Transforming Data into Stories: How to Use the Matrix Book

Well, welcome, everybody, and thanks for tuning into our broadcast, Turning Data into Stories, the "Matrix Book." We do it every year, I get really fired up about this one. I know my colleague, Joel Hefner, who I've got in studio here is getting fired up as well. Thanks for taking some time to tune into this. Couple logistical items before we get going here. As always, we try to make these recordings available, so we'll get that up as fast as possible. This broadcast is also available for CE. If you wanna get the CE credit, make sure you stay on for the entire broadcast. And then at the end, we'll want you to answer a couple of questions that pop up, so make sure that you do that. Also, in terms of following along, in your viewer there, you should be able to download not only the slides that we're gonna cover here, but also a PDF of the "Matrix Book," and that's gonna be really important. 'Cause as Joel goes through this stuff, we'll wanna make sure you're following along, looking at page numbers, and really able to identify those specific examples that we talk about. We did get a couple questions in ahead of time. We'll get to a couple of those throughout the broadcast. If we've got time, you can type 'em in. If we don't have time to get to your question, as always, we'll make sure your Dimensional representative follows up with you. But with that, I wanna go ahead, I wanna dive in. I wanna bring Joel into studio. Hef, man, it's great to have you in studio and I know you always look forward to this one. This is my Christmas every year when this book comes, it's my early Christmas present, so I love it. We all continue to say, and I still will say to this day, great materials, obviously you do tons of webcasts, all those things are important. If the internet went away tomorrow and you have this book, and a pad of paper, you can still bring in clients all day long. And those are some of the stories we're gonna talk to you about today and how to do that. Well, I think that's important. I encourage advisors to say that about, "Hey, we got great resources, we got all this stuff, but if you learn to use a 'Matrix Book,' you really can tell any investment story." So, kick us off. We always have kind of an essay at the beginning of the book. Talk to us about what we got this year. Yeah, so I really like this year's, David Booth did one on the power of innovation, and he really talks about, even in his last year, like how many things get all the patents that are filed, how many things get approved. You just start to realize that the game continues on. There's always innovation that's constantly happening. And luckily as he points out, if you own the entire public equity space, you're capturing that and doing a really good job of that. So, I thought that was a really good one. So obviously, as I always say, read that on your own time. Of course, we always have a unique cover. This year's cover, he explains it is about the power of innovation. Another thing that I thought was really interesting, and I actually wanted to zoom out on one of the examples that he gave here. He talked about the perseverance over predictions. And basically looking at the last five years, interestingly enough, these are major houses predictions basically, and their estimates at the start of the year, how would the S&P 500 do? And I thought it was really fascinating. I summed up all the years here, it's all here in the small print, but in all the years, you have 96 analysts that gave predictions, and the range from being the lowest in one year in 2020 to the highest in one year. How did the market do? Outside the range. Another year, all the ranges, outside the range, outside the range, outside the range. You had one out of 96 analysts not only get it right but actually was even within the range of where the S&P did. So interesting, every now and then it'll be somewhere, if somebody isn't as familiar with our story, they'll say, "Well, tell me what's your expectation around markets?" If I gave you this, how reliable would that be? 95 outta 96 weren't even within the range, right? So, what we can talk about at least is from a historical concept, what should we think about around expectations of market? How should we think about expected returns? How may we think about those premiums around expected returns? That's where I find this book absolute money, and those are things we'll cover today. The numbers you show there are kind of interesting. It's almost like if you put a hundred people in a room and we start flipping coins, right? And somebody flips 10 heads in a row, you're like, is that skill or is it just by chance? Well, here, your best person only got it, right? One out of five years, it's your best. Completely. I mean, that's crazy. Yeah, I know, and that essay is great. I mean, David's essays are always what I find very optimistic, very positive, great way to, I think lead into the book. And then, certainly that prediction stat that you just showed right there, great kickoff. Let's go ahead and start talking about, let's go all the way to the back of the book and start talking about global. Yeah, so what I like to say is, if you were to open this book and start opening it through numbers with somebody brand new, you may overwhelm them. So, I like starting with pictures. So again, we're gonna walk through some new things from this year that I think are really interesting. We're gonna look a little bit also at the past to compare to today. I tend to start almost always with this particular page. And by the way, it's this page 56, 57 is what it's showing here in the PDF. And it's actually gonna be pages 80 and 81 if you actually have the physical book. And I always recommend the physical book if possible, but we're gonna walk things through today as if you don't have that. And so, the world market equity capitalization, I like starting with this and sitting with a client saying, "Well, what do you notice? What's interesting and different on this?" And while some of you certainly have seen this before, I'm gonna actually start now and walk you back five years ago. So, you take a quick look at this, see the things you see, and now let's look at what was the book five years ago. And by the way, this is the cover of the "Matrix Book" from five years ago. I always keep these, I do have the largest private collection of these, still missing a couple years from the '80s. So, if you were around a long time ago, let me know, we can talk about that. When you think back from five years ago, so this is right at the start, this is data as of December, 2019, this is what the world looked like going into COVID. The US had been growing quite a bit, had a great decade in the 2010s. We actually pointed out several things in here. We pointed out in that episode five years ago, hey, Apple had actually grown so much. It was the eighth largest country at this point in time. China had been growing quite a bit to six. Japan really had been continuously going down relative to its market cap for a number of years. And we even pointed out, Apple was actually bigger than all Latin America at that point. This was sort of our first conversations about, wow, we really have a few companies that are getting very large here, sort of in the early part of the Mag 7. Well, fast forward that now to today. Wow, I mean, Apple continues to be that story, it's the third biggest country by itself, which I think certainly pretty interesting. A few other things you actually notice on here, obviously, the US at 65%. Last year, it was 61%. So far is the data we have going back, looking at the entire globe, this is the highest we've seen it. So, of course, when people are today talking about, "Well, I should just invest in the US, I only wanna invest in the US." I understand that. You have a massive recency bias here because relative to this, you've got international developed now at only 23% of the globe, it was 31% five years ago. You have emerging at 11% of the globe, it was 14% five years ago. Those are pretty substantial differences. So, we'll come back to this at the very end and talk about if the last, say, 16 years since 2009 was really the start of a bull market, of course there was a recession in 2020 but pretty short lived. So, if we say, hey, these last 16 years have been pretty magical in the United States, that is a fair statement, and you'll see that in the data and we'll talk through that. If that continues for the next 16 years, what would this map look like? And then, we'll talk about that at the end. A few other things to interestingly know 'cause there has been some positives outside of things. India's gotten an awful lot bigger. You go back to some of those earlier additions for it, it actually was materially smaller than Brazil 10 years ago. Not so much today, I mean, it's actually advanced all the way. As you actually see here, there are three of them now that are in the top seven largest country. So, pretty substantial the growth of India. Another one we'll talk about is Taiwan, that has also grown quite a bit. Now Japan, interestingly enough, is down to 5% of the globe. And one of the things we point out, if you take the US and Japan together, that equals 70%. And I go all the way back to 1989. Whoops, that's not very good nine there. 1989. We actually had the US in that time period at 32% of the globe. Japan was 41% of the globe, combination of those two, 73. So it's interestingly enough, all these years later, and that's back when I was an undergrad and I think I told that story last year on the webcast, when I switched majors because of recency bias. Think about what's actually happened in that 35-year period. Finally last year, in 2024 is the first time Japan stock market got back and equal, then passed 1989, 35 years of being under. And at the time, it had had a tremendous multi-decade experience. It became the largest market in the world, grew in massive size. Again, not claiming that the US is gonna be negative for the next 35 years, but how confident are you that this trend continues and how confident are we that you couldn't have a very long time period where things could be negative. We saw it already, it's already happened and that has distorted an awful lot of return. So, things to always mention, I think that's always a really valid point. There's always a time bias in there. That's something very relevant to me 'cause it changed what I studied when I got a degree in actually because of that recency bias in Japan. It's a really important point there. And again, we're not saying that we have an expectation that the US is gonna be negative for three decades. But if you went back to Tokyo in 1989, beginning of 1990, and you had that conversation with Japanese investors, you'd be hard pressed to find people that were making an argument and say, "Yeah, I think we're gonna be flat for basically 30, 35 years," right? It can happen. Right. Now, it can go the other way as well. Japan could have stayed on a remarkable tear. That's right. But you think about those Japanese investors and those that said, "Hey, I'm gonna just continue to double down on my own country and only invest in Japanese stock versus maintain a globally diversified portfolio." And then, you think about a US investor today who's kind of facing maybe the same argument of where do I put my chips going forward? Right. And they had a Mag 3 back then, and it was all in the same industry. We have a Mag 7, they're all in the same industry. So, world can happen. I wish I knew what the future, 35 years from now things look like, it'd be a lot easier for us to invest. Although I would imagine there'd be a lot lower expected returns. We would no longer have that risk attached to this. Completely. I also love your India. You referenced India relative to Brazil, and it makes me think of the acronym that people are familiar with and we like to talk a lot about, which is BRIC. Right. And as you point out, there's only one of those countries that did well going forward. This industry loves to market acronyms and market ideas. That's right. But what do you see? Three of those countries didn't perform that well over the next 15 plus years. Right. In fact, Brazil was one of the very worst. Russia's gone. Yeah. Yeah, you're down to an I doing really well, and the C certainly has grown, it just actually has grown a little bit less than it has many of the other countries. Okay, good. People talk about on the equity side, one of the things we ought to probably look at is the bond side as well. And I think it's very interesting 'cause certainly a lot of discussions, obviously, these bills in Congress is putting in and spending, people start to look at the debt levels. And again, not here to make a prediction. Do we have too much debt, too little debt? From an interesting relative standpoint, some of the things to note, we were 40% last year, we're 41% this year. Some of the other things, if you really compare this to the equity side of it, I go back five years ago, Japan was much bigger. Now, could argue potentially that if you get to too high of a debt level and Japan was at a materially higher debt level as a percent of its GDP than the US is even today at one point in time, that could have certainly caused some of their issues in that 35-year period. I thought it was really interesting to look. So, I also went back five years ago just to look at the relative numbers, so they have 6.5 trillion in debt. They were 9 trillion, five years ago. So, they have done a material good job basically of lowering their debt levels. And possibly, you could correlate that that has something to do with the fact that their returns have gotten a little bit better. The other one I've noticed that has really ballooned the last few years, I mean, I go back seven years ago, it was a little postage stamp in there, finally hit 1%, 2%, and now it's all the way to 10, China. They're all the way up to number two on debt. So, that is pretty new for that economy. They did not have that level of debt at all, even going back five years ago. So, it's just something to watch. Interesting, again, not here to make a prediction. Obviously, a very big economy relative to its economy size, that still isn't a huge amount. It just has been a shift in some of the things they've done before. And you do continue to see Europe having more of a debt level relative to the world than they did obviously on the equity side. So, all things that I thought were interesting to note. In fact, it was interesting, you don't see India here having much debt. You don't see Taiwan having a whole lot of debt. Very small in both those cases. Both those countries on the equity side actually have surpassed every single stock market in continental Europe from its size. So, I thought that was quite interesting. Having just come back from a summer vacation in France and Italy, these great places we love to visit. Turns out, some of the stock markets, they haven't grown quite as much as some of the others. So, I thought those were a few interesting points as it relates to the book. And I know oftentimes, people love the randomness of returns, the Skittles charts as we like to call them. One of the things I found really interesting overall on the Skittles charts, we've said this year in year out, and it still holds today on the developed markets, there still is a clear number one, and it continues to be, da, da, da, Denmark, despite the fact they had a pretty lousy 2024. And they have a mag one issue, Novo Nordisk is their mag one by quite a large mark, 20 times bigger than the second best biggest stock in Denmark. Novo Nordisk has a bad year, that market probably has a bad year as well. But it was interesting to see even despite that, your $1 million grew to about $8.5 million in that time period. Number two is the United States. So, we were a number two last year, and this for the 20-year period, you roll a year off you outta a year, we continued to be. And what I thought was really interesting, if you took the last few years, we have been in the top five in every single year except 2020, '10 and '22, we were down a little bit, and actually we're just missed it in 2016. So again, if people wonder, how well has the US done even on a relative basis here, boy, that's really strong. I mean, that is a really consistently good period except for 2022 being a little bit worse than everybody else. So, we have finished a clear number two in this relative. Now, when I go to the emerging side, we still wouldn't be in the top two. Last year for the first time, we had some fun on this broadcast, actually coined a phrase looking backwards saying, "Hey, it shouldn't have been BRIC, it should have been PICI." Which at the time PICI was PICI, that was Peru, Indonesia, Columbia and India. Adding a year again, you subtract a year off, so, 2004 is gone, you add 2024 in. It changed a little bit but funny enough, it spelled another acronym. So now, we're not gonna be PICI with our investments, we're gonna PITI our investments, which I thought was kind of funny. And number one is the true number one, the number one overall even beating Denmark now is Peru. Right? We all knew that, right? CNBC told us that 20 years ago, put all your money in Peru, right? I read that article, yeah. You would've blown out what you would've done in the US in that particular time period. Of course, that didn't happen, that we didn't hear those kind of predictions. But that has actually been the case. And actually a year ago, we said India wasn't even the number one performing country that began with the letter I, that has flipped now. So, they have done well enough, they are the second I there. So, they are number two overall, also materially ahead of the US in the last 20 years. Taiwan is the third, so that's how we went. Columbia dropped out, Taiwan replaced them, they're number three overall. And actually basically, dollar for dollar equal the United States in the last 20 years. So, the US would be about a third place tie if it related to emerging markets. And then, just right behind it again is Indonesia. So, those four in combination, if you'd own those four that had been your acronym, you would have materially more money now 20 years later than you would've had even just investing in the United States. So, I think that always surprises people when you give 'em that context. Hef, you gotta start coining these acronyms here. And I think with this one, can you channel your inner Mr. T, and say you pity the fool who the tries play this game. I pity the fool. We were quoting our '80s music before this started. So, yeah, there's our '80s TV shows. But yes, I love that. I love that. Hey, the US one is really interesting as well. But I also think it sets up a good point, which is for a lot of people that are on this broadcast, they probably have a healthy dose of US stocks, right? Right, right. And so, of course, you want everything to go up, you want it to do well, not the way diversification works, but hey, for US investors, deep breath because you probably did pretty well in your equity allocation, 'cause what we see is, reasonably strong home bias to the US. That's right, absolutely. Yeah. Although again, back to predictions. Based on geopolitical risk, what's going on, how many of you would've predicted that last year the number one performer was Taiwan? I didn't hear many headlines on that. Maybe risk and return related. Yeah, no kidding. Yeah. So, I think that's interesting. So again, what will happen this year? Don't know, wish I knew that in advance, and Jake and I would probably be sitting on a beach somewhere, but nonetheless, it's a good reminder to people, again, when they think about just the US folk, we're not saying don't own the US. You should absolutely own the US. Most of us, I think it's broadcast to a few other countries, but most of us are US based investors. Obviously, we invest in dollars. Having a heavy allocation of the US makes sense. And by the way, even if you just were the market cap of the US today at that 65%, and I'm looking across the entire globe, if I'm talking to a client, one thing you could tell 'em is, "Hey, we're gonna start with the world market cap." And by the way, that is a 13 times overweight to any other country you're invested in. If Japan's five at number two and we're 65, you have 13 times more money in the United States than any other country. Congratulations, you're now just the world market cap. So, that's one way to think about it. I like that. Hey, Hef, let's go in and let's start talking. I love the fact that you sort of took us to more of the visuals 'cause you're right, you don't wanna dive right into the numbers. Give us a one minute overview on how to read the "Matrix Book" for a lot of the pages. And then also too, as I look at your books, you do a really nice job of kind of putting post-it notes, marking things up. Just a quick perspective too on tips on how you use it. Absolutely. So, I create my own teacher's edition to the book every single year, and lots of ways to do this. We have a few others that use color coding, tabs, whatever you want. I'm a little old school, I've got the post-it note, and I tend to write what is on that particular post-it note. And my point here is, I like to come up with an order based on where I'm going in the book. So, where did I start with, well, I started with the world market cap. When I'm showing somebody as a client, I may have two versions of this book. You're always welcome to get a second book from us, by the way, we make a good number. So if you want that, that's the case. Learn to read one upside down. But it's nice having a teacher edition where I've highlighted in circle a few things that I thought were important. And the same thing's true when you get to some of these numbers. 'Cause look, when you see an entire page full of numbers for the first time, you do have to explain it to somebody what they're looking at. Once they have that aha moment, and you normally can get 'em there pretty quickly, you're in very good shape as it relates to the book. So, the way to read this book, it always begins, each of these numbers is an annualized compound rate of return. And this is a hypothetical made up example, they're actually off by a year. So, if you go, what was down 13% in 2024? Nothing, this is a made up sample here. But in this particular case, if I said, what was the rate of return? In this case, it was one year, 2024, it's 13.9. If I said the two-year number 2020, looking from 2023 in the beginning to 2024 at the ending, it's the number right behind it. So, what you always wanna do with your start date, that is reading down the line, and your end date, you're going to read across. Western style, you're always reading left to right, even if one of your numbers is way over here, you need to read it all the way across. So, as we highlight here, first step is going down, that's step one. Step two is here, that intersection, that's the annualized compound rate of return. In this case, that's a five-year number, which is 2004 to 2009. The other thing we've done on this, which I really like, this is I think third or fourth year now, we've kept this in the book. I think this stays in, I don't wanna ever say indefinitely, but I really like it. We've shaded the five-year number, the 10-year number, the 15. I love that. And we're gonna use that a little bit because we're gonna actually be looking at a 16-year period in a couple examples coming up here, and I'll explain why 16 years. I think that is a relevant time period to look at. So, that's how to use this book in a quick nutshell. We do our web conferences with people live. Most people get it right away. If they don't, it's oftentimes just 'cause they're one number over, and they basically went from right to left at the end, is set of left to right. If you do that, you'll get this right every time. That happens all the time, right? Start with the diagonal, run it down, line up on the left hand side. Right, absolutely. Yep. So, other thing to look at every year is, we publish the annualized rates of return for the data we're showing. I always think it's interesting to look at this. So, there was a number one last year, it was the exact same number one as 2023 and is the Nasdaq. The Nasdaq was up 28.6, not quite as strong as the year before, which up over 43%. Now interestingly enough, that was the last place for us two years ago in 2022. So, when I actually take the three year numbers, interestingly enough, as great as the Nasdaq done the last two years, it hasn't been the best performing asset class, S&P's done better than it in the last three years. Even though two of the three years, both up years, the S&P trailed Nasdaq, it just didn't go down anywhere near as far as Nasdaq did in 2022. So, not a lost on me there. And if you start to look through and you say, there aren't a whole lot of red numbers, but there is one again here. It's the Dimensional US 20-Year Treasury Index. Now I wanna point out, for those of you who've been around this book a long time, we used to have in their long-term government bonds, it was a 20-year index, that was actually originally created by Ibbotson and Associates. Back to the very history of this book, Rex Sinquefield and Roger Ibbotson did this as a grad school project back in the day. It's called "Stocks, Bonds, Bills and Inflation." That really is the original genesis pre-Dimensional to what is the "Matrix Book." Roger went on and created a publishing company of data, did phenomenal, eventually sold that to Morningstar when he retired out. Morningstar had this, they chose not to continue with that index. So basically, we went and recreated it. So, that's why you'll see the name Dimensional 20. So, you see that's a replacement of what you had last year, because there was a question about changes in the book. How do you guys do changes in the book? And that was one that I didn't wanna highlight. It's important to note, you're right on that. But if you go back and you dive into the numbers, incredibly similar, same story you're gonna find. Right, right. So, we looked at that from the data perspective. Yep. So, actually taking a look at what was the worst here, I thought it'd be really interesting to go through a couple examples on this 20-year treasury index. 'Cause again, this is looking at a 20-year average duration, so you're in the long end of the curve. We all know what happened in rates the last few years, they've changed a bit, and what do we actually experience now? We are at a 10-year period here, 2015 to 2024, where we are negative for the last decade, or in this case 10 years. So, at minus 0.7, that is actually the worst time period from a total return in a 10-year period in the history of this particular index. Now, they did have one other 10-year period that was negative, coincidentally, that was lining up with a true decade, 1950 to 1959. But in absolute numbers, this has been the very worst period. Now, not lost them because Jake, you were actually the one that found this some years ago with the book. So again, send us all your best. If you see something interesting in the book, send it to us. This is a Jake original. He found this one where from 2000 actually, going and ending in 2020, sorry, I got that off by one number there, it did 7.6%. So, '00 through '20, my pen's being a little funny on me, 7.6%. Do you remember what the S&P did approximately in that time period, Jake? Less than that is what I know. You're exactly right. As you showed back then. Five and change. Yeah, 6.6. Okay. So, think about this. In the very period, so here we are now, 2015 to 2024, worst absolute period in the history of the index. Yet, half of this period coincided with a period of 21 years where this particular index actually beat the S&P 500. So, things can change, things can change quickly. I thought that was an interesting observation. And I like that one too. And when we bring some of those things up, people always say sort of, "Yeah, but you started in 2000," and I hear you on that. But listen, investors put money to work at all different points in time. Advisors bring clients on at all different points in time and you very well could have brought a client on in 2000, and 21 years later, stocks lost to long-term bonds. It happens, that's part of investing. Expect the unexpected. Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely is the key message as we talk about this. Now, that was the worst performing investment last year. Let's take a flip to the best performing investment last year, which was Nasdaq. So again, as I mentioned, 28.6, last year did 43, the three year average is actually only 7.3. But by looking at it, so what has it actually done so far in this decade, 2020 through 2024, you're at 16.6% in the last five years, obviously pretty remarkable. Now, I wanna extend that back further. And the reason I wanna extend it back further is, minus what happened in 2020, which was quite brief, about one quarter, we've pretty much been in considered a bull market for just about this entire 16-year period. So, as we got to, basically it was March 9th of 2009, I remember that very well, That point on markets have really done well. And the Nasdaq has done really well in that time period. So, we are at a place now where from '09 to 2024 you have earned 16.9% annualized compound rate of return in the Nasdaq. Now, its long-term average has been 10.2. So, you are running plus 6.7% annualized excess in that time period. Now, one of the things, again I love about this book, I can go back one year and look at all the diagonals here for the 15-year numbers. If I did the same thing one below it for all the 16-year numbers, there was only one period where it actually did even better in a 16-year period. And that was actually, if you begin in 1984 and you end in 1999. Oops, am I did that right, '84 is what I said. '84, '99, that would work better. 18.3%. So, in other words, I actually have 39 different start dates here of a 16-year period. And in those 39 start dates, the second best period we've seen so far in recorded history is right now. So, back to this notion of I've got something in the long run has earned about 10. That actually seems pretty reasonable as you think about market returns and other asset classes. Last 16 years of that, I've earned 16.9. By the way, not to be lost, it did pretty lousy from 2000 to 2012. You had a 13-year period of negative returns in this very asset class. So, coming off its worst period, obviously, most recently it's how had its second best period. But back to this notion of an outlier, and I wanna point that out because some people say, "Well, this is what I should be investing in today." Reality is in hindsight, this is what you should have been investing in 2009. We just, of course, didn't know it at the particular time. And in 2009, you're coming off a massive lost decade where it did not look that appealing to do. So, this again gets back to that notion of, I wish I could tell you what the future holds, but there's a lot of people we talk to today and their clients may think this is where I go because of the last 16 years, this is what I expect for the next 16 years. This has been an outlier event. Outliers can happen, they can continue, I don't know when it stops or when it changes or if it changes, but nonetheless, relative to long-term data, it's been an outlier event. Now, if I compare that to US small stocks. Now Jake, if we asked to pull our our advisors into their clients, have small stocks done well the last 16 years, what would the common answer be for people? I think a lot of people have been having some conversations around the premiums. There's obviously large growth, tech stocks, all the things that we know have done really well. So, I think before people looked at the numbers and said, "Hey, how do you think they've done?" They'd probably be, "Oh, so much worse." Absolutely. Yeah. Yep, absolutely. So, when I actually look at this in this time period, it's pretty interesting. So, I'm gonna do that same example, '09 through '24, so the last 16 years. Interestingly enough, and I think this is very surprising for people, you've earned 13.5%. So, if I did not know what Nasdaq did, and I said, "Wow, 13.5% the last 16 years," and look, it's long term average has been, it's just shy of 12. It's outperformed it's long long-term average in the last 16 years, that's an above average draw. Now, not completely uncommon, if I were to do this line up here. And basically, you do it across, all the ones below the 15. There are other periods in a number of them that have actually had rates of return higher in a 16-year period than that. And certainly, many that have been below. But it's a nice way of saying, you've seen this before and that draw by itself in isolation, people would not be disappointed with it. So, when I hear people say small cap stocks have not performed in the US, I am gonna challenge that notion. Relative to its expected return, especially since '09, they've done really well. Oh, and by the way, in 2000 through 2009, you were 7.9%. So, '00 to '09, you did 7.9% in that particular time period, while the Nasdaq was materially negative, while the S&P 500, your million dollars declined to 920,000 in that time period. So, great diversifier in that time period. It's been a great diversifier in this time period too. It just has not kept up with the abnormal return we've seen in the Nasdaq in that time period. And I think that's important to point out. Well, some people say, "Well, value also hasn't done as well." Well, let's look at value and size as we relate to those two and let's look at those exact same time periods. So, I'm gonna again take 2009 all the way to 2024. '09 to '24, another 16-year period, 13.9%. Now, long-term average of this asset class has been a little over 13. Once again, a slightly above average return in the last 16 years. In isolation, that is not a disappointing result at all, that is a good result. And again, many other periods we've seen in that 16 years that have in fact done a bit better. So again, not an outlier type event, it's done better, it's done worse, in this particular period has not been bad at all. So, I think that's important to remind clients you've been invested in the US, people are saying, "Oh, I'm disappointed in value, I'm disappointed in size." I'm gonna challenge that. Really take a look at some of those numbers. If you look at this most recent period, and this is giving Nasdaq their best shot, this is starting in '09, I'm giving them their best possible start date. It's not really a very disappointing result. Back to 2000 to 2009, how this asset class do? 12.3% annualized rate of return, almost hit it's average in '00 to '09. You are really happy you had that in your portfolios in that particular time period. So, did amazing for you in that time period, has not disappointing in this time period, it's all relative. It's kind of interesting, the question came in ahead of time. Given 2024 market data, are there any notable deviations from historical market trends that advisors should be watching closely? And I think the points you just made set that up nicely. If you look at what small cap in the US has done, what small value in the US has done, even large, it's relatively in line with historical average over the last 10, 15 years as you noted there. It's really that large growth component that has been the outlier. Yes. And so, you really have to ask yourself, what are you concerned about going forward? Size and value US delivered what we got on expectation. Right? Right. Growth's been the outlier there. Yep. Yeah. Well, that's been the US market. Now, let's fast forward to the international market because it is a different story. International investing, look, I can't sugarcoat it, it is not kept up with its historical averages, both in emerging, both in international. Now, interestingly enough, when you talk about size and value, there have been size and value premiums in international. So, that's the other thing, people say, "Well, value really hasn't done that well." In the US, remember, we invest in 44 different countries here. Many of those countries, in fact, most you have seen a value premium in that time period. You have seen a size premium in that particular time period. So, giving you the extreme example of comparing that at least to international small cap value. Now, a couple things here. Number one, we don't have data that goes back as far, still gonna be relevant to this entire time period I'm showing. I really wish we had great international small value data in the 1970s because pretty confident it would've done really well in that time period, that was an incredible decade for international. But nonetheless, getting rid of probably what was the best decade for international, just going to '82, you still see a long term average return or annualized rate of return international small, pretty close to what you've seen in the US. So once again, you have seen this notion of a premium there. Now, what have we had in the last 16 years in this time period? So, 2009, again, '09 to '24 we have seen 9.8%. So once again, is 9.8 less than 12.6? Yes, it is. It has in fact underperformed. Is 9.8% in isolation by itself as an asset class detrimental to somebody's asset allocation? I argue probably. It's a really good way to think about it, yeah, Probably not. And again, how did that one actually do in 2000 to 2009? Remember, sometimes we own these things may not always be a return story, I think there still is, but even if it's not, is it a diversification story. 2000 to '09 in that particular decade, we have a winner here. And that winner, oops, I just wrote over my own drawing so much can barely even read it. Did 13.7 in that time period. So, guess what? It exceeded. It was above its long-term average in that particular 10-year period of 12.9. So once again, diversification paid off, paid off really well in this case. In this particular example, last 16 years, yes, it's been under. Has it been something massively different? No. We've seen many other time periods where it's done better than that. And I think that's a good reminder to folks. Once again, even in an area where we've seen Japan from '82 to '04, go from 41% of the globe down to five, you had your biggest market cap part drop from 41% to five, you should expect lower realized returns in that time period. And you've certainly seen that here. It's just a good reminder about diversification in general. I mean, in a diversified portfolio, not everything in your portfolio is gonna be the best performing asset class, right? Right. I mean, that's really the point of diversification. But back to some of the other points that you made of, you just don't know where lightning's gonna strike. And we've seen those periods where different asset classes go on a run for a 10 or 15-year period, and then it can flip different parts of the world, US, non-US do the same thing. Right. Well, maybe you've convinced your client, we don't want it all in Nasdaq. Maybe they're saying, "Ah, maybe I want a little diversification." But you know what, I'm actually gonna go back, 'cause look, let's look at what the assets are. Let's look at the biggest funds out there. What are those invested in? Well, they're invested in the S&P 500 index. And next year, it'll be cool, 'cause we'll have 100 years of data. Right now, we have 99 years of data, so I'm looking forward to next year's broadcast already. But in the S&P 500, let's take a look at that exact same time period. Obviously, we know in the long run, whoops, I goofed that up pretty good. In the long run, we have a 10.4% is the long term annualized rate of return in the S&P 500 is what we've seen. Now in the last 16 years, same example here, '09 through '24, 14.6%. Now again, back to the notion, how much of an outlier is that? Not to the extreme of Nasdaq, but it's a pretty good outlier. If you start scrolling back on all those 16-year numbers, you will find some higher ones here. You're gonna find some higher ones that began in the early 1980s. Makes sense, 'cause that includes the .com part through 1999. You're gonna find some that actually began in the late '40s, right around the war time that are gonna be a little bit better than that. Outside of those two areas, this has been the best performing 16-year period outside of basically those two areas. So again, I'm not gonna call it an outlier, but I will say it's in a very good draw that happened in the last 16 years relative to the S&P 500, which once again reminds people of, 'cause it's been such a good draw, this is where I wanna invest. Now, I can go back in my career at Dimensional, I started here in 1998. I remember very vividly in 2010 and in 2011, conversations I had with advisors, and advisors with their clients asking to put more money in the S&P 500. I remember exactly how many conversations I had in that two-year period. It was zero. Why? 'Cause it had just come off the lost decade. It's the exact opposite of what we see. So, there's always a recency bias in data, I think that's very important to point out. Again, a very, very strong draw in the S&P 500 in these last 16 years. But again, your client may be back to saying, "Oh, this is exactly what we want, we just want the S&P 500." Let me walk you through one other example. Again, this isn't always trying to talk people out of it, but just showcasing what are some of the risks if we really truly have just that one asset class. 'Cause again, we did have a lost decade, 2000 to 2009. The all time record's a bit worse than that, 1929 to 1942. So, there is a 13-year period so far in recorded history where this asset class is down. So, if you wanna own a single asset class, at least so far the record, you could have a 13-year period that's negative. If somebody's retiring today, you're telling 'em, first 13 years, your retirement, knowing making nothing, you're losing, that's gonna be a tough client to keep. So, we'll talk through a few examples there. But when I think about the S&P 500 and all the draws, you take this "Matrix Book," you see all those numbers. What's another way to interpret these numbers? You can do a few drawings on it. And as we said, hey, the long term average is 10.4, but for simplicity here, I'm gonna say, the S&P 500 is 10. What I wanna know in those 99 years is, how often does the S&P hit 10? If you actually go back and look at the book, there's only two years in the 99 where it's within 1% of the average. Yet we all talk about, oh, we expect 10. You saw those analysts, what are they predicting? Well, they're kind of moving on either side of it, but collectively that ended up around 10, and yet 95 to 96 weren't even within the range of where the S&P 500 finished in that particular time period. So, I always think this is really interesting. If I say, all right, let me extend that out, 'cause 1%, that's pretty tight. But if you're doing financial planning for somebody and the S&P's between, let's say five and 15, we'll go to some other numbers there. So, between five and 10, very interesting to me, there are only eight observations in that 98-year period where the S&P 500 is between five and 10, and there's only nine observations between 10 and 15. So, think about that. You're telling me basically, there's a 17% chance so far in recorded history in a single year that the S&P's between five and 15, and your client wants to own this 'cause they think they're gonna get 10, or actually they think they're gonna get 14, 'cause that's what it's been the last 16 years. So, that's pretty rare. You actually don't see it that end. Let's extend it out even further in the volatility, all the way to zero and 20%. Now, there's only six outcomes that happen between zero and five. There are a few more here between 15 and 20, you have 12 outcomes. But think about this. You only have 35 outcomes between zero and 20. Another way of saying about a third of the time, slightly over a third of the time, the S&P 500 returns between zero and 20, and you're planning on 10 or maybe 14. You're planning on that, third of the time. Two thirds of the time, it's on the tails. Well, we know over here, it's been negative 26 times. I didn't draw that to scale. If I do it to scale, it'd be up there. And 26 times negative, so about one out every four years, the S&P 500 is negative. Doesn't mean on clockwork, we had a bunch of years in a row it was positive. Obviously, we did have 2022 that was most recently negative, but that's what we tend to see in the long run. And then over here on the plus 20 side, we are at 38 years. So if I drew that, I would take up the whole screen in that particular case. That's normal in a single asset class like the S&P 500. I think that's very difficult from a planning perspective. Somebody wants to zoning even they, oh, I'm diversified, I own 500 companies, large part of the US market. That's your expectation, you're gonna get year out. Managing a client to expectations around that, I think that's gonna be pretty difficult. Yeah, I agree with you on that. It's such a good example there, and it gets back to that point, kind of expect the unexpected. 10% long-term average, basically never get it. Hey, I wanna come back to a question. We were talking about premiums, you're talking about small value, all of those things. I think this one will be good for you to answer here. What do you say to a client who feels they've missed out on years of gains due to a value lien? And you touched on it a little bit. And that value, even in the US has delivered in line, but I think there are still some people out there that feel that way. Absolutely, it's a start date problem. Mm-hmm. I mean, literally. So, to the point, you started in '09, and you look at this and you say, "Oh, my gosh, I only got 13.9% in small value." Again, a good draw. But gee, the S&P was higher than that, I did higher than that in the Nasdaq. I should have done better if I had that in hindsight. Again, in '09, I'll tell you right now, nobody was coming in saying, "This is the time to put money in the Nasdaq." If you did let me know, with proof, I wanna see that. But you just didn't see that at the time period, there's always the recency bias. Now interesting, for me, at least I can speak truthfully of my own personal portfolio. I was lucky enough to have first been introduced to Dimensional in 1994 as an advisor before I worked here in 1998. So, when I go back to my vintage, and I still have it to this day, what I brought, broadly diversified number of different holdings in Dimensional from the strategies they had at the time. My number one performing fund live real returns in my portfolio, US small value. So, when people say that, I'm like, "Well, that hasn't been my investment experience," but I've had a longer timeline. I've had a longer investment time horizon for that. So, the shorter the time horizon, the more volatility you're gonna have in any particular case. But again, have I altered my portfolio as a result of that decision? No, I'm not, I'm gonna be globally diversified on a little bit of everything, have some weights, thank goodness I had some of that in small value, 'cause that's actually been my number one. It's a great point there on the time period. Back at the front of the book there, we do look at US asset classes. One of the things that I like to do is flip between the pages of kind of start with S&P, think about a core too. Look at a large value, look at a small, look at a small value. And when you start to look back and say, "Hey, I'll look over shorter periods and I can see sort of the unexpected." Right. Once I get back to 2000, 1995, 1990, 1985, it all really starts to line up with, hey, these expectations of over longer periods, you see the premiums tend to show up. Right. Yeah. Yeah, you gotta go through full cycles on it, and that's the hardest part. Completely. Hey, one of the things, we've got a couple questions in about this, and I think it's important to talk about is just around inflation. I mean, it's still out there. Obviously, it's come down from where we've seen a couple of years ago, but that narrative is still out there. And when you think about being a long-term investor, you definitely have to think about how you address inflation. Absolutely, right. As we like say, that's running into the headwinds. Yes. All the time, and it tends to be. In fact, the last time it wasn't a headwind and it was a tailwind was 1954. So, it's been a little while since we've seen deflation in this country. Even looking in the last five years, so 2020 through 2024, it's been 4.2. That runs higher than the two nine long-term average, but still put that in context. I mean, again, if you travel some and you go to other countries, sometimes you just hear countries have 20% inflation, 30, 300, 3,000% inflation. Right. For us, obviously that was high, I wanna minimize it. But putting that in perspective, it was high relative to some of those periods. Not anywhere near like the 1970s, but yes, we have been running higher the last few years of nothing else. So, from a planning purposes that's important, because obviously, one of our goals is we're building out a portfolio. I assume most people probably invest 'cause they wanna have more consumption into the future, right? You can put money into the mattress, and obviously, this is working against you if you're investing. Most cases, people are probably investing with the purpose of outpacing inflation. Well, and I like to use this chart there, if we zoom in actually to that upper right hand corner and look at the heat map that we've got up here, and I think people are probably familiar with this. Positive returns in green, negative returns in red, and then the intensity of that. One of the questions I like to ask financial advisors is, hey, define risk for me. And there's a lot of different ways, but I think in the field of wealth management, a good way to think about it is, uncertainty around future consumption. You bet. Right? And that can take a lot of forms, that's retirement, send your kids to college, live like you want to, all of those things, right? And in this heat map, if we can define risk as a color, in this case red, I think it's interesting to look at. We're looking at USCPI, and I always ask here, "Hey, how much red do you see on this chart?" Right. And you see some, but not a ton. If you go one more page, which this is going to be the S&P 500, but in real terms- Inflation adjusted, yeah. Inflation adjusted. And how much red do we see here? You see some, but not a ton. Again, let's go one more page and let's look at treasury bills, but treasury bills inflation adjusted, and how much red do we see on this page? Right, which by the way, the last few years have finally gotten back to actually paying a little bit above the inflation rates in the long run here. But to your point, boy, this ends up a little bit different, doesn't it? Well, and it's a really nice way just to have that conversation around risk of, hey, it may not be year to year volatility. What we're really trying to think of is, can we set you up for success long term? And can we ensure that we're gonna have different investments stocks, which do a good job of outpacing there and maintain your purchasing power over time. Right, and by the way, this little part down here, you're at 93 years of negative real returns in T-bills, which is a nice way of saying I can go all the way back into the 1930s. I would've been better off spending my dollar that day to buy things than put it in T-bills in this entire time period. That's pretty remarkable. You do have a negative 17-year period in the S&P 500, that's the longest. We had a most recent negative, 13-year period inflation adjusted. Boy, to your point, T-bills have that beat. They're 93 years in counting, and it seems pretty unlikely, this year's gonna erase that mark. Well, make sure you define risk correctly there. Right. Joel, we've been talking about individual asset classes, let's put it together, let's start talking about some allocations. Absolutely. 'Cause I think that always with the punchline of this is, look, people can look at individual asset classes. Your job as an advisor is how can I create something that has, at least the highest probability of getting somebody from point A to point B? Maybe, it's not always about the highest return, it certainly could be about how do I keep people on, keep 'em consistent, tune out the noise, stay in your seats, all the acronyms and things we've put out there over a long time period. And a few years ago, we were asked, we've been asked for a long time, "Hey, what's your best thinking?" Again, I don't know your clients, I dunno your client's risk tolerance, I don't know their individual situations. That's where you come in and are absolutely worth your weight in gold, keeping people in their seats. But with that said, without us having that information, we do have several different models we've put out there and the models like to call it, here in Texas, we think about the hot sauce, we've got a mild, medium, spicy and different flavors of it relative to the types of tilts you want relative to market. So, looking at, here, at least, in the core plus model, which has a more aggressive tilt into value, into size, into profitability, where we're trying to tilt the odds in our favor over the long run. Couple things I always point out about this, the data would do to limitations in emerging, you start in 1985. So, like anything in life I mentioned, hey, my 1994 start date was positive for me in US small value relative to other investments. 1985 here, you're missing all the good stuff from the international time period. So what I love about this, you can say the word data mining. I love this particular start date because this actually data mines in the opposite direction of the story. This is not a great period to start because that was a very good starting period for the US, and you only got a couple years of international doing well before a pretty substantial decline happened in the 1990s, particularly with Japan. And obviously, what we've seen in the most recent 16-year period, as I mentioned. With that said though, this particular portfolio, 100% equity models earned about 11.64%. How's that compared to the S&P 500? You can go back and look at that, but the S&P 500, by the way, is 11.8 in this time period. Obviously, that's the true index, not other with fee. So, if I look at that, it's kind of a so what. Wait a second, you got 14,000 stocks, 44 different countries, but nonetheless, yeah, maybe I'll just hit the easy button. Easy button, I'll just buy the S&P, be done with it and I'll be in good shape. Well, a couple things that I always wanna point out in here, number one, the globally diversified portfolio, pretty interesting. And I love actually when we show the lowest one in three years, 'cause we don't actually use calendar year returns, we use monthly as our start date. So, that gives you 12 times more potential start dates for what's the world's worst investor. And we all have that one person we know is our world's worst investor when they call us and say it's a good time to buy, we deep down, we're like, "Oh, should I do the opposite of this, right?" It doesn't always work out that way, but you know what I'm saying. So worst period, it's March of 2008, you go, "Oh, markets have been down." 2007 ended pretty lousy, first quarter's bad." Bear Stearns just went under, "Hey, good time to buy." Well, actually it turned out, no, you were down another 47% in that 12-month period. Through the end of February of 2009, you go, "I can't take it anymore, I sell." So that's your worst, you're down 47%. That next period, literally starting to the next month in this particular example, became the best 12-month period so far in history for this, up 72%. So again, you're down just under 50, you're up 72. A nice way of saying for what was the worst period in recorded history of a globally diversified portfolio in this example, 75% of your losses were made up if you just bought and hold for one year. And I vividly remember the press telling us, "Buy and hold is dead." I don't think the press understands what they're talking about. It was literally the best possible thing you could. If you'd rebalance more, that would've even been better. But just even buying and holding, which was tough to do in that period, I lived through this. You did quite well. I mean, you made most of that back and you go fast forward one more year later, most people were well under the block in that time period. So, that's a globally diversified portfolio. You did not have that experience in the S&P 500, took a little bit longer for it to recover as a single asset class. But what I think is interesting, comparing those two, back to the notion of, where you can use the "Matrix Book" to be on your side. I can go through and say, all right, well, let's think about down drafts. 'Cause we keep talking about start date mattering and I fully believe that. So, I've got 40 years of returns now for the core plus going backwards. And I'm gonna walk you through a hypothetical example. I was an economist, so I get to make some assumptions here. Fairy godmother comes to you in January 1st of each year and grants you one brand new client, and great client every year. So, you got 40 different clients over these 40 years in your start date. And you have two options for them. You're either gonna put 'em all on the S&P 500, or you're gonna do this globally diversified portfolio. Now, in that start, one of the problems you have is your clients go, "Ah, but if at any point you give me four years, if four years later in my portfolio I'm negative, I'm out, I'm leaving." Is that a horrible hypothetical example? Not really. The hardest conversations we have is, with somebody starts with money and multiple years later they're negative. That is a difficult conversation to keep people in their seats. Even the ones that say, "I can handle it, I'm diversified," that's a tough conversation. Well, let's actually play out how that did because there are a couple four-year periods here. 2008 to 2011 is one of them. 2005 to 2008, either on those start dates. So, of our 40 clients, we do have two that would not have done particularly well. So, at minus four years, the core portfolio does have two. So again, we had 40 clients, two have actually would've left, so we're left with 38 in this example. Or reality is very, very difficult conversations. By the way, the S&P, in this exact same time period of last 40 years. So, this is apples to apples had three negative four-year periods. It's kind of still, isn't it, Jake? Mm-hm. Okay. Well, let's expand that out a little more. 'Cause turns out the S&P had a few others that didn't work out quite so well. They also had three negative five-year periods to none for the core. They also had, one of our clients had a negative seven-year draw to none. One had a negative eight-year draw to none. Oops, one, my punchline, and two different consecutive folks here had a negative 10-year draw, two. Last I checked that is 10 out of 40, shouldn't have done that line. 10 out of 40, so in other words, 25% of our clients have had a negative four-year draw. And actually, some of them have had materially longer time periods within that. That is an incredibly difficult business to manage and incredibly difficult for clients to stay the course. 'Cause the only way they would've gotten the last 16 years of returns, they had to stick through this period. And these are real, this actually happened in that particular asset class. So in core, what do we see? We got two out of 40. Would you rather have 25% bad conversations or 5%? And by the way, the 5% were much louder. Now records can be broken. So again, I can't sit here and say, every five-year period going forward in life, core will always be positive, but that is a material difference, and I think that's really worth noting for people. I would agree with you on that. It really sets up the question for the advisors and the financial professionals is, what is the experience that you're trying to create for your clients? I mean, certainly you wanna maximize wealth, you wanna do all of these things, right? But I think sometimes people lean to, "Well, I just wanna achieve the highest return." Be like, well, if you can't stick with the plan, is that really what your goal is? That's absolutely right. Yeah, yeah. And if I knew what the highest return was in advance, boy, that would be wonderful information but I don't. Exactly. Oftentimes, we kid around, as it gets to summertime in Austin, gets a little hot around here. Some of us tend to try to leave town as much as we can. I certainly take any speaking example I can, and towards the coast where it's a little bit cooler. But most people would agree, like if you're gonna move and make a decision on where you wanna live, probably the average temperature something you look at, right? Wouldn't that make some sense? Yeah. So, we're like markets, you're looking at the rates of return. So, I just gave you two examples that basically ended up the same. Core ended up about the same as the S&P in this last 40 years. I'm gonna give you two cities too. And by the way, here's my qualifier for you. Both average 77 degrees a year, both get about the exact same amount of sunlight. Now, should we see differences then in which one we wanna live in? Probably not too much unless you kind of look under the hood and say what is the degree of severity that exists on both of those sides. And that's back to that single asset class notion versus global. So, I can give you one here. One of those cities by the way, is Honolulu, Hawaii, beautiful place to go at any time of the year, right? Thumbs up. It's pretty near 77 a lot. In fact, it's all time biggest range wasn't that much from its all time low to its all time high. I think it's all time high, it was like 90. Still in the 90s, or we may pass that today in Austin. But if I go actually to the other one that actually has the exact same average, it's Death Valley, California, which by the way has the highest recorded temperature ever in history as a single city. Of course, at one year, it had over 100 degree range between its lowest and the highest at any given point. The average is the same. I had a very different experience with Death Valley. Death Valley gave us more like that S&P and we had these big fat tails going on here. What did Honolulu give us? A lot more stuff closer to what we were looking for. That's right. By the way, I came from an advisor, we didn't come up with this one, I came up with it at a conference. So, those are the kinds of stories where, between combination of the book, the data, telling some stories, doing a few drawings, I think you can really bring in clients all day long. And again, I'll continue to point out, the final thing I'll leave you with, I just did some quick math here on back to the last 16 years. If I made two assumptions here, again, in my final thoughts, people will say, well, technology, game change, investing's changed, markets have changed. Okay, let's say you're right, it's changed. The Nasdaq forever now is going to be on this new path, and the next 16 years are gonna look just like the last 16 years. Average 16.9% a year, almost 17% a year. So, I looked and said if the Mag 7 today equals countries two, three, four, five, and six, and I'm just gonna slow the Mag 7 growth down to the Nasdaq, they did better than the Nasdaq. So, they're gonna slow down to the Nasdaq of the last 16 years for the next 16 years. And I'm gonna make a second assumption that international and emerging investing gets back to its average, which has been under its average the last 16 years. So, one's coming down on average, one's coming up, what does the world market cap look like? The Mag 7, just those seven stocks, would be twice the size of the rest of the world combined. And between that and just the US, the US is gonna be about 90%. So, if you're making decisions today based on the past and believing it goes forward of what you're saying, I'm not saying this can't happen, just as I'm not saying you can't be negative for the next 35 years, but it's a pretty extreme example to say that the US is gonna be about 90% of the globe and dominate so much that nothing else does. That's what you're looking at if the next 16 years look like the last 16 years. So again, if the goal is to get pump from point A to point B, maximize their quality of life, what they can count on, and I think there's a better way to think about it than some of these extreme examples. It's a great point there. It's not to say that it's a zero probability, anything can happen with investing, we just don't know. But if you're standing here today on expectations, how do you design solutions that put the odds in your favor, I would say, and allow you to have a good investment experience along the way, that's a huge, huge part of it. Right. Joel, as always, awesome job there. Really appreciate your time. Love the insights you always draw outta the "Matrix Book." Thank you. And everybody, thanks for taking some time to tune in to the broadcast. Hopefully, you had an opportunity to download those slides, download the PDF, which we have in the player. If not, we've got that stuff available on MyDimensional. And certainly, as Joel mentioned, if you haven't had a chance to get one of the books or you wanna get a second book 'cause you want the teacher edition like he talked about, let us know, we're happy to send one of those out to you. Hey, Hef, I gotta give you one other one too. Check this out. Yeah. A couple other things that were typed in is, "We want more Hefner, and how does Joel keep looking so young?" You had to have planted those, you had to. This is for advisors only, so that can't be my mom. Thanks, mom, but she's not watching this one. So, whoever my fan is, thank you very much. All right, that's great. Well, listen, make sure you get the "Matrix Book" resources, we'll get this recording posted as fast as possible. And then again, for those of you that are wanting CE credit, stay on here, brief time period. Make sure you take care of that, we'll get your CE process for you as fast as possible. Thanks again, everybody, have a great rest of the day.