Where Asset Allocation Meets Client Psychology

Sean Walters: Hello, welcome to The Exceptional Advisor, the podcast from the Investments & Wealth Institute. I'm your host, Sean Walters, CEO of the Investments & Wealth Institute.

I'm not an advisor nor an academic. We're about to have an interview with an academic, so I want to make that clear so you don't miss why I'm not asking all these difficult academic technical questions. I really have spent a lot of time working with advisors, and my goal here is really just to facilitate content and thought leadership that helps advisors become great advisors. And every month we step back from the noise and focus on the bigger picture. What does it take to serve clients really well, lead strong teams, and lead with excellence in a profession that just keeps changing under our feet?

So today I'm really excited to have with us Dr. Christopher Geczy from the Wharton School. Chris, welcome.

Christopher Geczy: Sean, thank you so much for having me.

Sean Walters: Chris teaches finance at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He spent his career working in a variety of different fields. He's taught for the Investments & Wealth Institute, Endowments and Foundations, and Alternative Investments. He's worked with us around our CIMA® certification program. He earned his PhD at the University of Chicago, so he's got a broad range of investment expertise. And he's also been leading a lot of the client psychology and behavioral finance work at the Wharton School.

So we're gonna have a broad spectrum today, Chris. We're gonna start by talking a little bit about the markets and asset allocation, then move into portfolio construction, and then really spend a lot of the time talking about the client, client psychology, and how advisors can better work with clients. You ready to begin? Let's get started.

Christopher Geczy: Yeah, I can't wait.

How Does Asset Allocation Help Portfolios Withstand Market Volatility

Sean Walters: So we originally talked about what we might get into today — a market update. There's a lot of volatility. I didn't want to necessarily go in that direction, as you can imagine, there's just gonna continue to be volatility. So talk a little bit about what you're discussing these days around asset allocation. How can the CIMA® certification and a well-designed portfolio help advisors weather a lot of this volatility and the storm that's going on around them?

Christopher Geczy: Yeah, Sean, again, thank you for having me. Obviously we've had a long relationship, and you and I have been friends for a long time, so it's just great to be here. And I suspect people who are listening are mutual friends.

It's always an important time to talk about asset allocation, in part because what the science tells us is that asset allocation for prudently defined portfolios determines a lot, especially starting with risk. And of course, we don't disconnect risk and reward from the outcome. So the old saw that is a Brinson, Hood, and Beebower result, but has been verified, underscored, and modified by others, is that most of the risk of a portfolio is derived from asset allocation, as long as it's a reasonably diversified portfolio. That keeps coming up again and again. You can ask the question different ways — you could talk about the advent of alternatives, measurement of the underlying investments — but asset allocation, at the beginning and the end of the day, becomes incredibly important.

And when I think about the process in the real world about managing money — and I span both sides of a ledger here — I think about what is important for the long-run meeting of goals with respect to asset allocation. I call it strategic. Then I think about tactical asset allocation. At one point in my life, I was working on ultra-high-frequency trading, and there's not that much strategic — it's all tactical. And then when you think about very long-run investing — 30, 40, 50-year endowment-style horizons — you think strategic. Then you have everything else. How do you actually fulfill all of this? Are you passive, active, pooled? How broad is your view? Are you thinking in a UMA world or total balance sheet, or are you thinking a little more narrowly? And then attribution and monitoring, and I think the fifth element, rebalancing.

All of that starts with asset allocation, if you're taking it from a rational, prudent perspective. If you're gambling, or you're a highly idiosyncratic investor, or as a practical matter you have concentrated stock positions or preferences around that, you're at least somewhere between strategic and tactical, but we know you're taking a lot of risk that is perhaps diversifiable.

So today, especially when the idea of risk being a law of physics is as important as ever, the idea of asset allocation is always alive. I have a lot to say about it, but that five-part framework is a good way to start almost everything, even if you're a core-satellite investor or you have that concentrated stock. It's the starting point, but it's not the ending point.

Sean Walters: Well, so it sounds like that's where a lot of the value lives — in the value of an advisor working with a client. And if that's the case, the real test on asset allocation isn't when things are calm; it's when they're not, in terms of working with an advisor. So when markets turn volatile or violent, clients want to do something. Which allocation fundamentals hold up under stress, and which ones get more exposed as a fragile moment sparks volatility?

Christopher Geczy: Yeah, it's the key question, in part because sometimes when our students, or any students, learn about how to think about risk, they hear from famous investors like Howard Marks, or they hear from the academics — the Markowitzes and the Sharpes and the Famas and the Stambaughs — and they have to take a philosophical position on what risk is. Is it volatility? Is it downside risk? These debates will rage forever.

What we know is that we have more up days than down days historically in our lifetimes. But that's not true across every asset class. And while permanent loss of capital — like Howard's most preferred notion of risk — really is salient for us all, if you think about rebalancing, or distributions, volatility turns out to be really important. And by the way, it's correlated with the downside.

So what it means is you don't have outliers every day. When people learn statistics, they're very quick in their minds to rule out the outliers, and Nassim Taleb has famously written about this very effectively for years. We sort of teach our brains to forget about the pain, even though there is evidence of neuronal scarring on the behavioral side. So your point is critical — how do you think about it in advance? Like thinking about a business plan for something, you want to take the business plan off the shelf not just on the average day, but the worst days.

The good news is, although we have fat tails in distributions, the average day is not as bad as the worst day. We don't have a uniform distribution of returns. It may not be bell-curved, but the good news is it's not uniform. Can you imagine every day being like — you don't know whether it could be the best or the worst? What a horrible existence that would be, to have a uniform set of outcomes. We have a pretty heavy center, and all the tails are fat — they're narrower than the center. The average day is pretty average.

Now, what does that mean for asset allocation? It's like putting in some notion of a budget for insurance, because you know you're going to underperform on the best days in one class of assets or one investment. But if you do it the right way, you're presuming that you're going to make money by not losing it — and that's another one of Howard's favorite ideas.

So let me link it back to asset allocation and what we should be thinking about. The pathway of the academic — and now very democratized, industry practitioner — practical incarnations of asset allocation, including through models, have gone from diversifying across investments (stock A versus stock B) to diversifying across classes of assets (stocks A and B versus commodity C versus bonds D). Now we're having a high-EQ approach to it, which is decomposing any given class, or its components, along risk lines. A bond is a different part of the capital structure from common equity. Bonds have different characteristics that are legal in nature — there are covenants and so on. But if you decompose it into the risk DNA — what determines the risk and reward of a bond? Duration, interest rate exposure, credit quality, ability to pay, if that's part of the scheme and return principal, if that's part of it. Also potential liquidity — many bonds are often on the run when they're issued, that's the most sublime notion of liquidity, and then they go off the run the next day. If you don't believe me, trade a corporate bond one day and then try to trade it three days later and see what the spread is. Currency, convertibility, optionality — these are the risk determinants of a bond.

So we're sort of rotating across the path of history, and also what matters for asset allocation. Here's an example: if you think about bonds and interest rate exposure, what happened in 2022 — and could happen at any time — is that unexpected changes in long-term interest rates will really impact bonds. Guess what? It also impacts growth stocks. Why? Because both long-duration bonds and growth stocks have that long-term risk exposure to rate changes, especially unexpected rate changes, which is really what our models talk about.

So it's a long answer to a short question, but the key for me is: if you're thinking about diversifying — not just for the average day, at any level of risk, low or high — you want to think about what risk diversification you have in your investments. Another way to invert the question is to say, hey, we've got a budget for risk. Let's not duplicate it. Let's buy it the right way. And you might want to have SpaceX in your portfolio at an overweight. Okay, it's your money, not mine — I'm not saying it's not a great investment, I'm not giving investment advice on it. But I will say you can have core-satellite embedded in all of this. Just remember, you're taking a risk tilt. And by the way, there are a lot of things to talk about that lead back to a bunch of things, like: are there bubbles, and how do we deal with that? And also, how do you deal with core-satellite in a world like that?

How to Tell If an Asset Class Is in a Bubble

Sean Walters: Yeah, that's my follow-up question, Chris. The bubble question is very high on a lot of people's minds right now, and based on what you just described, how would you counsel advisors to think about the bubble question as it relates to asset allocation principles?

Christopher Geczy: Yeah, bubbles are really a source of consternation for everybody, because although there are a bunch of famous treatments of bubbles — both rational and irrational bubbles — defining a bubble has always been a challenge. There's now a really nice paper — Robin Greenwood, Andrei Shleifer, and a co-author from Harvard did it a few years ago — that was presented at a Wharton conference I like. It's called “Bubbles for Fama.” What those guys did was really amazing: they said, let's try to do our best at defining what a bubble is. Their definition of a bubble is a hundred percent return in a reasonably narrowly defined sector or industry over a two-year period. And you'd be surprised how well that works across industries, going back decades and even hundreds of years.

The bottom line is that if you define it that way, and put it in event time across different kinds of potential bubble periods — they didn't look at tulips, because we didn't have lots of market data, but railroads, steel, changes in the chemical industry, technology, the internet, and so on — if you line those up, they roughly go with this, shockingly well, along that hundred percent return around two years. Some are higher, some are lower. But then the problem is that at that point it's a coin flip as to whether it goes up or down — about 50% up and 50% down at the industry level. The average is flat. So it's about the market.

So, number one, definitions are really tough. Number two, there are some indicators that they and others have found: when issuances are increasing, when there are new market players coming in that haven't been there before, when you see volatility increasing locally. And then, just the longer it goes, the more likely it is not to keep going.

At the end of the day, how do you protect yourself against that? Well, it's a little bit like the sequence-of-returns problem that we all know about so well. You've got to diversify the risks. And remember, every trade is two trades. You can invest in something that you think is an amazing company, and amazing companies can have good or bad returns. How you buy an investment is critical. Then the question is, A, what's your business plan for selling it, and B, if there is a bubble, how do you organize yourself so that you have the ability, at least, to rebalance on the downside and keep going and take advantage of the volatility?

Volatility could be your friend if you know how to rebalance and have it in your mind ahead of time. The behavioral side, of course, is that when it's time to rebalance, it's really hard, because your risk aversion goes up when volatility goes up.

Sean Walters: Yeah, and that's exactly where I was shifting to — and that actually is great advice, by the way, that every trade involves two decisions.

Christopher Geczy: Yeah, the first one's easy, right? And it's not easy — it's easier.

How to Build Behavioral Guardrails Into an Asset Allocation Plan

Sean Walters: Yeah, and then dealing with the client — the client is looking at the news, watching this question around tech bubbles and so on and so forth, and then they call the advisor, and the advisor has to explain that and work with the client. The data keeps showing investors underperform because they get out when they're nervous. How do you build behavioral guardrails into an allocation so discipline is structural, rather than something the advisor has to argue for at every downturn?

Christopher Geczy: Look, people are people. I'm a Fama student — I'm a card-carrying Fama student, and I believe that it's really hard to beat the market. Someone has to, 'cause I'm a Grossman student as well — in other words, markets have to be just inefficient enough to be efficient. So when I say you get paid to make them efficient, it's not a charity, but they're really hard to beat. I have to probably put a footnote that most of my portfolio is active. But the idea that finance is somehow distinguished from behavior is a misunderstanding of what Fama has said forever. My own view is that behavioral finance is just finance. Whether — because someone's irrational, the whole market is irrational and assets are completely mispriced all the time — that's a tougher question along the lines of bubbles and so on.

So an advisor — and I'm an advisor, well, I guess I have a distinction, I don't have to take it because I have a PhD — but I'm an advisor, and I'm a fiduciary, and I'm a trustee. I deal with anybody: committees, clients, retail, sophisticated families, sovereign wealth funds. Everyone's a human at the end of the day. How do we deal with things? Institutionally, we have structured processes — we have investment policy statements, or something like that. We have financial plans, which I'm a big fan of. We have a business plan for the outcomes that helps us stay disconnected from the FOMO, to the extent we can be, disconnected from the fear and the upward shock on our risk aversion and our ambiguity aversion at times that are difficult. We try to disambiguate it by having a smaller choice set, because there's a tyranny of choice, especially at tough times.

And then on the investment side, have the investment diversification and rebalancing plan in your mind. Even if it comes down to something like admitting that you might have some amount of regret to rebalance when an asset class is down — the market's down 20%, is it the bottom? I don't know — but no one's gonna penalize you for rebalancing a portfolio when they shouldn't, when an asset or an asset class is down, if you have a belief that it has a certain long-term expected return.

But here's the thing, Sean — and this is part of the CIMA® designation program — to be able to rebalance means you have to have the ability, the reserve, to actually meet the rebalance. So that's the plan. It's helping customers and clients put themselves into the business plan ahead of time, and then, at the end of the day, reminding them: hey, we have a plan, now let's do this.

Sean Walters: You know, you've done a lot of research recently. I remember we were talking at the New York conference last fall, when you spoke about risk and working around client psychology and risk. Anything related to that you would share with the listeners right now? Because there's a lot of concern, a lot of fear around the markets and what they're doing. How do you help advisors manage that risk conversation, beyond the risk tolerance questionnaire?

How Personality Typology Shapes a Client's Risk Tolerance

Christopher Geczy: Yeah, well, the RTQ — yeah, we've done a lot with that. Things change across time, and you don't get day-by-day updates on your client's mental state. One thing to understand — and I think it's important to remind people how important advisors' roles are in this regard — is that we find personality matters. There are some clients who line up on certain personality typologies that are especially frail. And frail makes it sound like it's a negative — personality typologies just are. They're not necessarily permanent; they can change, people can grow. There's a slowly moving part of it, and there's a faster-moving part of it.

Understanding your client, and understanding why you selected them — having some self-awareness about your typologies and your grit and your emotional intelligence, as well as theirs. Are you matching with someone because there's a personality connectivity somehow, or do opposites attract? Understanding the personality of a book is really important, in part because, especially at times that are bad, you want to be the outbound call, not the inbound receiver. But if we have three or four hundred clients, which many advisors do, that's a big task. You've got to order them according to what's right, because not every client can be called all at once — you have to have an order for dealing with them.

My advice is to bear in mind what you know about your clients at good times as well as bad times. And you may not have had a bad time with a client, because you haven't seen the market — you have to infer it, even without having seen the pathway. Human brains are great about that. Large language models, maybe not as much. In other words, seeing the path untaken, how clients react at a bad time, getting it prepped ahead of time, dealing with clients and reminding them there's a business plan, having the conversation and reminding them that it's there.

These, and a bunch of other ideas, matter because they're different in different states of the world. The FOMO — and I really like the topic of FOMO — it's a little bit diffuse in terms of exactly where it lives in your brain, but there are some hot spots. At least on the fMRI studies I've seen, it has a very heavy social component. FOMO lives near a pain center in your brain. And I might be pushing the metaphor a little bit, but I do think FOMO feels like pain — when you can see my neighbor's house behind me, he drives the car he has, and I've got a lot of FOMO. You've got to control yourself — that's an emotional intelligence thing.

And then the same thing holds true when times are bad, and your risk aversion is fighting, and things become confusing. Asset allocation helps, risk diversification helps, because it's buffering you against it. The question then is, how do you help clients deal with it? Be the outbound call, remind them of the plan, structurally rebalance. You may have to do it sometimes when you're going to be suboptimal — you've got to have a plan for being suboptimal, because it's nearly impossible to be perfect. And if you say, “well, I'm smart enough to be perfect” — and I hear that a lot, frankly — the question is, why aren't you running a hedge fund?

We have to just deal with being imperfect. Dollar-cost averaging falls into the same idea — it's suboptimal mathematically, but we do it because it helps us.

How to Manage Client FOMO and Panic During a Market Downturn

Sean Walters: Yeah, so the FOMO response and the panic call are both kind of — it sounds like very similar from a neuroscience standpoint. The fear of missing out, everything continues to go up. Let's talk a little bit about the panic call — everything starts to fall, the sky is falling. How should advisors defend their model and manage the emotion? How does that dance go — dealing with the client's fear head-on, but then also helping the client understand the asset allocation approach that's being taken?

And I'll just give you a personal example. I work with a financial advisor myself. During the last extended downturn, he kept sending these emails out to us clients — just another metaphor for, you know, it's a long journey through the woods, sometimes the path goes down. I was so tired of those metaphors, by the way, as the downturn continued. And, you know, I'm a little more aware than most of the tools and techniques advisors are using to manage us. So talk a little about the left-brained and right-brained approach to working with the client when there's a panic or a downturn.

Christopher Geczy: Yeah, again, personality typologies often help us map out the left brain and the right brain, so to speak, and help us understand the emotional hijackings that our amygdalas can provide. I think that behavioral thing is expected. The first thing — I try to tell my kids, expectations are at the core of all the elation and disappointment you have in your life. It has two ends: what you expect, and what happened. Good things can happen and you can still have a bad day. Same thing in the market — I see it all the time. There's good news for a company, but the market's expectation was better than the news, and so the price is down on a good day. I hear those things, like, “hey, X did well, but then they went down” — why? Everything has to do with not just the number, but the whisper number.

So, number one, expectations are key. Clients have both moods and attitudes, and those are correlated but different. So if people call up and the conversation immediately becomes defensive, you're on the wrong foot. You want to avoid having a defensive call or defensive communication — you want it to be proactive, because you set the expectations the right way. Listening is a part of emotional intelligence, so practice your emotional intelligence.

I say that with the footnote that not every advisor listening to this has gone through this, but I remember the financial crisis, and being on a prep call for a program with advisors. Someone came on and said, “What do you do when every day is a bad day?” And it's not just your clients — it's you. So remember, you're human. You're gonna be exercising your therapist skills, your listening skills. But let the client talk, because that will help you not just understand, but it helps them sublimate either FOMO or fear — and that may be market declines, it may be something in the personal space, a family issue.

Remember, clients remember the extremes as a point, as a memory — and it may not be with all the pain, because we do mitigate pain in our brains, but they have memories formed at the extremes. So it's great that they remember the average day, but it's more likely you gain loyalty and trust with clients on the days that are great for them, or bad for them — birth of a child, a marriage, some great news about work, or some of the tougher things, a death in the family, a job loss, news of a divorce. Clients remember those, in the studies, more than they remember the average day.

So, to use what you just said about an advisor — sort of turning the extreme days into the average day, that's exhausting. So you have to balance your proactivity, which I think is really important. I applaud that — while also reminding people that it's going on, and it's going on, and it's going on. I rather think the market moves like that on occasion, although I'm a modified-efficiency guy, I'll say. There are structural reasons — when we're filming this, there's a lot going on in the Gulf. I could probably say that about any decade. There's a lot going on in the Gulf, and oil prices are really volatile, and the market just hasn't reflected that much about oil in the most recent set of volatility. I think it comes down to expectations, and a kind of numbness to the news that some investors have. It may be rational, because there are so many other factors, but I do think that has a possibility.

So: reassess the thesis, or get reminded of the business plan. As an advisor, be prepared to recognize that risk aversion changes, and that you're gonna have to deal with that. I'm not saying you reassess every two months, but you either make an assumption about the RTQ measuring something that's permanent, or you recognize that it's both permanent and transitory, and try to get a handle on that. The challenge with rebalancing at really tough times is that volatility goes up and we have analysis paralysis — and that has to do with the information-gathering processes your brain goes through. Remember, choice architecture should reduce dimensionality more at difficult times than at average times, because we just have a harder time dealing with that. And that can be in the market, or it could be personal — so reduce the choice set. Be aware of that kind of numbness idea. Be disciplined but not rigid. And then be aware of rebalancing opportunities.

Sean Walters: Well, I want to tie us back to the beginning topic around the technical side and allocation, and the advisor, because one of the things you said really sparked me — on what I've seen in different market downturns, a lot of the advisors who come to our conferences are managing themselves. They're managing their own response to the markets, and really their own response to their clients. They want to do better for their clients, and they're relying on what you've taught them at Wharton, in the CIMA® program, and they're kind of keeping that technical focus — that Fama focus on market efficiency and optimization and all that — but they want to respond, they want to react. And you talked just for a moment there about the rebalancing question and choice architecture. Anything that puts these two concepts together for you, in terms of the psychology of advisors and asset allocation? Any piece of advice you'd give to advisors when the markets are really — there's that kind of panic moment for them?

Christopher Geczy: Yeah. So the amazing thing is that the behavioral side and the hyper-rational side kind of go together at this juncture. Whether you're talking about Fama, who's market efficiency and rationality and science, but who also allows that preferences can change — and distinguishing between preferences changing and bubbles and those kinds of things is very, very difficult — and Howard Marks, who's a pretty firm behavioralist: Howard will say he likes volatility, because he can buy an asset that he's underwritten, or his firm has underwritten, at a better price. Fama will say, well, when assets are down relative to your expectation — if your expectation hasn't changed, that's noise. It might be news, but it represents a rebalancing opportunity, because that's just a distributional outcome. And of course he allows that volatility might be changing and tails are heavy — he was among the first, in the sixties, to write about heavy tails.

So at the end of the day, maintaining a discipline about rebalancing — it can vary across context. If you're in a risk-targeted scheme, you might be rebalancing differently than if you're doing it at the end of the year, and there's all kinds of ways of doing it. But thinking about the possibility that volatility is your friend, when you have those calm moments and you're helping your clients meet their plans through the strategic asset allocation side, and maybe some tactics if that's your bag, really is the key.

Going to the business plan, realizing that volatility will happen — it will not not happen, it is going to happen, it's a law of physics. I carry around the VIX graph, and I've been doing that for almost all 30 years I've been at Wharton, and it just keeps going. I remember people said, during the financial crisis, “we'll never have the VIX this high again” — and then boom, we have the pandemic, and the VIX is on again. But it's also off all the time, in its cyclical, autocorrelated way. It is a law of physics that you will get risk changes, you will have all these effects, and we've just got to deal with it.

So number one, expectations that deal with it. Number two, decide about your attitude when you have the vol — what are the triggers, what are the plans? Work through emotional intelligence, work through the plans yourself for what you're gonna do, because that helps you regulate your emotions. Go to the business plan, knowing that you're gonna get a bunch of calls — you'd like to be ahead of it, have that planned. AI is going to help us with that in an increasing way. And then be prepared to do what is ultimately in store for your clients, what's right for your clients. That's just a heads-up view.

Be prepared to be suboptimal — that's another thing I hear, advisors want to do so much. Clients want us to have opinions; they don't necessarily want us to have answers. We don't have answers for everything. Don't fool yourself into thinking that anyone has all the answers — no one has all the answers. Every person I know whom I respect basically admits that randomness has a role in their lives. We don't have all the answers — that's why they're called models. If they were called the truth, they wouldn't be called models. So understand that there are gonna be uncertainties. It's gonna be different every time, although there's gonna be an echo — be prepared ahead of time, and help your clients realize that you don't have all the answers, but you have a plan.

What Makes an Exceptional Financial Advisor Today

Sean Walters: Yeah, those are great parting thoughts in terms of pulling it all together around asset allocation. So I'm gonna ask you my standard closing question. This is called the Exceptional Advisor Podcast, and Chris, you've worked around advisors for as many years as I have, which is a lot. What does it mean to be an exceptional advisor today, to you, as you've experienced the advice profession and a lot of different financial advice?

Christopher Geczy: Yeah. I think the best financial advisors understand what their role is, and how they're going to be running their business. Are they going to be making buy-and-sell decisions on individual stocks and bonds, or are they going to be managing portfolios and plans and interacting with clients to help them in a way that makes sense today? They do more than just make product recommendations, they do more than just make forecasts. They translate what is key for the client and for the mandate — because it could be a narrow mandate — the goals for the mandate and the constraints, into a disciplined decision process that understands both the technical, financial characteristics and capacities of clients, as well as the behavioral. And that means something core about longevity in our profession, in part because algorithmic trust falls fast with AI, even to this day.

Diversification, to me, is really key. Maintaining those things — diversification, understanding liquidity, stress testing — which is part of what lies behind what we talked about. The advisor cannot eliminate uncertainty. What they can do is recognize it, have a plan for it, and reduce the likelihood that uncertainty produces irreversible, or especially avoidable, mistakes.

Information is everywhere. We're overwhelmed — you can Google the Sharpe ratio. And by the way, as a footnote, try it sometime: look up what some of these large language models say about the Sharpe ratio. They'll say a decent Sharpe ratio is like two, knowing that Warren Buffett, who had the greatest Sharpe ratio of all time, is about 0.7, 0.75. So beware of those biases and the information bias. But information's everywhere — the scarce resource for the advisor today is accountable judgment. And that is not just worth paying for, that is a boon to clients, and that's what we deliver in this profession.

Sean Walters: Accountable judgment — I like that. Empathic, accountable judgment, right? And knowing the personality profile of clients, that's part of that as well — that's difficult for an AI to do. And yeah, we've had several podcasts on this topic, so we won't dance into that and spend another twenty minutes.

I really just want to thank you, Chris, for your time here today. This is exactly the kind of conversation that we like to have on this podcast, and you're one of the best when it comes to this whole spectrum of topics, from technical all the way to the psychology — left and right brain are right there. So appreciate your time on this, Chris.

Christopher Geczy: My pleasure. Thank you, Sean. Appreciate you.

Sean Walters: And thank you, listeners. If this was useful, please follow The Exceptional Advisor podcast. And if you want more content like this, the Investments & Wealth Institute is a professional community for advisors, organized by advisors. So until we talk next time, please, let's be careful out there, and keep raising the standard.