This is Tim Holland, Chief Investment Officer of Orion OCIO. You know retail investors too often ignore or simply ignorant of the rules that successful institutional investors always follow including avoiding hyper diversification, using active strategies with high active share and embracing separately managed accounts or SM. As and we should know as the Orion OCIO team has audited more than 12,000 retail investor portfolios. We think that this presentation Building better portfolios is more than just an informative presentation on best practices adhered to by the world's largest most sophisticated investors. It's also a narrative that our advisors use to educate prospective clients about the right way to invest and inquire as to whether the prospective client's current advisor and portfolio follow or violate the key tenets of institutional investing. And all too often, the incumbent advisor and portfolio are poorly serving that prospective client. A dynamic that once discovered serves as a catalyst for our advisors to engage with the prospective client in a more meaningful and productive manner. So let's dig into a presentation on an institutional approach to investing that could serve not only as a foundation for better investment outcomes for your existing clients, but make those clients and their portfolio portfolios less susceptible to being poached away and make your conversations with prospective clients more compelling and more successful. With that said, let's dig into building better portfolios, how to invest like an institution. You know, I've already touched on this a little bit, but we've audited at Orion, OCIO more than 12,000 portfolios. And and in doing that, we've identified several rules, 7 rules, sorry, that retail investors consistently ignore that. We think coming from an institutional investing background, that Wall Street background, that institutional investors always follow. And so we lay them out on this slide and we're going to spend the next 3035 minutes or so kind of digging into those seven different rules. So at the risk of just reading off what you can already read for yourself, here we go, right. The, the world's largest, most sophisticated investor is the endowments, the pension plans of the world. They work with professionals. They know that diversification is a good thing, hyper diversification is a bad thing, right. You can have too much of a good thing and it becomes a bad thing. They shun mutual funds when they cut, when they can. They're very sensitive to fees. They don't pay more than they have to. Active or passive is the question. The answer is yes, but you want to do and and institutions do active and passive the right way. They know that bonds, high quality fixed income are their portfolios ballast the offset to equity market volatility and they know what they own and why they own it. And and that's a really important point and and we're really going to dig into that towards the end of the presentation. OK. So work with professionals, institutions have always worked with professionals, right. Again pension plans, endowments, corporate, corporate investment departments and the like. So leading institutional investors have turned to 3rd party experts forever, right. And we sort of lay that out in a visual form on the right hand side of the screen, right. So you've got institutions in the middle of that sort of honeycomb diagram, I guess is the best way to describe it. And then you'll get a sense of some of the third parties they turn to and for what helps specifically, right, manager selection, help me find the best stock and bond pickers out there, portfolio construction, help me blend those managers together in a portfolio that works from a risk reward perspective, help me trade those portfolios and and and help me stay on top of those portfolios. So that's been the institutional model for the longest time. What's changed over the last 10-15 years or so is these institutions, you know, pivot into one provider to solve for all those key investment needs. And and so there's a quote up on the screen from Institutional Investor, which is a leading publication on Wall Street serving that institutional world and it just explains that assets managed by OCIO providers. And I should have said this at the beginning, so my apologies. OCIO stands for Outsourced Chief Investment Officer. The idea is that there's an entity like Orion OCIO that can work with an advisor and deliver all those investment related, reporting related trading related services in in one place. So OCIO assets are north of 2 trillion by the end of 2021, they weren't leased and they should reach 3 trillion in a couple, three years time. So, so this is a phenomenon that's really scaling because of the leverage and the efficiency that turn into one provider allows for you know, so again same honeycomb diagram, but the idea is that an institutional investor will go to one provider for all those services. And what we've done at Orion OCIO is take all those services again from an investment trading reporting risk management perspective and make them available to our advisor partners and clients. This is something that the retail investor can access. As you all know at at Orion everything is with room for the advisor. You may have seen this chart before. It's a visual representation of a famous Dalbar study. It's why you want to work with professionals over 30 years. Dalbar found out that the average equity investor got about 6.8% per annum while the S&P over that same time period gave you 9.7%. That is a shocking difference and imagine the compounding or wealth creating effect of about 3% per annum over 30 years. I'd have to bust out the old HP12C 'cause I can't do that math off the top of my head. So So there's a reason why institutions work with third party experts. So Orion, OCIO, as I mentioned already is that third party provider, 4 advisors. Again, we only work with Room 4 financial advisors. I won't read off all the services we provide, but they fall into a couple of buckets. It's investments in research, it's a custom portfolios if you need that. We have a custom indexing offering which is quite successful and quite popular. We do a lot of client facing work for the folks we work with white label market and economic commentary. I spent a lot of time on that client events, client presentations. We love working with our advisors and supporting them as they try and grow their books of business. We have all the great technology that Orion brings to the market on a daily basis and we have a best in class full service trading desk, quite bespoke, quite high touch. So again Orion OCIO is that third party provider for the advisor community. OK, let's move on to the second rule, diversification good, hyper diversification bad. So we're going to start with too much of a good thing being a bad thing, using a mutual fund as, as a jumping off point. So most mutual funds or the average mutual fund owns about 130 positions that that's a lot. But we'll sort of unpack that as they say in Silicon Valley in in a little bit the problem with using mutual funds, we're not going to have that transparency in terms of what the fund owns is that the advisor could end up building a portfolio with different mutual funds that end up owning the same securities or or drift from what you might think they be would be doing based on on on the branding of the fund. So not to name names and we don't, but there's this large cap value fund and we looked under the hood and this is a a plotting out of the positions in that fund at a particular point in time by market cap and by style box. So this large cap value fund owns some large cap value stocks for sure, but it owns a bunch of large cap core and mid cap core and small cap core and even a couple growth stocks. So the tricky thing with something like this kind of fund is you blend a large cap value fund with say a large cap core fund and it turns out there's incredible overlap. Again, you're sort of too diversified, you're paying for active management and you end up getting an index like experience and there are other negatives around that for sure. So portfolios can be way too diversified and what you see on the screen is a sample audit. It's a real audit from a client we did. We obviously deleted all the PII and we see this all the time. The, the sample audit shows that this prospective client, excuse me, owned in their portfolio Texas Instruments and Microsoft in nine different strategies Now. I think Texas Instruments and Microsoft are fantastic companies. It makes no sense to own them in nine different strategies and pay nine different managers money to own the same stock. So again, we find that portfolios are often way too diversified. They own the same positions 2345 times, they're creating a closet index fund and they're paying active management fees. And when our advisor partners can show this to a prospective client, it hits home pretty hard. Institutions like to use focus managers, managers that really stick to what they say they're going to do and and so do we. So, so here's what we like to see from an active manager, what institutional investors like to see an intense style focus, you know, growth, value, core pick 1A, high active share means the portfolio doesn't look like the index it's trying to beat because if it does, you won't beat the index. We want a repeatable process, a consistent investment story and we want portfolios and managers that do what they say they're going to do. So we just lay out three different strategies that we use at Orion, OCIO, pull in focus, growth, Clear Bridge, International growth and then Congress small cap. And what you see on the Congress small Cap end of things is that 100% of those positions aren't small cap. When you look at Clearbridge International, over 90% of the portfolios ex US and if you look at pull and focus growth, over 8080% of the portfolio is in that growth bucket. So we want to see focused managers, concentrated portfolios, high conviction portfolios and then you can blend those portfolios together, those strategies together and you don't have to worry about overlap because you know that they're fishing in different parts of the capital markets pond if that makes sense. Shun funds when you can mutual funds are great vehicles, we use them across Orion, we use them at Orion OCIO. But if you can get to the point where you can use separately managed accounts, SM as we just think it's a better mouse trap and we're going to dig into that a little bit. And and again not to throw mutual funds under the bus because they're phenomenal vehicles and and for certain people. But again, if you can get to SM as it's, it's a better way to go. So as I mentioned earlier, the average mutual fund owns about 130 positions and the average mutual fund turns its portfolio over by 52% in a given year. So a way to think about that is if you have 130 stocks in January 1, by the time you get to New Year's Eve, which is coming up, we're recording this in early December. You know 65 of those 130 positions have been swapped out and so that turnover can create trading costs which aren't always disclosed. The investor doesn't know it and can create real headaches from a tax perspective. So again, you know the way we like to think about managers and the managers we use a bit more concentrated high active share doesn't look like the index and it's lower turnover. So where mutual funds fall short of Smas beyond that average turnover and and number of positions, this is a visual representation, very high level of how funds work. You know you're the investor, you've got your brokerage account, you send your money to the mutual fund and that's commingled with any number of other investors, right. So and I know we know this, we're all in this business. So I'm telling you stuff you already know, but I think it's important that the end client know that they don't own the underlying securities when they own a mutual fund. And that funds value can be impacted and impacted meaningfully by capital gains and by decisions of other investors in the fund because they don't own the individual security. So if a bunch of people want to redeem a mutual fund at a given point in time, that manager's likely going to have to sell positions to meet redemptions and that could cause all sorts of transaction costs to present themselves and also tax issues if capital gains are are realized. So there's limited transparency within a mutual fund. And if you own more than one mutual fund and you don't know what those funds own and there's some overlap, well, one fund could be buying a position while one fund in the portfolio is selling it. So again, mutual funds are fine vehicles, but we just think Smas are better and that's why institutions use Smas and that's why we like to use SMAS when we can as well. And this is a very busy checklist, but it just compares funds to Smas, and I won't again read through all the content. I'll put everyone to sleep. But one of the big differences. If you invest in an SMA, you own the actual stocks and bonds. You don't have that dynamic in mutual funds. You know the exact cost basis for all those positions. You only pay taxes when gains or losses are realized on your individual positions. You can customize what you own, you can harvest capital gains tax loss harvesting obviously is an option and and funds it's not. And so again the average mutual fund owns about 130 positions turns its portfolio over north of 50% on our platform. The SM as we use the average SMA owns under 75 positions and turns over its portfolio about 30%. So we think more compelling numbers specific to Orion, OCIO, SMA is again we think it's a better mousetrap just as we get into year end 2023 talking about tax loss, tax loss harvesting, taking advantage of you know, realizing gains or realizing losses. And you know at least through August of this year the S&P was up about 19%, but more than 200 stocks had negative returns. If you just own the S&P, you know you would get a 1099. You'd have no control over the taxable outcome for 2023 vis A vis your portfolio. If you own those 500 stocks in an SMA or some representation of those of the S&P 500, you could choose to sell any number of those losers, offset winners and and so on. So again, there's an ability to maximize after tax returns in an SMA that a fund doesn't present to the client. And as we know, in any given year, even in a really bullish year, there's always some stocks that are down South. Again, in an SMA construct, you can take advantage of those losses again to kind of peel that SMA versus fund onion a little bit more. SMAS tend to be cheaper than mutual funds. There's been great fee compression in our industry for sure, but SMAS tend to be more attractively priced. Also there's greater transparency around cost. With an SMA again you own the individual positions outright and so you know looking at again a manager we've used to great success and to great effect Poland, They have a Poland focus growth SMA and they have a mutual fund version and the expense difference is about 33 basis points .33% and over 10 years that difference again the power of compounding, right and and I think we all know you know just what a meaningful market force compounding is right 10% on top of 10% on top of 10% becomes exponential. The difference in in returns over those 10 years is almost $20,000. So again funds are fine when used appropriately. Smas are just a better way to go, if you can go that, that way. We think, OK, fees kind of stayed in the obvious here, don't pay more than you have to, but let's not pay more than we have to. And so institutions are quite price sensitive. They've got the scale to be price sensitive, right. If you're a large pension plan or endowment, you're going to have economies of scale, bargaining power that you know, the typical retail investor maybe doesn't have. But again working with a platform and a partner like Orion, OCIO, you know we oversee billions of dollars in AUM and we bring scale to to, to, to to the marketplace, sorry scale to work sort of on a daily basis to the benefit of our clients. So couple costs that can be reduced or eliminated, again they're mutual fund marketing fees that still exist. We shouldn't pay them. High turnover again leads to both transaction costs that that aren't disclosed typically to their client and can have a real impact on on taxes. Their commissions around different fund shares, not as prevalent as they used to be, but they still exist and their trading costs as as well. So again, there are things out there, cost implicit and explicit, that institutional investors are aware of and they work very hard to reduce or eliminate. So from a marketing expenses perspective specific to the mutual fund world, there's something known as a 12B1 fee. It's still attached to any number of funds and essentially it goes back to the Investment Company Act of 1940, which stood up from a regulatory perspective. The modern mutual fund if you're 40 ACT, that's what they're talking about in in our industry and it allows fund companies to charge their existing investors a fee that they then collect to then market the fund to other investors which you know we're we're not fans of SO12B1 fees you know are still in existence. They're often 25 basis points. It comes out of the end investor's pocket and and that's not a good thing and even no load families will often attach marketing fees, these 12B1 fees to their funds and and sort of an indirect way to collect additional basis points from the end client. And and so you know, again given where the industry is, given where our platform is, you know these are things, these are fees that can be avoided and and for sure should be avoided and unfortunately too many investors don't. There's been a tremendous amount of research around portfolio turnover, right. And that's just the idea that I'm going to be buying and selling on any particular day because of my thoughts around the market, the portfolio. Our position, how we should be positioned and we get it. The world changes, portfolio managers need to adapt. But you know if you're investing with managers, you really know their stuff. On balance, they should have a high conviction portfolio that's marked by low turnover because there have been studies that show average trading costs cost the average equity fund about 1.45% per year. So if if if that's the cost of from a training perspective and the average mutual fund turns over its portfolio by about 52% in any given year, you put that together, that's meaningful money And funds with higher turnover rates are more likely to incur capital gains taxes which are then distributed to investors. There's been a lot of reporting this year 2023 about mutual funds distributing very meaningful capital gains to their own clients in some portfolios that are only slightly positive if if that year to date. So you can have an experience where your own client gets a tax bill and they haven't even realized much if any capital appreciation for for that year. And it's important to note that trading costs are typically not included in the funds expense ratio. This is in addition to the stated management fee and and again you kind of put all this together other investors in a mutual fund impacting flows, what that does to the manager in terms of having to sell, what high turnover means for for cost to the end client. Again, portfolio turnover can have a meaningful drag on performance and again with an SMA there's greater visibility and transparency around that portfolio and and the client owns those individual securities. Other costs that institutions avoid or or or work to eliminate soft dollar costs. Essentially that's where investment firms pay trading desks on top of the what it cost to trade a security, a little more money for access to management teams and research. Those costs are typically not disclosed in an explicit fashion. Obviously, we talked about commissions, sales charges tied to certain share classes and mutual funds often have multiple share classes, which can be pretty darn confusing. And again, as we've mentioned more than once, a fund's value can be impacted and impacted meaningfully by what other investors in the fund do in the fund are doing at any particular point in time. All right. So active or passive, the answer is yes. It's not me trying to make everyone happy. Active and passive strategies both have a home in any or I should say in most portfolios. And you'll see this again at at the sort of largest, highest level of institutional investing. But institutional investors use active and passive in the right way. And and I know we know this 'cause we do this for a living. But right, I'll just sort of, you know, make a commercial for active and passive. You know, excuse me, you know, active management, you know, gives the end investor, if done properly, the opportunity to outperform a particular benchmark, be it the S&P 500 and the Russell 2000. So if you're going to use an active approach, you want to give yourself the best chance to win and we'll talk about that in greater detail. Passive management traditionally is just meant to mirror or track a particular benchmark. It's gone much beyond that. But I just wanna get from a return perspective what the S&P is gonna give me in any given year. And I'm OK with that Though you can now sort of have passive vehicles that track not only major, minor indices, but we'll have a a concert that looks to own maybe just value stocks in a very low cost fashion, but that's a little more active than than traditional passive because you're making a bet on a particular style or market cap. But if you're going to use passive, you want low cost exposure with low track and error, meaning that vehicle is going to track closely whatever benchmark you're trying to replicate. So what to look for in an active manager, busy slide, six boxes, lots of visuals, the zombie one on the upper right, just kind of that's kind of scary I've I've seen that, but I hadn't seen it a little bit. So we have a quality bias at Orion OCIO. We want active managers that own quality companies as opposed to companies that are highly levered, unprofitable, sort of benefiting maybe from what was an era of cheap capital for a long period of time. You want managers that run pretty, we think semi concentrated, high conviction portfolios, active share in the upper middle box. We've already talked about that. High active share portfolios by definition look different from a benchmark. So you have to look different from the benchmark if you're going to beat it. You know you want to use active strategies. We want to use active strategies at Orion, OCIO that are complementary. They own different stocks, different bonds, different parts of the market, cap spectrum, geographic breakdown as well. You want to assess managers over a long period of time. We do that from a due diligence perspective and we want to make sure that the portfolio managers we work with are sticking to their knitting. A lot of times if a particular styles out of favor, that portfolio manager will feel the urge to drift away from their core competencies and kind of buy what's been going up. We don't want that. We want to pick managers that know a particular part of the market and stick to it. So and just to kind of you know mirror or reinforce some of the points I just made what to look for in an active manager, again very powerful study from from a few years ago for sure. But the the, the logic still holds funds with high active share outperform the benchmark. If you don't look different from the benchmark, you won't outperform the benchmark and that's fine. But I shouldn't be paying someone a lot of money to run an active strategy air quotes, right sort of you know Austin Powers there to to build a portfolio that looks like the market. I can go get a portfolio that looks like the market for for next to nothing. So again you want to get active if you're paying for active and you know we like to lean into active and more inefficient parts of the market. So that could be small cap companies, it could be parts of the XUS equity universe. I think the lower right is a great representation of sort of, you know, inefficient to less inefficient to really inefficient parts of the market. So Apple, right at any point in time, the world's most valuable company is followed by 43 research analysts on Wall Street. It's going to be really hard for any investor, as smart as they may be, to discover something about that company that those 43 analysts who do nothing but really follow Apple and maybe a few of peer companies on a daily basis. If you go one over to the right Carvana, interesting concept. I love seeing those big glass boxes on the highway, pretty neat branding. That's followed by 10 research analysts on a regular basis. So you've got a chance maybe to uncover some information that Wall Street's missing and then WD40, which you can use to kind of fix just about anything. And and I'm not a very handy person and even I have used WD40 successfully it's followed by three research analysts. So neat neat brand well known brand. So the odds of an active manager may be uncovering something that the world hasn't figured out yet. Much higher down at WD40 and and three research analysts as opposed to up and Apple and 43 if that makes sense. So active management has a chance for out success for to to deliver out performance and be successful in different parts of the market. Those odds go up how to be passive. So if you're seeking to replicate a broad index, the passive approach makes sense. Again, the Russell 2000. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, The S&P. You want to buy something that exhibits low tracking error, meaning if the S&P is up 9% for one year, that passive S&P 500 strategy should be up pretty darn near 9%. There'll be a little slippage, usually because of cost, but should be really close. You typically want to look for the lowest cost provider. As long as that act tracking errors is spot on, it's important to remember for our clients, and I know we all know this, that if you go passive you're going to get what the market gives you. So if you're passive and all in on the S&P in 2022 you're down 18%. If you're passive and all in on the S&P, knock on wood, as I see it here in early December, you're up about 19%. So you have to just be prepared for that intellectually, emotionally. Again, tracking error which I've already touched on is a difference in the performance of a an investment and its benchmark. So again, passive strategy should have very low tracking error, Active strategies often have very high tracking error, but that's OK, you know what you're getting and and again you can often get meaningful passive exposure at a very, very low price point which we should all take advantage of for sure. OK, bonds are portfolios ballast. It's been a rough couple years for high quality fixed income, a somewhat unusual period driven largely we think by the Feds historically aggressive rate hiking efforts beginning the March of 2022. But bonds, high quality fixed income are traditionally the offset for equity market volatility. And so again, forgive me, I know we all know this, but bond basics, right? There's lots of different ways to raise capital. A company can issue stock or a company can sell a bond or issue a bond, but so can governments, corporations, municipalities, utilities, waste management facilities, right. I mean, you know the the fixed income market is massive here at home and around the world, but it's a way for an issuer to raise capital without issuing equity, right? So you're essentially borrowing money from someone. So say the government issues or a company issues A5 year bond. I buy that bond from the US government or say the state of Pennsylvania. I'm likely going to get some coupon, probably paid once or twice per per per year over five years. And then at the end of five years I'll get my principal back, assuming that whoever whatever issued that bond is still around, right? Sometimes companies go bankrupt, they default and they miss principal and interest payments. But if you own an individual bond and the issuer is money good as they say on Wall Street, you'll get your coupon, you'll get your principal back. It doesn't matter what the bond price does. Why you own it could go up, it could go down. It could fluctuate. At the end of the five year. Or 10 year. You're gonna get far value of your principal back, which is important to to remember given the volatility of fixed income the last couple years. And one of the reasons why we're big believers in owning individual bonds, customized fixed income Smas at Orion OCIO. You can sort of ignore the price movement again as long as the issuer's money. Good. A little bit more in bond basics. Again, I know, we know this, you know you own a bond from a company not the stock. You don't get to participate in the growth of the company. That said, if there's ever financial distress for a company, the the bondholder is in front of the line relative to the equity holder. So bonds are are much higher up in the capital structure. There are different types of bonds and different levels, but you tend to come before people that own the stock, which means that you take financial priority, which is one of the reasons why bonds, especially from the US government, have historically been sources of preservation of capital, right. You know you're going to get your money back. the US government is not going to default, doesn't have to default. As long as we have a government, it won't default, if that makes sense. So you get your income, you get your principal back at maturity, and because of that, because of that preservation of capital and steady income. Bonds have historically offered great diversification relative to equities. Bonds don't go up in value every year, right? A bond could sell off intra year because of the interest rate environment, but if you own a bond from a creditworthy issuer, you will get your money back. It's important, especially I think given the volatility in fixed income in the last couple years, that fixed income investors understand the risks with bonds, right? If you hold a bond to maturity and again the issuer's money good, you're not going to lose your principal, you're going to get your coupons. If you trade a bond, the bond could be off in value. And even though the par value is 100 bucks, if it's selling off, you may only get 90 or $95. So there's a difference between trading the bond and holding a bond. When rates go up, bonds go down in value and we saw that last year for sure and for most of this year credit risk is only the idea that you know is the issuer a good credit? Can they make those interest in principal payments, liquidity risk, You know, does the bond trade freely leverage, you know how much existing debt is there at that company beyond what I own. And a lot of times, chasing yield going for the highest yielding bond presents a lot of risk because those bonds that offer higher yields tend to be associated with less creditworthy companies. Which makes sense, right? If you're Johnson and Johnson, you know you can borrow very low interest rates because you've been around for over 100 years and you're AAA rated. And memory serves credit. If you're a more speculative online retailer, maybe with 10 years of history and you're losing money, you're probably going to have to offer a much higher coupon to track that bond buyer, if that makes sense. So rates go up, bonds go down in value, Typically rates go down, bonds go up and we've seen bonds rally into the fall of 2020 three. But again if you own the bond outright, you can ignore that price volatility as long as you're comfortable that the issuer is gonna pay you back. And again we think that's super important to remind our clients given the volatility of the last year, year and a half, something to think about when picking a bond manager. The benchmark for fixed income is something known as the Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index. It's had a couple of different names over the years. It's now known as the, the Bloomberg Aggregate index. It's the S&P 500 for fixed income. It does not contain any high yield, right. For those of us who remember Wall Street 1987, greed is good or junk bonds again high yield or junk, you know they offer a higher yield because the companies aren't as well off greater risk. So it's a very high quality index and we've seen a few fixed income managers benchmark their portfolios to that index. And when you look under the hood of their portfolio, they own a lot of junk bonds and they're higher yielding. So they should be beating the index. So you know bonds are the balance for your portfolio. We think you want to own quality, high quality, you want to own individual bonds. You certainly we think don't want to own mutual funds or or ETF fixed income ETFs and that's why we're big believers in SM as broadly speaking. But really really I think in in the fixed income space, all right. So know what your clients own and why they own it. So I know we know this right. Different asset classes, major, minor, have different risk and return profiles. And it's important to understand, we think what we own and why we own it across our portfolio because that knowledge base that is a jumping off point should lead to a better investment outcome, right? If I know what I own and why I own it and a particular part of the market's out of favor, I'm going to be able to put that weak relative performance into perspective. Or if a part of My Portfolio is doing really well and I know that part of the market's doing really well, I'm going to put that strong performance in perspective. So I won't get too happy or too over my skis when something's doing really well. Because I expect that to happen and I won't become too despondent with something struggling because I know that's going on too, if that makes sense. So I'm not gonna be buying and selling at the worst possible time. And that thoughtful approach around what I own and what I expect from it allows for, I think, you know, better portfolio construction conversations make the case for a diversified approach to asset allocation. We're big believers in in diversified portfolios and it puts that performance in perspective for the end client we think, which then allows our advisor partners to step back and have that broader long term conversation around what are your goals, where do you want to get to, is this the portfolio that'll help you get there over time and if so, we're good if that makes sense. And again, I know we know this different asset classes, different risk return profiles, this is how we think about sort of the four big buckets, right stocks here at home and around the world. That's your riskier bucket, maybe more volatile bucket, but that's the bucket that's going to get you growth, capital appreciation, greater returns, but typically greater volatility and greater short term risk. And again we saw that last year with the S&P off 18% core fixed income, that's high quality corporate bonds and government bonds, that's income, that's safety, that that's capital preservation. I know bonds have sold off the last couple years. But again if you own the actual bonds and they were money good, you didn't lose money regardless of what the index was doing because those issuers were still paying principal and interest alts or alternatives. They're there to provide diversification. You know said simply they zig when the bigger asset classes zag. So they tend to provide return streams independent of stocks and bonds, but they typically give you lower rates of return, especially relative to equities over time. But again that uncorrelated return stream or that return stream that's different from stocks and bonds and then corporate or global fixed income, higher income, higher yields. So again, things sort of junk bonds or or high yield income or fixed income from other parts of the world that those countries are maybe as well off as we are. You get greater returns, but you get greater volatility, a more equity like construct. OK. So that all said, hopefully you found this content of value as I said at the beginning of the presentation, we think it's not just a better way to invest, but it's a way to educate a prospective client and and then ask that prospective client, you know what's in your portfolio, right. I'm channeling Samuel Jackson, right. What's I'll stop because I don't want to get sued though it, that'd be kind of neat. So we have this portfolio audit. It's free, it's confidential. And so the idea would be, you know, you educate A prospective client on building better portfolios, how institutions do it. And you'd then just say, you know, if you have any questions about your portfolio and you would like the team at Orion OCIO to take a look, they'd be happy to give us your statements. We'll pass them along to the team. It'll be free of charge, confidential. We try and turn around those audits as quickly as we possibly can and the areas of analysis are going to include asset allocation, diversification, right hyper diversification, too many funds doing the same stuff, expenses, explicit and implicit. Are you paying too much? Are you taking too much risk across fixed income? Are there ways to build a better mousetrap, a more efficient portfolio, lower cost portfolio? And is the portfolio taking a level risk that's appropriate for the client considering where he or she might be in their investment journey? So thank you again for taking the time to view the webinar. Hope you found the content of value. If you have any questions around the presentation itself or the audit or both, feel free to reach out to me. I can be reached at tim.holland@orion.com. Thanks again and and and take care. _1732393294091