I think they’re way behind the curve, you know, I could go on and on. Lastly, you have tons of stimulus, you know, that hasn’t completely rolled off yet. There’s just more signs that I think economic growth is going to be a stronger engine than people expect. And we’re not even taking into the account that COVID is just moving from pandemic to endemic and the government has highlighted personal responsibility. I think people are eager to move forward and really start to jumpstart the economy. So I think that’s one of the reasons that not only will we see high growth, the market will follow that high growth with high profitability into the second half of the year. And I think reward investors that are looking for value at this point in time.

Nathaniel E. Baker
Wow, that certainly is quite bullish there. Geez, I don’t even know where to start. I mean, so you’re not at all concerned about the Fed tightening, because past economic cycles, that’s kind of been the thing that has ended the expansion, maybe the 2015 to 2018 period being one exception. But that, yeah, if you look at past expansions, it’s always been the Fed tightening. And to your point, they are just tightening. So that’s not they just started tightening, rather. And so that’s not a point of concern here that as they start ratcheting up interest rates, and they’re talking now about 75 basis points, even at the next meeting, potentially, that doesn’t concern you at all?

Edward Olanow
Well, I think it would concern me if I thought it was more than just job boggling at this point in time. I think the Fed with the move that they had earlier this year, they missed an opportunity to do a lot more to get ahead of the inflation spike and to show that they were serious. And I don’t mean to, you know, be a Monday morning quarterback and second guess, you know, people running central banks around the world, but there’s a clear desire to maintain economic growth ahead of inflation. And I think what’s happened is that traders now have gone from projecting inflationary trades, which tends to be a shift from early cycle to late cycle trades. And for most equities to do well in those environments, because the Fed tends to raise before we’ve seen rates incur inflation increase in rates increase, and they learned that lesson in the 1970s with Volcker, in terms of how you stop inflation is by getting ahead of it before him. So a lot of what people are comparing this scenario two goes back to the recession in the early 90s. When Greenspan, you know, famously got ahead of the curve, and ensured that they would always take inflation seriously. And you saw the bottom hit in around October 1990. And equities do well. Here. Again, as I mentioned, they missed that window, I think that would have been a great time to go 50 or 75 basis points, give them a little bit more built up ammunition and dry powder, not have to Jawbone rate increases in the future, but really signal the seriousness of the environment that we’re in. I just think there’s too much dry powder, too much people on the sidelines, that will have to come back to work because of rising inflation. All of that will will help with supply shortages and actually increase corporate profitability until the end of the year.

Nathaniel E. Baker
Wow. Yeah, although I guess in fairness to the Fed, they did have the war in Ukraine that shook things up a little bit. And they said that at their last meeting as well, that that was a while they even may have even admitted that they would have faced if had been for that. But But yeah, point taken. But meanwhile, though, you have bond selling off the 10 year rate just hit it’s the yield hit its higher, highest level in three years. Mortgage rates are at 5% for 30 year mortgages, that’s not going to crimp demand and the inflation trade, you’re talking about meetings and selling bonds and inflationary.

Edward Olanow
So you know, you’re talking 10 years 2.9%, that is a heck of a move. And that’s done a lot of damage to portfolio managers fixed income allocations. And I’m not suggesting that that not having a deleterious impact on the marketplace. Again, I’m not suggesting that we’re going to grow gangbusters, or that it’s going to be a linear path there. In fact, what you’ve described is why I also believe there’s going to be a lot of volatility. And you know, I should emphasize that this notion of an easy accelerative price increase in stock market and in fixed income market assets, I think is over. And I think you’re going to need to be more nimble investors are going to have to get away from this buy and hold very low volatility, very attractive return profile that really has superseded market returns since the financial crisis over almost 12 years ago was the bottle. And they’re going to have to deal with increased volatility, which means less risk adjusted returns a less attractive, risk adjusted returns. It’s something that Weiss, we spent a lot of time focusing on, because we think about investing in terms of risk dollars and risk budgeting, rather than dollars, you know, $1 of returns is not the same depending on the risk of losing that dollar is kind of the easy way to think about it. And to your point, I think that’s exactly what all of this fed induced volatility is going to create. And inflation and commodity induced volatility is now a part of it that will distinguish between companies with great operating efficiencies from companies with no operating efficiency. And I think that’s one of the massive rotations that you’ve seen since January, with energy stocks and lead cyclicals really pounding the table and doing great in comparison to a lot of the tech names and some of the financial names, which, you know, if you look at some of the early financial earnings reports that we’ve already seen, it’s been tough for them. And that rotation is naturally what takes place, as we rotate from early to late cycle, but by no means does that signal the end of the economy, especially with rates this low and real rates at record lows, I mean, if we look at inflation, adjusted five year yields, they are lower at any of that at any other time going back to 1962, for which, you know, we have data, and that includes the 70s. To me, that’s very supportive and very bullish. I’m not suggesting it’s an easy ride nimble active management will be key, but it’s still a positive upward trend, in my opinion.

Nathaniel E. Baker
And so where does that leave the various asset classes? I mean, you mentioned financials and tech, especially having a hard time. But you think now you think there’s still highs ahead here for the NASDAQ and for the, for these tech stocks.

Edward Olanow
So, you know, the House view with voice is that the NASDAQ is gonna have a tough time of it. And, you know, I agree with that view, because, again, I think we’re going to move rotate into an environment where valuations mean a little bit more, because the discount rate, which is let’s just think of that as the risk free rate, in terms of the alternative rate of return that we can get, is going to become a little more attractive, you know, with rates of 2.9% on 10 years, compared to under 1%, you know, a few years ago, that starts to really make a difference on institutional and even individual investors, balances of where to allocate capital. And as a result of that, I think some of these 100 200-300-1000 P E ratios are going to start to be questioned, and we’re gonna get back to earnings and we’re gonna get back to things. And you know, that’s already what we’ve seen play out. that’ll continue to play out one of the bellwether ratios that I look at as the performance of the Dow relative to the NASDAQ, and I like to see how it’s performing on a day to day basis to get a sense as to where traders think the economy is moving, that trades worked really well.

Nathaniel E. Baker
So you go long, Dow short, NASDAQ basically is the idea.

Edward Olanow
Exactly, you use it as a kind of a gauge of whether people are putting a lot of risk on versus taking a lot of risk off. And clearly, they’ve taken a lot of risk off recently, because you’ve seen tech names get beaten up pretty badly. And there’s been this search for low volatility and because of the uncertainty now that the Fed has has jawbone, that they are going to actually impact rates moving forward, that they’re going to taper now that this is priced, I believe priced into the market, at least the binary fear is off the table. And people can start to position ahead of the trend and the pace of that movement rather than do you think it’ll happen, or won’t it happen? I think we all wondered when QE was going to end for the past 10 years? And I think the answer is now. And as a result of QE being over, we’re going to have to get back to dispersion in the marketplace. And that’s really where Weiss has made its name is in dispersion trading, that’s long, short, and market neutral trading, that type of active management will become important, again, like we saw in the 70s and 80s, when you had managers of these big mutual funds in these big hedge funds, especially in the early 90s, distinguishing themselves, you know, we’ve as an active manager, we’ve fallen by the wayside over the past 10 years with passive ETFs doing so well, and rightfully so. But I think that’s come to an end and people need to consider liquid alternatives in their allocations, you know, to answer your question more directly.

Nathaniel E. Baker
Yeah, don’t forget the early 2000s to there was also a pretty good time for hedge funds in the wake of the.com. Crash. That is when I started covering hedge funds. I remember that well. Ya know, interesting points here. Now, let me ask you something, something a little different here. What’s the House have you had over Weiss on the whole Ukraine situation? And that was obviously a temporary looks like it was a temporary blip. At least in terms of the fear gauge. We had gold shoot up, and commodities shoot up, there’s still a little hot, but actually, no, I think all is exactly where it was pre-invasion but 106 a barrel or so if I’m not mistaken. And what’s your view on that? Is that the what the market is showing us? Is that kind of the house view that things just kind of kind of continue here? Or do you anticipate something more sinister happening potentially?

Edward Olanow
Well, I think that’s an important question that we really turn to the markets for that, you know, what specialty is fundamental, long, short investing company basis, you know, my kopien God vessel and I ran a macro portfolio for over a decade. So we have some experience with that. But geopolitical investing is not my specialty. So you know, take it with a grain of salt, but we believe it’s localized at present. And one of the reasons to believe it’s localized is again, look at the data. As you’ve mentioned since March 1, what crude has been volatile, and there’s uncertainty as a result of that, we’re back to where we were more or less. So Ukraine was invaded February 24. A week later that’s priced in and really nothing much has happened since that from crude which is a reasonable proxy for energy prices. Same thing with gold, actually, gold is selling off today pretty strongly. Which leads me to believe that what we’re talking about peak inflation and uncertainty around the world is starting to diminish because gold, one of its investment theses is that it’s a kind of measure of risk. So that’s constructive to see that happen.

Nathaniel E. Baker
Hmm. Interesting. And so you do think that investors will start putting the investing back into riskier assets, if not the riskiest not the the tech stocks, but the large caps and such

Edward Olanow
well. So I don’t view equities as risky, per se. I think equities will be riskier than they have been historically, volatility as measured by a 252 day standard deviation for returns in the stock market, you know, has moved from about 10 to 15. You know, going back about 20 years, if we exclude the financial crisis and COVID to about 15 to 20. And implied volatilities on the s&p same thing, it’s moved up for about 15 to 20 to 20 to 25. That’s where they historically should be. Prior to QE. It’s a slightly more elevated risk budget. And I think people are pricing it accordingly. As a result, rates are still low that people will need to go out the curve to generate an attractive rate of return. I think people worried about inflation need to be an asset classes rather than in yield. And that’s proven out. I think there is the chance for fixed income to actually have stabilized especially in the next month or two. We’ll get better indication of that. But to me, it’s clear once we get into earnings season, I think you’re gonna find that equities are a good place to be and quite candidly, s&p is 8% off its lows for the year which is a pretty good year. You know all things told. What we’ve what we’ve experienced this year.

Nathaniel E. Baker
I want to come back and actually some more questions about this, and some more about yourself also. But let’s first take a short break and give our sponsors a chance to make themselves heard. If you are a premium subscriber, do not touch the dial, you will not get the break. We’ll be right back. And if you want to become a premium subscriber, go to the website contrarianpod.substack.com and sign up.

Nathaniel E. Baker
Alright, welcome back, everybody. Here with Edward Olanow of Weiss Multi-Strategy Advisers. And this is the section of the show the segment of the show where we discuss our guests background a little more, and allow the guests to introduce themselves a little bit more to the audience. So curious here about your background. You mentioned you had been at Weiss for a little while. So how did you get your start? And how does it how did it wind up to where you are today?

Edward Olanow
Well, you know, gone all the way back to the beginning I started off in asset management at what was then called Citibank global asset management, which was the mutual fund and and portfolio manager arm of the Citibank private bank way back in the day. And I worked there as a fundamental research analyst, mostly doing economics and asset allocation for my superiors. We were merged with solids with Barney, a couple of years after I was there and I was rotated to become a quantitative analyst, which is where I still spend most of my focus is on evaluating things from a quantitative rather than fundamental basis. Fast forward a little bit. I joined Jordi Visser in 2003, at anchor point asset management, which was a hedge fund, and he started a global macro hedge fund. After leaving Morgan Stanley, we did that for a couple of years together before we were I guess, Aqua hired is the the term now at Weiss, where we came on board in 2005. Lonestar macro funds there and ran it for about 10 years before he was made the president of the firm, we shut down that macro portfolio, and he and I launched the white alternative multi Strategy Fund in 2015. And we’ve been doing it ever since.

Nathaniel E. Baker
Oh, interesting. So you’ve actually been working with Jordi for a long, long time.

Edward Olanow
I know Jordi, more than I know my wife.

Nathaniel E. Baker
You may want to admit that, but maybe unless she already knows?

Edward Olanow
She knows.

Nathaniel E. Baker
You mentioned volatility at the outset, and how you guys do these, what are called dispersion trades. So walk me through that real quick and how that works.

Edward Olanow
Sure. So I think the the best way to think about volatility is the magnitude of the price returns for any asset class. And if on a daily basis, that asset class is increasing or decreasing by a large percentage, it’s going to have a higher volatility. And if it’s decreasing by us, or increasing or decreasing by a small percentage, that’s a lower volatility, and lower volatile asset classes tend to be attractive to investors who don’t want to wake up in the middle of a night worrying if they’ve lost 1020 Or half their money. That’s one of the reasons that people have historically liked fixed income is it had a much more predictable income stream than equities. However, you know, as we were saying earlier, with quantitative easing after the financial crisis, we were in an environment where the actions of the Federal Reserve and of the marketplace were reasonably predictable. The Fed was very accommodating, we had a much smoother volatile volatility profile for both fixed income and equities. And as a result, they both became very attractive to investors. This has nothing to do further with the fundamental reasons for so doing, but it just was a more predictable place for people to be to generate the return that they wanted. However, when you have something that’s not volatile, that makes it difficult for long, short, or market neutral managers like Weiss, because our goal is to pick one name that we like long, versus a name that we don’t like short, and to benefit, not by market direction, but by the dispersion between the two of them. And what we like is when the marketplace is uncertain, because that creates lots of opportunities, a deep pool to find names long versus a deep pool to find them short, as opposed to having to look at the far tails. And you probably know what I’m talking about when you think about the fangs having done great and everything else doing pretty mediocre. It’s hard to put that trade of buying the Fang and shorting the stock market and expecting that you’re going to make more money than a benchmark because that’s impossible. And it was difficult over the prevailing decade. That’s all changed. The Federal Reserve has come in and indicated that they’re going to slowly unwind QE reduced balance sheet, increase rates, add uncertainty to the marketplace, commodities have done that, as well. Warren Ukraine has done that. China has done that. The result of all of this is it creates a deep pool for Long Short and market neutral managers to really add value in diversified portfolio allocations. And that’s really what what specializes in so doing.

Nathaniel E. Baker
So you pick one name long, and this is based on your fundamental research. Typically, I would assume that now how do you find the corresponding short? Would it be something in the same sector, the same factor or something completely different.

Edward Olanow
So this is, I think what really distinguishes what we do to a lot of other long short shops is that what some people do is they’ll pick a name that they love that often was a technology name. And they’ll short a name that they don’t like that might be an unrelated name, historically in energy, or in consumer staples. And really what’s happening there is you’re taking a massive bet on technology versus consumer staples, you’re also taking a bet on increasing momentum on names that are very popular versus names that aren’t popular, you’re also taking a bet against value, you’re buying the very expensive name, and shorting an inexpensive name, all of those have almost nothing to do with the individual fundamentals of those companies. So you could actually be right that the earnings of attractive name weren’t as attractive, and the earnings of the of the other than work. But if the broader market is paying a high premium for high growth names, you don’t have a shot. So what we do at YC, is we spend our time ensuring that what we’re doing is buying and shorting like for like, so it tech name versus a tech name, a high momentum name versus a high momentum, then, et cetera, to ensure that if any of those factors, as we call them go up or down, our portfolio is not impacted. In fact, our flagship hedge fund, which has existed in one form or another since 1977, and has been open to the public, since 2006, has not had a down year since 2008. And by that measure, on a gross basis, we were down only 2%. So we were largely flat during one of the worst calamities you know, most investors memories, collective memories. The reason for that is that we did not have directional exposure to the s&p, we did not have exposure to factors like value growth, etc. We were trading names that our portfolio managers thought are attractive versus names that they didn’t think were attractive, and betting that that would disconnect.

Nathaniel E. Baker
And that actually happens within the same sector. So you can have one tech stock that does great. And another one that does poorly,

Edward Olanow
absolutely, because they have a lot of things that have nothing to do in common with each other. So if we look at the fangs, Google is principally and, you know, apologies to the specialists out there trading, but principally a company built much more on software and marketing than a company like Apple, which is principally a hardware company to a degree, I’m simplifying it for the purposes that you asked, but those names are common, only that their investor fan base is very strong, and people were willing to continue to purchase them up despite reasonably attractive valuations.

Nathaniel E. Baker
Yeah, that’s, that’s an interesting point, that fan base is there because that blew things all the water during the pandemic, especially. And would think that those relationships broke down, I would suspect, and a lot of those names. Yeah. So okay, so that’s interesting. And but you’re, you’re back, you’re saying now it’s back to a time when it’s you’re finding attractive opportunities in the dispersion trades.

Edward Olanow
I think this is going to be one of the turning points for alternative managers and long term managers, market neutral managers is rising interest rates. Historically, that means that some companies are going to be very good at internalizing rising prices, and other companies won’t be some companies are going to have better access to capital and other companies won’t. That was the opposite. When rates were zero, really bad companies were attractive because they could borrow money for their part of the expression, harebrained ideas, now it’s gonna come down to actually putting the pedal to the metal and generating profits and a rising input cost environment in an environment where it’s hard to get employees and environment where the uncertainty of the geopolitical world is, is very uncertain, is very unpredictable, that will distinguish good leadership and good fundamental companies from others. And that should be the environment where Weiss does very well.

Nathaniel E. Baker
Yeah, interesting. This, this has come up quite a bit actually on this show is as a way to protect one portfolio against inflation is basically to find the companies that are able to pass on the higher input costs to consumers. Without mentioning individual stocks, which we’re not doing here, what kinds of things do do you look for in terms of finding those companies that are attractive in that is it just simple pricing power and the fact that people will pay more for certain brands than another or what types of other things

Edward Olanow
so we have a lot of different managers that will use a lot of themes to deploy their books. We have approximately 20 portfolio managers that work at Weiss all in their own sectors specialties Energy Finance All cyclicals, etc. And I think it varies from sector to sector. What’s important is that you can identify one company from another that actually can do that. So back in the day when I was trading individual companies, because now Jody and I trade much bigger themes and our defensive and growth strategy, where I think those same fundamentals still apply. But historically, right now, I would look for operating efficiencies, full income statement, cost efficiencies, the ability to increase prices, pipeline cost improvement, anything like that is what’s going to distinguish one company from another. But one has to remember the market prices this in, you know, we’re not the only ones doing that. So you have to look for those companies that are not appreciated to be able to do that, and you your belief that they can, or vice versa. And that’s how we would generally, you know, set up our trades.

Nathaniel E. Baker
So there’s a contrarian angle there to your investing style. That’s good to know.

Edward Olanow
Yeah, yeah. I think mean reversion is one of the things that Geordi in particular loves to do. And part of the reason that you know, he and I are reasonably constructive, the s&p at the end of the day, is almost any sentiment gauge that you look at, people are no longer pressing and inflation depressing in recession. You look at bulls, bears ratios, they’re they’re down at, you know, record lows on a monthly basis, go back to 1990, and weekly lows going back 10 to 15 years. So people are pretty negative already, which leads me to believe a lot of this negative thought is priced in and you’re not going to get a lot of bang for your buck, if you just follow along with him.

Nathaniel E. Baker
Very interesting. Where does that leave? Fix him? And we touched on it. But as far as fixed income, I mean, you mentioned that rates becoming a little more attractive here. Do you think that that could there could be a bounce there in the bonds as well.

Edward Olanow
So the data is really what’s going to drive that I really do feel that fixed income is less forward looking than people give it credit for. Or credit to, especially after the past 10 years, I think so much money has to float into that space, either because of regulatory requirements or institutional comfort, that it got a nice bed for a long period of time. And what you’re seeing is a natural adjustment to the new regime, at this point, 2.9% 10 years are starting to look reasonably attractive. And that’s why despite what’s been happening at the front end of the curve, the tenure has been reasonably anchored. You know, we even saw, you know, a hint of a steepening over the past week or two, where it looks like as I mentioned, people are no longer pricing in, you know, inflation anymore. And it looks like they’re starting to believe that if we go on enough years, the Fed will have done its job. Do I like it at this point? I do sort of ish. The reason I’m kind of waffling a bit is I don’t like the volatility price, the fixed income costs, I think the volatility and fixed income is going to be notably higher. In fact, there’s an index called the move index, which is a measure of implied Treasury volatility. And it also is near all time highs enough, we take our COVID in the pandemic, indicating to me that investors just believe that the uncertainty in the fixed income complex makes it less attractive. And as a result, you’re starting to get a return stream, which looks more like equities in terms of the risk budgeting than what it used to look like. What’s a risk adjusted return of about one?

Nathaniel E. Baker
Yeah, with with less upside in equities when we suspect to Exactly, yeah, and yeah, I mean, look, especially with the Fed removing the QE, I mean, that there’s one right driver of, of bonds, right, bond prices, for sure.

Edward Olanow
I think that’s accurate. And by the way, that’s not just in treasuries, we’ve seen that with, you know, investment grade credit as well, you know, our benchmark is the Bloomberg corporate credit index, another proxy is the iBox investment grade index, both of those are having atrocious years, we’re outperforming our benchmark by about a percent and a half this year, and we’re outperforming the investment grade by about 300 basis points this year. It’s been very messy out there. They’re starting to look attractive to us. I think we need another month or two to see if we have seen a peak in inflation before I want to get much more constructive.

Nathaniel E. Baker
What kind of things do you look for as far as inflation? Is it just the usual stuff like CPI PPI or is are there any special things so

Edward Olanow
we definitely go off CPI ppi. I like looking also with what I call pipeline pressures, which is a measure of PPI minus CPI in terms of how much producers can pass through relative to how much consumers are being passed through if you think about it that way. I also like looking at commodities I’ve always viewed commodities as an input cost rather than a positive expected return asset class. So they’re a good gauge of what people are willing to pay for what they’re going to need in the future. And then of course, you know, you can look at the surveys like there’s some prices paid Philly we’ll see Philly tomorrow. Well, that’ll give us a good gauge of you know what expectations nearer term are for inflation,

Nathaniel E. Baker
the PPI that came in quite hot last reading. I believe that was even last week, and that doesn’t concern you at all.

Edward Olanow
It does concern me. And in fact, you know, pipeline inflationary pressures are very high. But one of the things to keep in mind is these are all backward looking. Yeah. So you know, when we talk about surveys, those tend to be a little bit more forward looking. And that’s why I’ll be keeping my eyes peeled for what information we’re seeing going out. And also, you know, equities will give you a good indication of what they’re beginning to see. I’m not, I’m not gonna say that inflation is not a problem. I just think that nominal GDP real rates are going to be much more powerful than people are giving them credit for it. I think inflation is likely to have hard comps over the next three to four months, which will make for slightly less uncomfortable readings for the broader marketplace.

Nathaniel E. Baker
And that’s a nice, pleasant way to end our podcast today. Ed Olano, thank you very much for coming on to the contrarian investor podcast. Really appreciate your time. In closing, maybe you can tell our listeners where to find out more about you more about the firm and how to get in touch if they like.

Edward Olanow
Sure. We’re a little again, I work at y small type strategy advisors. The name of the fund that we manage, which we think is a replacement for fixed income was called The Voice alternative multi Strategy Fund. It’s a mutual fund with a ticker WEISX. And if you want any questions, please contact our director of investor relations. Jena Roche.

Nathaniel E. Baker
Awesome. Great. So that will conclude our show today. Thank you all for listening. And thanks again to Edward. And with that, we look forward to speaking to you again next time.

Exit mobile version