Alexa Binns 00:02
Today, we have Peter Lazarov as our guest. He’s the Chief Investment Officer at plan core and the host of cheddars, the long term investor podcast, of which I am an avid listener. And after hearing from him, I think you will be too today, we’ve invited him on because most of our guests are bullish on venture as an asset class. And here we have an RIA who is not recommending venture to his clients, and we thought that would be helpful for both the allocators and the GPS listening to hear from the other side. He’s also going to share with us some of the popular tools he’s developed for clients and the thesis of his upcoming book.
Alexa Binns 01:10
Peter is in Missouri. He’s over said 8 billion in assets across over 1500 clients. So can you just give us a quick overview of your investment philosophy, so people can kind of understand where you’re coming from.

Peter Lazaroff 01:24
Sure, I think the most important thing I could say about my philosophy is that I’m more worried about implementing a bad idea than missing out on a good one. And let me give a little context. The example I always give is like the FDA, when they seek to approve a drug, they’re trying to approve a drug without it having crazy side effects, and every drug has some side effects. That’s why they have the people who can do fast reads. I cannot read fast. The other side of that is that sometimes the FDA is a little too stringent, and they fail to approve a drug because there’s bad side effects, but it would have been a net positive to society. And so what we’re talking about, for statistics lovers is type one error and type two error, you have false positives, you have false negatives. And I think that ultimately, investment success comes down to minimizing mistakes and making sure that you don’t interrupt compound interest. And I think, in general, like, I don’t think I’m not, like, you can only index and that’s all you should do. I think index funds are great, but I don’t use index funds myself. I do only use one fund, though it’s 100% globally diversified. It is what would be considered a factor fund, so rules based, like an index, but not index investing itself. And for our clients, we have a couple different strategies that are just focused on, hey, rules based, repeatable process driven, not going to predict the future, and really leaning on that. I’m more concerned about minimizing type one error. If you want to totally minimize type one error, that means owning the market portfolio and nothing else. If you want to minimize type two errors, you have to add everything with a good back test to your portfolio. And so let me go full circle there. I’m more concerned with implementing a bad idea than missing out on a good one, and when you go through that lens, the bar is higher for inclusion. And so I think what’s exciting, I’ve listened to the show. I’ve known Alexa for a while, and when she told me she had a podcast, I went back to Episode One and started plowing through. I’m like, Yeah, everyone loves ventures. Let’s get it clear. I don’t hate venture, I just don’t think it’s for everybody. And I think privates in general, I don’t think are for everybody. So that’s kind of, I think, a quick global view of how I see investing.

Earnest Sweat 03:37
, what’s shaped your investment philosophy throughout your career?

Peter Lazaroff 04:03
Well, I started my career as an individual stock analyst, and I had a lot of success, and I have loved stocks, broadly speaking, since I was like a kid. My grandmother gave me a share of Nike stock for my 12th birthday, and it split right away. Actually, by the time she had gifted it to me on my birthday, I have a December 20 birthday. My family celebrates Hanukkah and Christmas. So we got a lot of stuff going on in December, but she had bought the shares of Nike for me, I think, in November through her broker, and they’d already split. And by February, they split again. And you know, I think later in the fall of that first year of me owning it, it split again, so suddenly I had eight shares of Nike. Shares of Nike. I’m getting this $1 dividend check in the mail. And I’m thinking, This is great. So I was just like, all in anything that had to do with making money as a kid. I’m like, this is cool. I want to, I want to learn more about this. So when I was a stock analyst, you know, I think I. I didn’t know a lot about the world, like many of us when we graduated from school, and I was having a lot of success, but I was learning a lot. And I think I actually accidentally stumbled onto a book I was reading. Barry Riffel had a blog called the big picture, and blogs were just starting to have their day in the sun. And he was pointing to a lot of resources I hadn’t ever seen before. And there was one in particular, Michael Bobasan, who is still one of my favorite investment thinkers, who had written a very obscure paper on Skill versus luck. And I think that that ended up taking me down a very, very big rabbit hole that made me realize my success as a stock picker might be more luck driven than anything.

Earnest Sweat 05:46
what’s weird about it, though, is what I’ve come to learn about stock picking in general. I mean, I used to own a lot of individual stocks. I don’t currently own any individual stocks, and the last time I had a seemingly dying urge to buy individual stocks was during the pandemic, because that was the first time to me since the financial crisis that I would see valuations where basically the stock is priced like it might go bankrupt, and then you’re out there just picking things that you don’t think are going bankrupt. And I remember telling myself, AWS man Nordstrom is not going to go bankrupt. Amazon will buy them because I’d already thought Amazon would buy them. It would help their distribution. Amazon wanted to get into clothing. I’d made up this narrative that I would be forced to buy and the thing that I like about individual stock picking is that everybody’s got a ton of information. You just have to hope that everybody sees your view of the world eventually, and you’re making up stories and individual stock picking very luck driven, but very story driven, probably more so than in like the 80s and 90s, when stock picking was a little bit more just about fundamentals. You’re really trying to predict valuations. Now here’s the thing where I think the parallel to venture is super interesting. So if you go buy the Russell 3000 which there aren’t actually 3000 companies in, but let’s just say there are roughly 4% of those individual companies are driving all the returns.

with the blending of All the Worlds, how does that change? Actually, what do you recommend a lot of your clients do?

Peter Lazaroff 09:38
Well, so plan Corp serves high net worth clients, which can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people, but if you just do like simple math of the assets for managing divided by the number of clients we have, let’s say the average client has about $5 million the average investor in the world. And this is theory, but it’s also true. You know, the average investor, if we all put our money into a pot and then we. Divided evenly, we all own the market portfolio, and so the average investor owns the market portfolio. So what I always do is I ask people, well, how are you different from average? The market portfolio is amazing. There is not going to be a person who’s going to convince me that it’s a bad investment. I think it can be improved upon. But if you choose the market portfolio, you do it, there is nothing wrong with that. You’re gonna do great. Could you do better? Maybe? Does that matter? Maybe not. So I’m always asking, How are you different from average? Are your liquidity needs relative to the size of your portfolio, different from the average investor? Some people that we work with, you know, I say the average is $5 million but we have a couple billionaires where maybe we’re not managing all their money, but, you know, we might have a couple 100 million dollars of it. They are overweight liquidity relative to the average investor. I think that’s actually a key point when privates come into play, is once you’re overweight liquidity, then you should take some more illiquid risks. I mean, it’s pretty straightforward. And so when we communicate to clients, we talk about, how are you different from average? We think a lot about the financial plan before investing. So in many ways, I’m like the side show here. Our firm was started over 40 years ago as a fee-only financial planning firm, something that wasn’t really even a thing, and it is borderline an insane business plan to have had back then. Now it’s pretty normal. But the investments, you know, on one hand, the RA space has maybe not overly commoditized, the active asset management, but there has been a lot of thanks to technology, a lot of scaling and systematizing, where, when you go to an RIA, you’re going to get a diversified portfolio, they’re going to try to keep costs low, how they implement around the edges, probably, you know, it makes a difference, but it’s not wildly different outcomes if you’re globally diversified and not trying to predict the future and keeping costs low, I think Where things are like different is how can you customize so the toolbox is where things suddenly become less commoditized. So do you have a lot of concentration in a particular sector of the economy, either through your job or your actual portfolio? Do you have a pain point with capital gains? Do you have very specific legacy goals? Do you have a special needs child? You know, once you start bringing in like, how am I different from average? Is when your portfolio starts to not just deviate from the market portfolio, but deviate in the vehicle that you’re going to use to achieve those goals. And so, I think, in general, one of things that has probably played a huge role in the way I think through portfolio construction as well as communication. If I started, yes, I started as an analyst, but after an analyst, I probably should have mentioned this. I was an advisor, like I had a book of business, I think over 80% of it was physicians. So I guess I said FDA, I haven’t had any other. Would you just wait? There’s going to be more medical analogies, because it’s just deeply ingrained in me at this point. My parents are physicians. I was working with all physicians. So, like, I don’t think I was supposed to be a doctor at some point. But I think in general, when you’re talking to clients, that’s the big thing. If we all, if the average person owns the market portfolio. How are you different from average?

Earnest Sweat 20:49
Now we’re going to take a quick break to speak with our sponsor

Alexa Binns 20:53
on the show. Today. We have our seller partner and industry expert Shane Gowdy. He’s the leader of Sid Lee’s venture funds practice, and if you get value from this podcast, we have Shane and the Sidley team to thank for it. They make these recordings possible. We are looking forward to hearing from you, Shane, another question you had mentioned on an earlier episode, how elbows used to be really sharp between LPs and GPS, and now things are very symbiotic Combinator,

Earnest Sweat 21:24
from early days when you were first getting into this business. Do you have any favorite stories you can share?

Shane Goudey 21:30
Yeah, it’s been interesting. And so what I’ll say is there were days coming out of the bubble bursting. And then similarly, coming out of the credit crisis, where LPS would, like, gang up on joys, they would call each other and compare comment memos. And some of that still goes on, because a lot of them just hire the same lawyers. So you kind of know, you know, just collectively what the other people are doing. But this was purposeful. This was, you know, we got poor Little Jimmy in a corner, and we’re just going to put on the brass knuckles and really hammer away at some of these people. And these are the days when it is just LP GP. Relationships were ugly and GPS were not, were not free of blame either. Because you take a look at when, in 2020 or in 2000 or in 2021 when, man, you couldn’t, you know, suck in enough LP capital that’d be fast enough to really build these huge funds. And they were like 5x oversubscribed, and the manner in which they were communicating with LPS about they were kicked out of a fund, or their allocations were brought down. It was just horrible. So, and that’s not everybody, of course, and people, but those are, it was. Those are the sharpened elbows that we talk about. And that became a very because there just weren’t many periods over the last 20 years where there was equal this equilibrium. And now we’ve reached days where, I think it’s in particular, in today’s market, where those kind of scales have balanced a little more and maybe just licked wounds from back in those days and bad experiences people just trying to find better long term partnership and relationship counseling and management and expectations, and not just being crazily insistent on, you know, a 12, 2050, point ILPA list when you’re coming into a fund, but being strategic about what you care about as a business. I think that matters a lot on the GP side and the GPS, being purposeful about building the LP base and just being appreciative of who the LPs are more and what their concerns are, and what world they come from, and why these issues aren’t just being asked for in the ether. These are important things for a lot of LPs. So, yeah, I just think some of the collective conscience coming out of the prior two decades has helped us be much better about appreciating one another in the process. And not to say we don’t still have difficult, fun formations we do, and not to say I don’t want to, you know, just wring somebody’s neck every now and then, of course, I do. But Far, Far Gone are the days where it’s, you know, a daily occurrence, I think, and me as a much senior lawyer, I think that has been the real attunement of my advice. You know, I didn’t have the rock. I had the Rock ‘Em, sock ’em robot, you know, mentality there for a long time as a young lawyer, and now it’s more. My job is to create a partnership between these great GPS and LPs, and let’s be honest about what they’re asking about. If it’s not insane, why aren’t you agreeing to it? Think about that, or you really have to resist. And here’s why. And, you know, I think that that is more sort of antithetical to our political world, more kind of what the i. A venture capital investing world is gaining more insight on and which is great. It’s a great turn, but I think it’s the job of the lawyers and those in the ecosystem that work on either side of these transactions to help their clients kind of, again, see forest through trees.

Earnest Sweat 25:17
I’m much happier that we’ve gone in this direction rather than the reverse,

Shane Goudey 25:21
yeah, yeah. For sure. For sure, it could have gone the other way. No doubt.

Alexa Binns 25:25
Do the Sidley partners have a pool of capital that you invest in managers as well as individual portfolio companies?

Shane Goudey 25:33
Oh, the answer is absolutely yes. We actually have a number of sizable vehicles that directly take equity investments in a number of our clients, and that fund clients. There are various vehicles that we have our focus on that are solely on our fund clients. And again, one of the wonderful parts about being in a firm like scikitly, that not just means venture funds, that’s private equity, that’s hedge that’s real estate, it’s, it’s, it’s really a, almost, kind of a mini endowment model, almost a little bit, you know, in the way in which that we have access to so many different types of investing. And, you know, we pick really great relationships. And obviously we’re, you know, our fund managers are incredible stewards of our money, and they’re our own fiduciary so they’re, it’s not every client that’s going to get a check cut from, you know, Sidley, but the ones that do, you know, we really believe in what they’ve got going on, and it’s just been a tremendous way for us to create alignment with our clients and kind of put our money where our mouth is, Literally, you know, in terms of a belief system, and who we’re really working with and who are excited to work with, and, you know, certainly, hopefully make a little bit of money for us partners and others who get to participate in the funds and but, you know, a lot of law firms do that, but I think ours is just incredibly sophisticated. It’s just, and it’s been, again, from my standpoint, as I go through the funds that I represent, having our own people believe in the, you know, a number of funds who we’ve invested in that I get to represent, and being kind of free to present to the committee of those funds and just have an open dialog about it’s fun. And they don’t always say, Yes, God bless them, but it’s, it is a fun dialogue to have, and it’s something we’re particularly proud of, no doubt to how we can help bolster our clients, but also kind of the broader kind of investment ecosystem as well. It’s, it’s, it’s, it’s a really great thing to have as part of Sidley’s kind of firm itself, but just more intentionally be strategic about our relationships with our clients.

Earnest Sweat 27:44
Yeah, what a nice symbiosis. I love picturing you in the Investment Committee pitching

Shane Goudey 27:49
your client. Oh, man, absolutely I feel, I almost feel like one of my clients. I mean, before an LP, right? Yeah, it’s the reason I ask all these questions on these panels that I’m on. You know, what’s it like? I was just doing a, I was just doing a conference for diverse VCs in San Francisco last week, and I was moderating a panel with a number of limited partners allocators. And, you know, we’re getting into, what are they really thinking and in a GP LP meeting. So I’m just, like, taking notes, right? I’m like, okay, so this is, this can not just help my clients, it can help me, you know, sell what I got to sell in the room with my good friends at Sidley, no doubt,

Earnest Sweat 28:28
very empathetic,

Shane Goudey 28:29
yeah, of course, yes. An open heart, no doubt. Thank you so much. Shane, Alexa, this is a blast. Thank you for the time. This has been awesome. And we are again, an extremely proud sponsor of everything that you’re doing with swimming with allocators, and you know are excited to be part of it. So just thank you for the opportunity. You guys have been AWS. And

Alexa Binns 28:47
Meanwhile, all the other RIAs are offering alts in mass. So what, what do you suspect they’re doing, and why?

Peter Lazaroff 29:03
I think it’s easier for an advisor to sell complexity that’s like the baseline of what I think is happening. What’s also interesting? So I am a part of a couple different CIO forums or executive groups that host firms that are my size and are bigger. And when I talk to CIOs, you know, sometimes people are just really passionate about the story, the story, the numbers, all of it. Some are saying, well, the advisors and clients say, we have to have it. And so that’s why I do the work. Then you have other people who are a little bit indifferent and a little bit unsure of what they even think about their own solution. I’m usually surprised at the percentage of allocators who are confident in their allocation to privates to alternatives. There are people the more client experience you’ve had. That I’ve also come to realize that less likely you are to embrace alternatives, like if you’re a CIO and your entire life has been spent on that path of analyst to research manager, where you were never an advisor and you never had to deal with the emotion of a client who doesn’t really understand what they’re looking at. That does lead to different portfolio design decisions, and I’ll often tell clients, like, look, if I knew that I could be sitting right next to you every single time you open up your brokerage app on your phone, or every time you open up our performance statement, you might actually hold a different portfolio, not like materially different. But there are things that the research shows are very beneficial oftentimes in the diversification space. And like, maybe I’m being overly basic here, but you diversify because by lowering volatility, compound interest works better. And remember, All I said is, we just want to compound stuff. It’s really all this simple, but diversification looks and feels awful at the moment, and it makes you, as an advisor, look stupid. Of course, International was going to underperform. Of course, catastrophe gone bonds are gonna, you know, do poorly in a hurricane or whatever. I’m actually thrilled that we avoided the catastrophe bond bullet. That’s a great example of the people who buy liquid alts like that. I mean, there’s job security in it. That’s it. I think they would disagree. I think if we got the debate and I would shrug my shoulders and just say, Okay, I think by the time you can run something that’s simple and everyone can understand, you do risk a little bit of like, what do you do all day? And that even happens internally at playing CORBA, all where, all of a sudden, I’ll pull out some of the work that we’re doing at the Investment Committee level, and people will be like, Oh my gosh. Because when you say no, 10,000 times for every one, yes, it doesn’t look like you’re doing very much, but you do have to go through the process. And I the thing about privates and alternatives in general, and I’m this is more of a statement about the downstream movement to even just the mainstream high net worth, and then further down to the mass affluent. That makes me really uncomfortable. I’m very uncomfortable. I’m not sure that the math is compelling enough. We know how much manager skill matters and how much access matters, and it just doesn’t seem like it’s possible to replicate those types of benefits. And so the complexity sells, but at the end of the day, I’m just not sure that it adds a lot of benefit. I do think the space overall doesn’t have to be harmful. But I would argue, no matter how many zeros are in your net worth or at your institution, I’m still not sure they’re necessary. I try to remain open minded, because maybe we’ll go forward in 10 years or 20 years, and that viewpoint of these maybe there’s something about price discovery by going down to the mass affluent that is beneficial. I have no idea. I mean, that is a real possibility. There’s, I’m working on a book for next year, and there’s a chapter on alternatives, and there is a sentence in there where it’s like, this could be the place where I am most wrong. Alexa Binns 35:04
I’d love to hear more from you about sort of, what, what that tells you, and what, what that thing is that in the book, you’re thinking, Oh, maybe, maybe I could be wrong on this,

Peter Lazaroff 35:31
the thing that has me thinking I could be most wrong. And I’ll re emphasis again, although people have probably already tuned out if they’re like, this guy just hates alts. I don’t. I just think I’m very, very cautious. I’m more skeptical and curious than I am cynical. What bothers me about what, like, these sorts of investments making their ways into 401, KS, or this stuff, as you mentioned, like Vanguard has a private equity fund just for their personal advisor services. Schwab and fidelity are creating platforms as well. It’s where the money’s at. You know, active traditional, active stock funds, everyone has known for a long time now, are a rip off and don’t work. And so that’s a lot of lost revenue. Privates are active management, just in a different wrapper, you know, you make a relatively undiversified bet relative to, you know, a broad market exposure. You’re doing it based on a thesis. That’s all fine and well, there might actually be real Alpha opportunities, so that’s probably why you justify the fee. But when you think about man, when you’re going to small investors and saying that they need it, I don’t actually think they’re saying they need it. I think there is some demand for it, but they’re trying to create demand as well. An example that it reminds me of is ESG investing was really popular at the end of the teens, and Wall Street was dying for ESG to be a thing, because, you know what? You can charge more for ESG funds than you can for index funds. The research is incredibly mixed. It’s shockingly more positive or more effective than I would have ever believed. We actually have ESG portfolios. And I hated that as so mad that I had to, like, build them, and I started reading all the research, and they’re like, little pizzas where I’m like, oh, that’s surprisingly, you know, relevant, you know, not overwhelmingly So, but, like, there’s some data there that is kind of interesting. And that’s but Wall Street was, like, trying to create demand, and they had all this product. And the only reason there was a real uptick in AUM flows into ESG is that people, actually, I don’t want to say names in particular, were putting the funds into their models, and so investors were adopting them as part of a broad model that wasn’t ESG focused. And a lot of fund flows were driven by one asset manager putting it into their models. That’s where I sort of feel like I don’t know that the mass affluent, or even the high net worth investor, is really concerned about this type of exposure. The argument for why it is needed used to be lower expected returns of public equities and fixed income, although fixed income rates are higher now, so maybe not. I would say that that story has lessened. It’s more about like, oh, people are staying private longer. Oh, look at how much revenue these companies have. I mean, those are all facts. That is actually the hardest thing about this, is so much of what’s said about the private space in general is factual. Alexa, I’m just not sure all those facts are relevant. And so I think that’s where, like, that’s where having healthy debates is very difficult. You know, debating facts, you know something in investing, and it’s why I love the FDA example. Like investing is not black and white is Shades of Gray, and there’s so much uncertainty in the world, and so, you know, with something like cost, that’s probably another good example. Like everyone assumes that lowest cost is what you need. Well, no, the research actually shows you that the 10th decile cost versus the 90th decile cost shows material significance in performance prediction. Everything in the middle is just massive , we’re not sure, and so it’s, you know, I think it just some of the facts are, again, facts.

Alexa Binns 41:10
I appreciate how much of your job having been in the role of the advisor, you’re recognizing is how people feel about their investments as much as how they’re actually performing long term, the speaking of sort of staying the course, I do want to give people a chance to hear about some of the resources that you have put together for your own personal personal finances. What are some of the resources that are especially popular, that you’ve put together, that are available online for people to sort of explore some of the Peter Lazarov

Peter Lazaroff 41:48
way. Yeah. So the easiest place, especially because spelling Lazarov is not always straightforward for people. You can go to the long term investor, the long terminvestor.com that takes you to my podcast page, but it also is the Peter lazarov.com page, and you can find all sorts of downloads that are a lot of just the basics. I think when I first started publishing downloadable stuff, or like personal finance things, a lot of it was just trying to show people the system that I used for saving money and creating goals and having a process for tying the money to the goals in a way where I don’t have to think about it regularly. There’s a resource that a lot of people like you ask, what’s most popular? Hello, cough, that’s why we have editors. So there’s a reason when you ask about like resources that are popular, I have so many custom URLs, but you can also find on the website, if you go to how Peter invests.com there’s a download that kind of walks you through my portfolio, my balance sheet, how I think about the different risks. I’m actually writing a book now. Well, I mentioned that I will write a book now that comes out in July, that you can pre order if you really choose to pre order your books 10 months in advance. But the last chapter is going to be a revision of this, how I invest my money to kind of align it more closely with the book. And you’ll, I think the thing that surprises most people is something I’ve already shared, where all of my liquid, investable assets are just in one fund, and people have a really hard time wrapping their heads around that. And so it goes into a little bit of that. Happy to dig into as much as you want. But my first book Making Money simple because you and I are friends, Alexa, and if anybody has made it this far in the podcast, if you go to Peter lazarov.com/free book, you can give me your name and email address and mailing address, and I will mail you a copy of the book. Now, because I’m the one stuffing envelopes, it might take me, like, a month to mail it to you, dear listener, but I promise I will. I’ll sign it, I’ll put I’ll be the one stamping the envelope. All things.

Earnest Sweat 44:50
And what’s the main thesis of the new book,

Peter Lazaroff 44:55
The Perfect portfolios thesis, if I had to say, in one. Sentence is that there is no perfect portfolio. Universally, there is one perfect portfolio for you, though, interestingly, or I think interestingly, the book was going to be called your perfect portfolio, but one of my friends has a book coming out in November, and he changed his title to your perfect portfolio from something very different. So I’ve actually had to pivot, and that’s okay. But anyways, you know, I think there is no singular perfect portfolio. You really have to understand what your needs are. And I think that if you’re going to build what is truly the perfect portfolio, I think it requires some understanding of history, some understanding of human behavior, some understanding of the theory. It goes through some different asset classes. It goes through implementation issues. But if you’re really going to manage your own money, you do need to have knowledge of history, behavior and theory. And I think there’s a lot of books when people say, like, hey, I want to read a book. What’s something I can read? And I have a really hard time giving just one recommendation. I’m like, Well, you do this book for this and this for that. And like, what can I give you three books? And my hope was like, Can I basically replace that with, like, the one book that can give you, and it gives you a little bit of everything. And if, after reading that, you want to dive deeper, then, yeah, there’s lots of books that go deeper on the individual topics, but it should be relatively short versus many of the classics that I think are right. But the other thing that’s interesting is when you read the classics, when you read A Random Walk Down Wall Street, or you read the Intelligent Investor, or you read Winning the Losers Game, or stuff like that, they read a little stale. And I love those guys. I love those books, but I think here’s just like refreshing a language that might make it a little bit more approachable to somebody who might not otherwise want to be dialed into more of an academic tone.

Alexa Binns 47:17
Yes, few of us, few of us are raising as much money in the world as Sam Altman right now. I think as a final question, I’m just very curious to hear what you had mentioned. If you won the lottery today, there are some alternative investments you’d be interested in making. And like this is kind of fun to think of the things that would get you over the line, like to break your own rule and make that even Nordstrom investment during covid, like, what? What’s the thing that would break your own rule?

Peter Lazaroff 47:52
That’s a phenomenal question. I think I would be most excited by something where I could somehow apply my knowledge and play maybe not a very active role, like if someone’s asking me for a check, chances are they’re not, you know, just giving me a board seat and letting me have it. But I do think somewhere where if I could, like also offer some of my own intellectual property to make it better, that’d be interesting. Other than that, I always find health related opportunities to be interesting, interesting, and I think a lot of that has to do with my childhood growing up around medicine. I like that. You know, when you’re creating a product, and this is going to sound a little cynical, but particularly in technology, people always talk about disrupting, they don’t talk about solving problems as often as health care does. And I love whether it’s in, like, medical devices or, you know, I wouldn’t even know how to evaluate a pharmaceutical, you know, I know there are those funds that specialize just in the ones that get past, like, the first set of trials of the second but, you know, I think it’d probably be some if it wasn’t something I could apply, apply my own knowledge. I’d probably love to be in the healthcare space. But I guess if I’m applying my own knowledge, it’s probably like fintech. I say reluctantly. I actually have worked at a startup company, a FinTech company, for the past, oh my gosh, maybe eight years, and so I know what that experience looks like, at least, and have some knowledge there that could probably apply. I guess that would get me to break my rule, or I’ll tell you this. Alexa, I have a group of friends from high school who I talk to every day, and I always joke that, like, if everybody quit their job and started a company in this particular text chain, I’m all in. I’ll write whatever check you need. What do you need? You guys, you get it. It’s all yours. You guys. Go run and go crazy. And I think that is, if I had that much money, you’re just investing in people who you believe in and are smart, and you may not even totally understand the idea, but you just believe in the people. I think that’s the type of money I’d have. If it’s $100 million I’d probably take that risk.