Jason Buck (@jasoncbuck) is back in this follow-up, Part II episode rehashing all the goings on at Global EQD ’23; and he’s continuing the conversation on equity market hedging, not to mention interest rate, currency, and more hedging – plus volatility markets and investment strategies with host Jeff Malec (@AttainCap2).
Jason and Jeff discuss what was discussed, including the influence of Fed policy, abnormally low volatility in equities, cross-asset volatility, and the relationship between skew and put options. Tune in to discover the risks associated with high-frequency trading (HFT) firms in the zero-day-to-expiration market and gain insights into balance and risk management.
Explore supply and demand dynamics, black swan events, and the perspective of market makers. Gain valuable knowledge on the interplay between institutional and retail traders, the importance of diversification in building portfolios, and the comparison between systematic and discretionary approaches to investing — SEND IT!
In case you missed it: Check out Part I of Global EQD ’23 Breakdown now!
Mentioned in this episode: Check out our Trend Following whitepaper!
Check out the complete Transcript from this week’s podcast below:
The World of Equity Hedging, Part II with Jason Buck
Jeff Malec 00:07
Welcome to the Derivative by RCM Alternatives, where we dive into what makes alternative investments go analyze the strategies of unique hedge fund managers and chat with interesting guests from across the investment world. Hello there I hope you all had a nice Fourth of July holiday and are ready to get back into the swing of things. Speaking of fireworks trend following royalty Jerry Parker threw up some fireworks of his own today announcing a new ETF. He’s working on trading over 300 markets via trend following so we’re going to try and get him on next week to talk through what that looks like. Go subscribe today so you don’t miss it. On to this episode, we’re dusting off the second part of our EQD Conference breakdown with Jason Buck for today’s pod. Jason and I talk through what was talked through on all things equity, hedging, interest rate hedging, institutional trading and more. Send it This episode is brought to you by RCM and its guide to trend following white paper. How do they do it? Why did they do it? When does it work? When doesn’t it? Guide to trend is a great complement with managers performance and more. Go to our CMOS slash white papers to check it out. And now back to the show.
Jeff Malec: So the last this was tough because I wanted to say like that LT panel was my favorite one. But then our guys, Cory was good on that panel. And then this panel is typically my favorite with some all stars here. So this was leaders in volatility, and talking about monetizing dislocations globally. So it was Natalie Reed of CBOE which I still call CBOE. I’ll get around to it eventually, when you guys changed it. And as well Bartlett, CEO of parallax, Robbie, not head of s&p options trading in October, Vishnu volare Capital Management who used to be at Citadel and chase Muller Muller, I’m not sure how to go macro at one river asset management. So couple billions of dollars there on stage. And actually, the people actually make the decisions for those billions of dollars. I’ll leave that be. But yeah, give me your quick thoughts on this panel. This was the same crew last year, I believe, right. Might have
Jason Buck 02:29
fairly close you had you had wasn’t Robbie from optiver. You had the CEO? I can’t recall his name right now. And wasn’t Vishnu who has been it for Chase is on the panel or not?
Jeff Malec 02:41
Yeah, I think it might have been this. But Ben Chase, I have a
Jason Buck 02:45
few pages of actually anecdotes that we can kind of go through and right away actually, they started with a poll on this one. What is the biggest risk the audience felt wasn’t involved in markets or that could affect volatility and I was fed policy was the
Jeff Malec 02:59
Yeah, and then Vishnu came right out and goes okay, I’m gonna stop hedging that since these polls are obviously typically wrong.
Jason Buck 03:07
Yeah, exactly. So Chase jumped right in because they I think second on that was like the debt ceiling and default. And he said, markets are looking through the risks and they don’t seem to be concerned about default, as they’re looking at even cross asset volatility is everybody’s like, let’s just get this over or thing and keep it moving. But Vishnu came back with you know, you have to look at cross asset ball for some asymmetric hedges. And so you know, you’re taking basis risk when you’re looking cross asset ball. But you know, we work with some managers that do that and everything is because sometimes you know, maybe you can’t find the cheapest asymmetry and inequity ball so you have to you have to use a little bit of cross asset vol to find those but you know, there’s there’s risks there but if you spread your bets, it might be a decent idea what was in will came right out with saying that 2022 was an aberration in low vol, for equities. I thought it was interesting to call it an aberration for 2022 And so he was saying is the equities turn so it was almost like flip I like how we’ll tend to flip things around is all we heard about in 2022 is equity vol is suppressed and rates vol is taking off. And then so almost like we were saying earlier, so I always kind of jumping on rates fall or looking for that cross asset ball and will was kind of like maybe its mean reversion like he felt like equity have all been suppressed and 22 maybe moving into second half of 23 Do we see you know equity vol picking back up Is it is it equity vols turn to
Jeff Malec 04:41
his line, which was funny, right? Like they’re kindergarteners getting a turn, I think it might be equity equity milestone.
Jason Buck 04:49
Robbie had some like interesting stuff talking about obviously he has a very unique view working at optiver at the market maker and options. And you know why? You know skew was, you know, poor and 22 Add to is like we talked about earlier, like reduced exposure by, you know, real money institutions. Everything was like scheduled macro data, right? Everybody’s just waiting for like CPI prints. So those really kind of like just like one day vol. And then he brought up, you know, which was one of the other main themes is that structured product flow and how its structured project flow can kind of reduce, especially skew with people, you know, rushing for any sort of hedges. And he said, you know, ball was, you know, you know, supply a ball was on down ticks was just fine. What they said is always how you’ve had a bit of reversal, coming into 23 here where, you know, SKU got crushed and 22. And we saw the return of realized vol, or just long gamma positions where you’re seeing a 23 We’re seeing realized while come down, implied skew start to go back up. But at the same time, he said, it’s still short skews, trades have been profitable this year. So it’s a little bit of a mixed bag there. But that was interesting to kind of his perspectives.
Jeff Malec 05:57
And I think I asked you during the panel, like they use skew, probably in the correct professional way. And my brain is not the correct professional way. But right, they were using skew kind of interchangeably with with puts, in my opinion, right? Yeah. So when they were saying like SKU worked, selling SKU this year works, they’re basically saying like, buying puts last year didn’t work selling them this year has worked. Was there anything more to that
Jason Buck 06:22
or like I say, like out of the money puts, right like that’s where you’re gonna see the SKU of the most is more in you’re out of the money deep out of the money puts, as we know, those people that were just buying deep buy the money puts his protection got crushed and 22. But then we’re seeing a little bit of skew come back. So it’s a bit of a trade off, right, like if you’re buying those deep at the money puts, you’re getting crushed on skew coming in. But then a skew picks up you’re making a little bit of money on those, but it might just get crushed back again, you know, you don’t know if this is actually when you get to get your payout, or as you’re just getting kind of lulled into like a teeter totter whipsaw when you’re buying that kind of out of the money skew.
Jeff Malec 06:57
And then these guys got into the zero DTE a little bit as well. But mainly saying they’re kind of on the fence. They didn’t have a strong opinion one way or the other.
Jason Buck 07:09
Yeah, I have notes on that. Before I get there. Let me just skew ideas is like Vishnu pointed out also that that paradox that you know, skew is higher in bull markets. So as we’re, as we’re rushing out the bull markets, you tend to get a little more feet where people buy a little bit more protection, right where he’s saying like we were talking about that telegraph 2022 You know, drawdown or recession or wherever you want to call it is like, you actually have skew coming in. And it seems counterintuitive. But you’ve seen institutions, you know, implement a lot more call spreads these days. He said you can make money, long skew and a grind up. It’s just a little bit more difficult. was interesting Chase brought up that he feels that vix looks relatively cheap compared to rates fall. So that one’s quite the basis trade that you’d be looking at. And I’ve seen a lot of people starting to, you know, buy calls on VIX, but, you know, as we saw, you know, implied didn’t do as well and 22 that people expected it to do so, you know, that? Maybe we’ll set it to maybe it’s Vic’s turn as well. I don’t know. Yeah.
Jeff Malec 08:08
That same Where do you that he’s the pro quoting VIX, right? Seemed like a retail a thing kind of to say.
Jason Buck 08:16
Yeah, and you still have some pros and I mean, you’ve had like refer that was like, you know, they’ll they’ll take their shots on Vic’s calls you know, in the past that’s what they’ve been 50 cents. So you know, it just depends on how large your nothing refers is almost 30 billion ish. So that gives you an idea but that’s it’s it’s also that’s not fair to say 30 billion ish because you know, they have some you know, tail risk and long ball positions and they’re they usually used upper upwards to three different trades and so vix calls might be a small position and that you know, relative to the overall size does one way or another one of the ones that before we get to zero DTE is that we’ll said that commodity vol looks attractive because the Fed can’t suppress it. Yeah, I had that as well. And so I think people have been talking about commodity ball for a while and I think even will has been talking he was talking about commodity ball last year. But I thought that was an interesting anecdote a threw in there at the end because the Fed can’t suppress it. So that was an interesting way to think about commodity ball. So getting to zero DTE that you brought up
Jeff Malec 09:17
real quick on commodity while that like the mother of all bases raise right like okay, yeah, right. Like I don’t even know where to start with that like copper. One of those like oil I guess. But
Jason Buck 09:30
yeah, I think in this sense, like, I don’t think Will’s worried about basis risk. So we started talking about like, vix calls and everything we talked about basis risk, but I think we’ll and parallax is just they run cross asset ball books, and they’re not really hedging against s&p, so they’re not worried about the basis risk. They’re just trying to make money and come on. So on the zero DCE front, Robbie is talking about that the liquidity allows for cheaper transaction costs. And he finds that HFT firms are starting to enter the space of zero DTE. And they’re selling spreads based on back tests, which is always a pause, pause for concern. And it’s that idea to have like, if you look at any sort of longer term systematic back tests, I was gonna tell you, like 85% plus of options expire worthless. So you should sell options. I mean, but they don’t get into well, what’s the price you’re paying? What’s your tenure, etc. But if you take that to the extreme, well, if I can sell options on a daily basis, I’m just compounding more effectively, you know, or quicker over long term. So I think that’s what we see a lot of,
Jeff Malec 10:40
I’ll say is, is doing the spreads, ETF
Jason Buck 10:44
Rob, Robbie said that I think maybe the HFT firms, or hm are the ones HFT, high frequency trading firms. But he sees very balanced risk, which was kind of a theme we kind of heard throughout the few days. He said, you know, that you see trading more trading balance risks, but then they’re raising the risk limits. So he felt that it was, you know, fairly benign and fairly contained in a balanced market.
Jeff Malec 11:11
And he said, he had an interesting way to look at balance, right? He said, it’s balanced with volume with liquidity, and not going to forget the third thing like, what’s his name? Don’t ever don’t ever hold your fingers up. But right, they don’t actually look it up like, okay, that’s the order books balanced. They’re looking at it. He said, they did a deep dive did this research went across volume, liquidity, and whatever the third one is, and saw no disruptions there. And then I think you might have missed out on that, because I had the note of him saying, ever since the zero DTS have come out, they haven’t had to adjust their risk limits once. So basically saying, as a market maker, if you’re scared about all this stuff, we haven’t had to, like, have a special meeting or had like, Oh, my God, the the risk is out of control. One time, basically saying, like, everyone calm the hell down. Like this is just normal operation. For us as a market maker. It’s a new toy, it’s a new tool, but the balance is there. And that was the key, right? Everyone’s worried of like, Oh, if this thing gets out of control, which is always weird to think about, right, because every one that’s bought is sold, and vice versa. So but I think they mean, the balance, if everyone bought them and just the market maker on the other side. Right, right, right. And then the market pins that that thing in the market, and the market maker has to cover, that’s what could cause this liquidity cascade TM courthouse team. But he’s saying no, it’s balanced. We’re seeing client flow on both sides of the order both buyers and sellers. So they’re, they’re not nervous about it at all.
Jason Buck 12:38
Yeah, it’s good. It’s a good way to point out that the balance risk is more like the gamma effects of the market makers trying to lay off their risk. And thank you, that was a function of my notes. So I had, I couldn’t read my own notes. So it has said, trading more. And then I see raised risk limits. But then after you said that, I realized I really haven’t, but I couldn’t. Yeah, it’s like, is that honest? What is that like? So? Yeah, like you said, they are trading more, but they haven’t raised their risk limit. So that was, yeah, that was a key point. And like, so
Jeff Malec 13:06
I’m having a really hard time reading my notes. But yeah,
Jason Buck 13:09
so like Robbie, you know, being co head of s&p options trading optiver as like a market like I would, he would have the most interesting things I would think to say in the most expertise and like zero DTE options. But then the second order effect of that is like, what is he saying on stage versus what they’re saying privately. So that’s the only that’s the only caveat I’ll give to it. But like, if I want to hear from anybody about zero dt, I want to hear from like, optiver
Jeff Malec 13:32
right, not the person like creating a gamma model based on publicly available data and whatnot. Like, here’s what’s happening, there’s a huge gamma squeeze gonna happen. Like, no, this guy’s living it every day. Probably many multitudes of capital personally at risk, right, as well as the firm’s at risk. So yeah, I agree with you. 100% of like, that’s, I would trust his opinion above all else. But then the other guy, I think they all basically said like, yeah, we trade it, but no one was like, it’s the best thing ever. We’re making tons of money doing zero DTE was just kind of like, yeah, it’s a new tool in the toolbox. Right? Do you get a different feeling?
Jason Buck 14:12
Um, yeah, for the most part and I’m just trying to think I’m looking at some of the other notes from like will and Jason I love you know, Will’s not afraid to step in and push back or be contrarian but he was saying like, he’s like basically everything’s gotten shorter term. You know, all life and trading gets shorter and shorter term you know, whether we you know, watch used to watch to our movies to watching 22nd tiktoks. Like so he was just kind of saying everything shorter term. He said they use that as a tactical complement to other things they’re doing like you’re saying they’re they’re like barely using them. He said the implied volatility looks cheap to the to the realized volatility on event spreads. But he was also saying well, this word that was said he felt the transaction costs were high relative to the vault exposure that you get. So we’re Robbie thought that the the the liquidity allowed for cheaper transaction costs us, I think optiver is gonna have a very different perspective than Will’s gonna have, you know, kind of from market maker to buyside kind of in so it was interesting that he felt that transaction costs were too high, that’s where they weren’t using them but more as a as a compliment. And he said it actually surprised him how successful it was. So he had an honest admonition there that like he didn’t think that ZTE was going to get the volume that it’s that it has or grown over the last year. And so he said he’s, he’s been generally surprised by that. Chase was saying that, like he this is I shouldn’t write this down because it’s like confirmation bias for me, but he says it’s not cannibalizing the one to three month trades. So you didn’t see you know, vol has been I mean, sorry, volume has been coming down in like the one to three month trades and volume has been rising and zero dt, but he’s saying they’re not related. The volume and the zero dt has nothing to do with the volume in the one to three months, which is what
Jeff Malec 15:56
Yeah, everyone else is saying like it so it’s just purely coincidental that it’s inverse lines right? Which seems weird, but you would know
Jason Buck 16:04
well, well it also starts with so to have this like, do you think who creates the volume buyers or sellers right and so it’s for me the zero d t is is just people wanting to sell zero DTS and so it and we’ve always everyone has been saying it’s like retail buyers etc but like is that really true? I’m not I’m not so certain like who creates this supply and demand some kind of sometimes it can be inverse and shout out to Chris serial Ambrose, they wrote a paper about the zero d t if you want to go look it up and that’s where their research are found as well. Is this more institutions or hedge funds selling and not necessarily retail trying to punt on a basically a directional play on a daily basis?
Jeff Malec 16:46
And then I had the note but I can’t read my numbers there have his example right of the or maybe I just wrote an example to help me think about it of that the Vols expensive right was basically like if you’re paying right Chase was thinking of like you pay only 2% spread or whatever the number is maybe was 50 pips or something. Right and but we’ll sing and we’re like, okay, I paid 50 pips, but I’m really only realizing 1% I’m getting two to one. Right if I have a three month option, I pay 50 pips. Basically the same spread, and I can get 15% realized right then I’m, like, 30 to one. So that’s where his mind was like, okay, but you’re kind of expensive for the realize you’re gonna get in that day. Like how far is one day gonna go? Is the ultimate question.
Jason Buck 17:32
Yeah, mind me. The arguments I used to have with you about like the tick size for big contracts. Yeah, even even Pete did somebody else’s sizes for s&p to like at one point. I think maybe it’s in my notes for later. Yeah. We’ll also say that, you know, a black swan event can and will spike ball, but he’s like nothing on the radar. So I think somebody had a question about Black Swans and like, you’re like, we’re both like totally logically like, you know, they’re like, tell us what black swans come it’s like you can’t that’s why a black swan so what Robbie said though, is the Black Swan especially for ZTE. That that was a lot of rumors going around the event was the proposal for intraday margin could exacerbate balls with rolling margin calls. So that’s the other reason why we seen the rise in zero DTE is it’s a it’s a function regulations. It’s like, you don’t have to post that much margin for these intraday options trades. And that’s why people have been really pulling them off in size, why you see that volume increase. But if they were to move to intraday margin requirements are raising those, that’s when you could just see, like you saying, just a cascade of margin calls. That would be a systemic risk to the zero DTE space. But is that a cascading risk to the systemic financial system as a whole different ball of wax or topic of discussion?
Jeff Malec 18:47
And then that doesn’t even make much sense to me, because if you’re out each day, there shouldn’t be margin calls right there. You just put it on the margin every day. So you just wouldn’t put it on the next day.
Jason Buck 18:59
Yeah, it’s just the you, if you intraday if we had a movement and they got margin calls and the buffer, at least on the market makers, right, you could have a cascade of like bankruptcies. Basically.
Jeff Malec 19:09
I was taking it to mean there’s this, like 30 billion and zero DTE volume that has a margin associated with it, which is true intraday, but not true day over day, current, then if the regulations come in and take that away, that margin goes away. We’re saying as it would be applied intraday. Yes, it would exacerbate and which would be we wouldn’t put it beyond our government but right, which will be done like, Hey, we’re going to try and make this safer. And we’re going to add basically, circuit breakers that make it worse.
Jason Buck 19:39
Yeah. And so you’re right, there’s countervailing forces right going in the next day, if you just don’t put it on the trades, but everybody gets wiped out in that day. So that’s the kind of the issue there. And then chase just pointed out this mainly been massive, isolated vol events throughout the last like year and a half. It’s like more like one day kind of events. So we’ve seen those spikes and balls but then It just mean reverting just as quickly.
Jeff Malec 20:02
Yeah. And I wrote down contagion where they’re going into contagion like until we see right those isolated events haven’t bled into right they were in bond ball they didn’t bleed inequity of all they were in like the ruble in the beginning of the year it didn’t bleed into aggro so the mat and I think it was Vishnu bring up like yeah my on the wrong panel there but yeah, the visualizer Yeah, right. He was bringing up like until you’re not gonna see a big blowout and ball really spike until there’s multi asset contagion. Correct. And then what makes that happen is the billion dollar question.
Jason Buck 20:41
So once again, though, too, we’re always trying to decipher you know, on zero DTE, how much is like retail, non toxic flow versus like toxic professional flow is is Robbie pointed out. This is what I love, too, is like he said, so much, so much of a trades electronically. It’s hard to decipher these days between retail and institutional. And I thought that was a great point. Because like you said, everybody’s selling, you know, their products for how to decipher between retail and institutional and gamma positions and market makers, but then you don’t know what’s in Darko, like, there’s just so much unknowns there that I thought that was a great pointing out that with the electronic trades, and then not only you and I’ve talked about this many times, is not only the electronic trades, but then electronic algo execution trades for like hiding with icebergs, etc. It’s like, it’s hard to know if that, you know, 50 lat trade is, you know, or five that trades retail, or if that’s institution, just trenching into the trade.
Jeff Malec 21:31
And then we talk after the event or somewhere I’m there of like, it’s funny to think of right? Retail flow is usually non toxic in the market maker world, right? They don’t want to get in front, they don’t want to see order, get in front of it. And then it’s some institutional player that can come 10x The size over it, cause them a big loss. So it’s in their benefit to know who’s retail who’s institutional, so they don’t get in front of the wrong person. You had an interesting point with the zero DTE that when does retail non toxic flow become toxic? Or this was even in meme stocks. And they were tying in meme stock a little bit stuff in there. Well, like it builds this momentum and then the non toxic flow becomes toxic flow because they’re moving on the same direction. At the same time. Yeah, as soon
Jason Buck 22:16
as soon as they in aggregate and uncorrelated nature moving the same direction at the same time that’s like nuclear toxic or something like it’s just a whole other level, it goes from non toxic to just like get the hell out of the wage shut.
Jeff Malec 22:27
Sign immediately like, and then I asked the question at the end,
Jason Buck 22:32
oh, it’s gonna tee you up. I was, like, I was just saying for like, like Vishnu was saying, like, like, going back to what you’re saying about Vishnu, I see sees that cross asset correlation is where we could see a potential like black swan is like, once again, if we see the yields down, stock down potential world, you know, like back in March, that can be an issue.
Jeff Malec 22:51
That what? Sorry, but in that interesting, your two panels are like if we see yields down, where they say yields down, stocks can yield up stocks now.
Jason Buck 23:04
No, he’s I think Vishnu is saying, like, rates down, like, yields down stocks down.
Jeff Malec 23:09
Okay, I was coming from the same way, like we just had bonds down, stocks down. So if everyone’s like, Oh, that would be a big black swan thing. If we don’t like we just had it, how could it be expected? If
Jason Buck 23:20
this is everybody’s position for doesn’t say in every position for the previous like he’s saying, going back to the previous like, few years ago, like our last few decades, where everybody’s position, the opposite? Now, I think it was what Vishnu was trying to say because of that cross asset correlation flipping again. So then it was question time. So you got in a great question. So I’ll tee you up for that one. That was you showing your your big brain memory from from last year with will? You’re gonna
Jeff Malec 23:47
tell them what my handle was? And the question am?
Jason Buck 23:50
Oh, what’s up with the moss? Wasn’t that good question.
Jeff Malec 23:53
There were some butterflies last month that were plaguing Vegas, two or three of them. Yeah, in the win place. But yeah, my question was like last year, and they kind of misconstrued it. So we will get declared up here. That’s why you have a pumpkin. So last year, there was a lot of talk about dispersion, doing great dispersion doing great. This year, zero talking dispersion, and a lot of talk about how gamma had done great last year. That’s was the part they miss. Right? And so my question was like, hey, last year we were talking about dispersion doing great nobody was talking about the gamma trade, which is like at the money don’t rely on a Vega pop rely on it, approaching your strike. So question was simply like last year, we’re talking dispersion. No one time Vegas this year, we’re talking or gamma this year, we’re talking gamma, no one’s talking dispersion. What’s what’s next are going to be what are we going to be talking about next year that we didn’t talk about this year? So they misconstrued the question and thought I said gamma is working this way and they’re saying no, it’s not working so far this year. The past few months hasn’t seen gamma working at all, but I will jump back in and jump on. As Soren said, like, yeah, I called last year that dispersion was gonna blow up way too much money and way too much excitement about it. And that correlations are going to unwind, and it’s going to be a pain trade across a lot of firms. Like didn’t happen, I’m gonna double down, it’s still a big risk, I still see it having problems. It said they still involved in it, they still trade it, but he sees a big risk in that dispersion trade as well.
Jason Buck 25:30
Perfect. That’s the end of day one.
Jeff Malec 25:38
So day two started off with Tom Lee. Keynote forecasts are forged building resiliency in a risky world. So it’s timely, CIO of parametric, talented public speaker like to style kept this all engaged. And a lot of we could go way deep on this, but we’re gonna keep it high level. But you know, everything you’re always talking about right complexity, emergent behaviors, had some interesting stuff on probability versus confidence. Right, and an option needs to know, not just the probability, but also the confidence. And the and how the confidence brings into second order. Right, the first order of uncertainty is just the probability, the certainty brings into second order of probability, which is the range of probabilities like, Okay, here’s the probability. But what’s the probability that this thing actually happens way over here, so the range of probabilities, and here’s kind of bringing that back to, to build a resilient portfolio, you need to think about the range of possibilities, which you would call paths, right? And think about those range possibilities, the path dependency, and build a resilient portfolio that can exist and not get blown out and each of those range of possibilities. So here’s how to build a resilient portfolio, diverse, liquid tended to costs cautious of complexity, which was sort of interesting, but then he went with like, like a core satellite approach. Like everyone knows that thing. So he lost me a little bit there, like you had all this great stuff. And then he went with a simplistic example. So and then the other interesting thing, and then I’ll let you go on here is you have this pyramid of basically investment products at the top was pure alpha, right, that gets charged to and 20. Next was hedge funds that are basically still one to two, a little bit less management fee, but so one to two to 20. Then alternative beta, which gets down into your 50 beds, 200. pips, then in indexable, alts, which get down to like 10 pips, and then market beta, which we know like spy, which is down less than five bit. So it’s kind of this interesting as you that products and strategies kind of moved down this pyramid. So 20 years ago, we might have thought a simplistic carry strategy was alpha. And kind of now you can get that as a alternative data. So it’s moved down that thing. And then even 50 years ago, we would have thought, owning all 500 stocks in the s&p was maybe some alpha, maybe, index, but also that’s moved way down the chain. Yeah, and he basically was saying to protect against moving down that chain ad managers add complexity, and they add all this stuff, and you have to be careful of is that complexity just to protect their turf and not move down the pyramid? Or is it actually to provide resiliency?
Jason Buck 28:31
Unfortunately, I was in a coffee meeting this morning. That morning, I wish I would have enjoyed that talk. It sounds like But what has been interesting to me is it was also a side theme throughout this where it’s always conversations about alpha and beta. And these these conversations like fascinate me. And part of the rub, I think I always see between people. And I think Cory talks about this often as well, like, the idea is alpha is unexplained beta, but most traders or managers have to have an explanation for their alpha. So like they kind of preclude each other in a way it’s like or most people don’t want to like take the RENNtech style Alpha that’s unexplainable because they wanted to have an explainable strategy and thesis to their investors yet evil you’re saying alpha is just beta that hasn’t been explained yet. So it’s just an interesting like
Jeff Malec 29:21
what’s the you’ll know the term but like once you notice that it’s gone basically so once you once you explain your alpha, it becomes beta. Yeah, yeah. And then he had an interesting with manage features he had an interesting thing of like an example of adding complexities like to protect their turf a lot of trend parts, main features added complexity. Maybe they added some long only they added equity tilt, they added different things that resulted in a lot of tracking error, right versus the fictitious managed futures beta. And he brought up which you’ve talked about ad nauseam of like, okay, this dispersion between every year the top, you know, the CTA index, the top guy To the bottom guys, like he quoted, I think 7% dispersion we’ve seen even larger than that. My pushback on that would be, hey, if you know what’s going on underneath the hood, this one’s an energy trader, this one’s short term quant trader, this one’s a long term trend follower, that it’s not as easy to just say they added complexity. That’s why there’s dispersion to me. It’s like they’re doing massively different strategy types. And they’re just poorly categorized and lumped into the same category. But you even see that in the document trend index, similar dispersion, so it is there. But that I yeah, I just kind of argued back with that. I’m like, is that adding complexity for the sake of protecting their turf? Are they adding complexity to to be the best they can be? Who knows,
Jason Buck 30:47
even if they’re doing this, as you’ve seen over those decades to even know if they’re doing relatively some are things that there’s diversion can still be wide? Right, like, just different look backs, different trading time horizons? You know, breakouts versus crossovers? You know, how do you define a breakout? Like all those things matter? Over Yeah, over the longer term?
Jeff Malec 31:04
And then one of the questions by someone I think, whose handle was moth man in the question was, how do you think about whether added complexity is worth it or not? So he didn’t quite have the time or thing to get into that. But it was kind of saying, comes back to understanding what it’s doing understanding? Is it complex for complexity sake? Or is it complex to the average person or is it complex to you? Which was interesting, right? He’s like, okay, one man’s complex is like, oh, option scary, which we actually heard on some of these other panels. But right, if option scary is complex, well, hey, I understand these options inside out. This isn’t complex to me. Therefore, I don’t think adding options overlay or something to a portfolio is adding complexity for the sake of complexity.
Jason Buck 31:52
Yeah, if I go pop the hood on my car, it’s gonna be like, incredibly complex to me, even if it was an old car that somebody could figure out pretty easily how to work that mechanical system, I’m going to be a complete moron. And that’s going to be overly complex to me. That
Jeff Malec 32:05
is a great example and apropos to me because I would be in the same boat of like, what this looks like the engine bar.
Jason Buck 32:14
To me like I’m microwaves, nothing but magic to me. So I mean, again,
Jeff Malec 32:19
it works. What a great invention. What you think’s more important for society, the microwave or the refrigeration?
Jason Buck 32:26
Oh, definitely refrigeration. I was even I thought you might go AC? Because that’s like, what changed? You know? Yeah. Any senatorial country or the south? But same
Jeff Malec 32:35
technology. Right. So the great ability to cool the air instead of the food. Next panel, was you dominate you got any other thoughts on network? Cast or Forge? No. Yeah, I thought you’d like that. Because that read different way of thinking what you call path dependency and covering all paths is resilience. Right? Creating resilient portfolio?
Jason Buck 32:59
Yeah, and unfortunately, as a coffee meeting, that I was making plans to meet up with jam in Istanbul. So for.
Jeff Malec 33:12
Next, panel options block liquidity, how institutions will benefit from the technology of tomorrow? This was super in the weeds. Super inside baseball, you had heard of Citadel securities, was it?
Jason Buck 33:29
So it’s like is this is this a panel when the moderators, Jason role of Citadel securities than the one the panelists, this is Dave silver at Citadel securities. And then you have Rob Lucas from out where I taught advisors. So yeah, it was very, in the weeds, about, you know, trading options block and liquidity and everything. So I just had some anecdotes, and then you can add to it. But it was interesting, actually, Jason, the moderator actually was even jumping in more than any other moderator because it was a smaller panel. But he was saying he thinks that institutions follow retail traders and options. And I was like, that’s that was a hot tip that he didn’t necessarily necessarily spent to expand on. But he also thought that, like I said, these are more anecdotal, but that dispersion is down to like two weeks. So they’re seeing the dispersion really take effect over a shorter time horizon, or, I guess, depending on who you are, and your time horizon might be shorter or longer. But he really pointed out that two week mark,
Jeff Malec 34:25
but what do you mean they’re not the dispersion we were talking about with a dispersion trade of the What do you mean on that on the two weeks?
Jason Buck 34:33
I thought you’re talking about like dispersion trade on that more likely to be where you’re seeing the most dispersion between index and single name. One of the other things like almost like he pointed out to is that he feels like there’s extra liquidity in single name options compared to their underlying asset. So that would be almost a Jim Carson like tail wagging the dog. So he had like those counterintuitive things where like, institutions are falling retail, and that the options are more liquid Then the underlying reference asset that they’re they’re they’re overlaying. So that was a. And then this was just pure anecdote, but he’s like daily volume at the OCC is, quote unquote, astronomical
Jeff Malec 35:13
Astron. So, yeah. So I had jotted down that the options, executions, basically just catching up with the rest of the market of what we’ve had for years and years and single name securities, and even in futures. So Black orders on the screen algo execution. And the Citadel guy was kind of saying, like institutions sometimes still have to call they have to wait for an auction to get made, they have to wait to see what both sides that are and the advances are going to be, that all happens immediately. I think he was even saying like a Bloomberg plugin, that could be possible where you’re seeing your auction inside of Bloomberg. There was a little Bloomberg hating, they’re like, Hey, we all right, like we know, we all use it. We know we all hate having to pay the price. And then they dropped this little nugget on intention, I think, but that Citadel securities has compounded volume at a growth rate of 80% a year since 2020. And that 70% of the volume is done electronically. Through them 70%. So yeah, moving towards option, auction automation, and less clicks, less friction, right. That was kind of interesting, like bringing it back to retail and Amazon and they’re just trying to get to less clicks. Oh, yeah. And then the same thing retails, the tail wagging the dog institutions falling retail in if retail causes the liquidity to increase. So I had that if, right, they’re following it in if when retail comes in the liquidity increases. So it’s kind of coming back to that like, non toxic turning toxic. Right. So if they’re seeing it kind of concentrated movement, they’re now switching sides, and they’ll follow it. And then he also said that large increase in leaps volume, especially in rates?
Jason Buck 37:08
Yeah, I mean, I think you’d see longer out rates in general, than you would see in like any sort of equity.
Jeff Malec 37:15
Yeah, because you your liabilities are going to be longer. Yeah. Moving on. We had equity and systematic strategies and the new regime. I think we’re both polite. Least say this was one of the least interesting ones to us. Is that polite enough?
Jason Buck 37:32
Yeah, I was trying to think through I think avoid, politely say this stuff. And then in in not any individual, but I was also wondering if like, how much the host actually does matter. You know, we think sometimes the host is like inconsequential, but maybe driving the direction and arc of a conversation and tying things together might be and I’m not saying this was the case in this scenario, but I was it was just making me think about some of the panels that were kind of just more, you know, people just whipping back and forth anecdotes, and no real follow through or conversation. But
Jeff Malec 38:01
yeah, and I think it was kind of missed, set up to what it was a bunch of some of them are just doing long, only some are doing income strategies and equities. So it’s kind of like big, simplistic. I don’t want to use that in the wrong word. But quantitative models that are doing not advanced option, whatnot or whatnot, but the how many securities don’t in which securities? No. They did get into a little bit of like back testing.
Jason Buck 38:28
Yeah, that was the only interesting part that I had some notes on.
Jeff Malec 38:31
Yeah. And one of them said back testing, they don’t mind the shorter back test. And that a human is needed to judge the length and in the approach to back testing.
Jason Buck 38:40
Yeah, that was Linus at Blackrock was talking about how human sensibility has to see the parts that the back test doesn’t make sense, right, or that was outside the parameters of the back test. And then related to that is like, you know, you we’ve talked about this many times before, like systematic is about, and I think this was from Sharon, she was saying systematic is about creating a low cost automation of an of emotional fundamentals. So whenever it goes, you know, are you you know, systematic or discretionary? It’s like, Well, every systematic rule had discretionary emotions embedded in it. Right. And so, yeah, we don’t have talked about that many times. But
Jeff Malec 39:19
yeah, what automating what a good fundamental manager would do at scale and that cost
Jason Buck 39:24
right and then barrel follow that up basically to is yeah, we’re we’re rules based that Neuberger Berman, but, but in the inputs can be emotional. And I thought that was another interesting way of putting it like you can have emotional battles about the inputs. But then it’s all rules based once you get those in there.
Jeff Malec 39:42
And then bear also an interesting point that their models look at the current market signals and not historical so I took that to mean they’re not saying hey, every time the markets down six and a half percent, it rallies X percent, and that’s what our model is working off. It’s just when x in indicators about why indicator we’re getting into those. I think it was more fundamental than that of like if the price earning is x we’re getting in. And then I’ll I won’t name names here, but I had this someone up there said they take some liberties and adjusting the models based on the macro environment and I just wrote down WTF what that’s like, to me quite one on one. I’m like, No, you don’t adjust the model based on what’s going on? Because how do you know? Right? You just picked up the paper or you listen to a podcast, you’re like, Oh my God, this SPB stuff is terrible. Sell everything takes some liberties.
Jason Buck 40:32
I wonder how much of that is part of the zeitgeist, though? Because I think about how many of our potential clients ask us that similar question. And so maybe that’s what they’re, they’re using as a narrative for their clients is that they’re attenuating their rules based to the macro overlay?
Jeff Malec 40:46
by half, they’re just throwing that in there, even though they don’t do it. Yeah,
Jason Buck 40:50
I don’t know. I was just, that’s my, my dubious questioning of that. But like, that’s, I guess I just hear that more and more often these days. So it’s just I don’t know if that’s kind of in the ether. And then Linus also said, they use options as a Smart Money indicator. So I thought that was kind of interesting, but most of the stuff was very, whether it was you know, BlackRock, systematic, or Vanguard, you know, it wasn’t, you know, as interesting, you know.
Jeff Malec 41:14
Yeah. So moving on, we had the next one was this one should be good. A combination approach to building a diversifying strategy portfolio with Roberto Croce, Jim’s brother, just joking. Newton, Joe Ehlinger Powis for Joe Grant. jaffarian, and Ryan Lobato. So I had stepped out here, so I’m going to let you and flew home. So
Jason Buck 41:42
am I so it was interesting to see because I obviously grant jaffarian famous Chicago trading family that you know, well, Ryan, lob del works at Makita. With my buddy, Jason Josie FIAC, especially on their RMS strategies, their risk mitigation strategies, and then Powis works at UPS group. And I think he’s in a separate division from Roxton, but I always like it when Yeah, when Palace is on there, as always interesting. So I have a lot of anecdotes. But, you know, basically, Grant was like talking about how trend following has evolved a lot over the last decade, mostly how managers move much more towards long term like six months plus, with the addition of carrion beta. So as you’re saying is, is as managed futures evolves, and people want to add or carry and beta to provide better return streams, but the actual trend piece has moved much more longer term signals, like six months. Plus, do you think you’ve saw the same seeing the same thing in the last decade? I mean, especially during that, that Lola, the 2010s?
Jeff Malec 42:47
Yeah, definitely, if you wanted to survive was go longer term, and add beta. Yeah. And, and or carry? Much to a detriment? In some cases, like, Okay, are you going to perform in a 22? When that happens, which most of them did. So? I think that’s what’s lost in that conversation. Like, oh, you’re adding these dangerous pieces. You’re adding this dispersion from the true trend following right. But there’s nothing to say they can’t turn those pieces off. Or like when trend comes fully back, like they can be dynamic and Twitter,
Jason Buck 43:17
but they can use the macro environment as Yeah.
Jeff Malec 43:22
They can take some liberties.
Jason Buck 43:24
Joe? Joe had an interesting point about the the Wimbledon trade, I don’t know how much your you know about that. When, when the what, yeah, the tennis tournament, how they were basically paying $2 million a year for pandemic insurance. A lot of people were like, That’s stupid. That’s a negative line item, all that stuff. But it was based on their capex growth. So that was an interesting like, almost like we were saying with, you know, whether knowing it flow is toxic or non toxic is like you don’t know if somebody’s hedging their book, if it’s a directional play, you know, what they have in dark pools? Well, now if you’re talking about actual businesses and having to have capex growth, you don’t know that like, the hedging creates a lower cost of capital. So when Bolton had decided to be a preeminent tournament moving forward, they had to put 10s of millions of dollars and quite frankly, hundreds of million dollars over a decade into building out their facilities, you know, re staffing all of those sorts of things. So yeah, like all those things are like, more champagne and strawberries. So no one likes bleed, but still, like it saved their bacon, right? They were able to survive and surviving the only success but it was interesting how much the that hedge was not necessarily predicting a pandemic was more like hedging their capex spending. So I think that’s always an interesting way to think about things where, you know, an options world. You everybody can get what they want, because you don’t realize that, you know, real economic you know, hedgers especially where they’re spending, futures and options might be hedging, you know, their exposure to, you know, commodity versus refined product versus, you know, cost of capital, so you really don’t know kind of what’s at play there. And grant was talking about to that like strategies that offer genuine diversification need dispersion? No, there is there is no benchmark. And it needs to be timing orientated, no passive, no passive, no benchmark, and you need dispersion for the genuine diversification that managed futures can provide.
Jeff Malec 45:16
So he might mean getting down when Tom Lee was using that as a bad example of like, Oh, I’ll show you dispersion.
Jason Buck 45:25
And then Roberto ask I think like, why do you need active Why not like Q is which is basically Q is a quantitative vessel strategies are basically like, systematic passive factor investing. So Joe’s response with that is everyone has 1000s of bespoke indices. The rules based doesn’t adapt to a changing market. So going back to the idea of like, macro overlay, or like you’re saying, even if managed futures had on you know, carry and other beta trades that they can switch into the more trend trades or just or just adjust kind of like a, like a dimmer switch, you know, how much exposure they have. was interesting to like we’ve shown with that dispersion with manage future trend, trend players is like Ryan pointed out that trend directionally correlates, but p&l, dispersion can be large. And so it’s best to use ensembles for clients. Just Mike just might drop that one couldn’t, couldn’t agree more. Oh, this is where the tick came in. So so even grant brought up the tick size for E Mini so that that $12.50 makes it difficult for the execution costs, right, you have to innovate on the execution cost side. And so he was he was pointing out that like the HFT and other front running traders make their execution cost so much higher for trend followers and and they have been historically, so part of a CTA or trend following firm these days, pasture have a division that’s really working on their execution costs, and making sure that they can have better execution costs. So that’s, that’s that bit of that red queen principle that we find where everybody’s like, well, I can use a trend in this index, I can do trend at home, all that stuff. But as we know, the firm’s that are working hardest is actually on the reduction of the transaction cost side and worrying about, you know, disguising their orders for the HFT firms.
Jeff Malec 47:13
Then that’s like a big, firm, big fun problem, right? Like if you have $3 billion of your huge trend follower, but point taken, and then introduced, I think Q is used to be called risk premium, right? Have we gotten rid of the risk premium name? And now it’s QA? Yes. You saw
Jason Buck 47:28
that popping up, too? And the factors and yeah, it’s just all like, everything has just a new acronym and everything, which, you know, I always joke with the guys that Makita about their RMS, their risk mitigation strategies, it’s like the new new version of tail tail risk, or long haul, or managed futures or commodities, once again, managed futures, commodity trend followers, CTAs, you know, pick your poison. And then obviously, Ryan’s a you know, what they’re RMS strategies personally, after my own heart, he said, You need to size the allocation to like, manage futures or trend to the payoff you need, like a 1% allocation doesn’t do anything. And so, yeah, Makita has, you know, advising trillions of dollars. And so when they’re talking to large institutions, about their allocation size to trend following, you can imagine when they’re having those conversations, they’re like, one to 4%, like, you know, what’s the point, you’re actually not doing anything, but that’s usually there, but a lot of the conversations they are having,
Jeff Malec 48:24
I’ll throw out a shameless plug for our guide to try and find white paper that has a whole couple pages in there on that, which was based on a great work by Welton a bit ago. Like a by bit, I mean, maybe 15 years ago. But it was basically showing, okay, if you expect 6%, annual return, whatever, and you want to get to 10. It was just simple math, right? If like you’re expecting six out of the year, 6040 portfolio, you want to get to 10% a year to meet your pension liability. What does this allocation of these old sap to return? And it was showing like at 5% allocation, it has to do 78%. So it was just like, I feel like that’s a better way to frame it. I’m like, Okay, you’re into it. You liked the diversification. What do you think this needs to return in order to do what you want it to do? And they’ll be like, right, where it’s at the 15% like, no, no, then you need 25% exposure. So yeah, kudos to him for recognizing that but I would love to ask him follow up with like, how many clients actually listen and do more than 5%.
Jason Buck 49:26
The next panel was on fixed income factors. And my buddy Roni Israel love from endeavor formerly of AQR was on that panel. And so maybe I’ll short shorthand. This is like, recently, Roni has been making the podcast rounds, and I highly recommend his his episodes on resolved riffs. And then Corey Huff scenes flirting with models. And Roni really breaks down like corporate bonds, and, you know, short different dispersion traits like he he was like, you know, why being corporate bonds when you’re basically long treasuries plus risk premium In short, a putt. And so Ronnie can go into all those details. And I highly recommend listening to any of the podcasts he’s been on recently. Because it’s stuff that human endeavor is very interesting. And to your question earlier is like, they’re building LDI ladders for retirees. And I think that’s a really interesting differentiating factor for an RA that nobody else is really doing. And he’s just bringing all of that firepower that he that he’s built with AQR over the years and applying it and endeavor now and it’s really impressive what kind of using the technology and what they’re building out there.
Jeff Malec 50:30
And really quick what do you mean by LDI ladder so I’m you’re matching their 200k spend in the next five years, then it’s down to 125? So cool, we’re gonna get through this income at those milestones,
Jason Buck 50:42
right tagging you when you need when you have those income needs or for other people be liability needs historically when you’re an insurance company buffer individuals Yes, when you need those income, and then tying your treasury ladder to the exact income you need, so that way you’re always just hitting it dead on for all those trenching out the years of your future life.
Jeff Malec 51:02
Especially at today’s rates. That’s what makes that even possible. Right.
Jason Buck 51:05
Yeah. And then a little bit of you know, fireworks or trying to you know, forehead to catch my flight the last the last the last discussion because wasn’t panel discussion I caught was just the rear rear mirror, see the wall ahead with Mike Green from simplify, and Jim Carson from Chi volatility, great title and great title. You know, I love a good Kierkegaardian reference, right? That we only understand life through the rearview mirror and several we have to, we have to drive looking forward. So that’s always the tough part about life. So there’s a little bit kind of anecdotes in here. The problem I think, actually was, you know, with with both these gentlemen, they’re, they’re they’re quite verbose. And I think they gave him like 30 minutes to talk. And so I think they were trying to try to jam a lot into 30 minutes. So it’s kind of a little bit of back and forth. And so basically, the conversation is like can mark is pricing a future event. And Jim was pointing out that we had the risin zero DTE because Vega didn’t work. And the RV gamma has the realized ball and gamma has worked. But now he’s saying the realized ball is dramatically compressed. So as you’re wanting to get in touch on the zero DTE Mike was pointing out that the the least sensitivity of vix to s&p moves is like, Is nobody cares about 30 Day ball. And right and so, VIX is priced on expected 30 day forward variance. And he had a slide that came out exactly what he had a good wording of it. But he’s basically like, nobody cares about 30 Day vol. Like, kind of like, Who gives a shit,
Jeff Malec 52:38
which is counter to the other band winners like know, these, both those 30 day out and zero DT volume is separate and different.
Jason Buck 52:47
Yeah. And then what Gemini I’ve actually been talking about for a while now him and I have been talking about this privately too, as well. And I think he’s been talking about publicly he’s like, you know, ball, like we’re talking about her, it’s moved to other asset classes and back, but like, we were talking about the historical lessons, right, like vol, gets compressed, and then vol explodes. And then everybody gets blown out. And then they rush to buy those hedges, ball compresses again, and we just keep going through these cycles over and over and over again, right, like, post 2008, everybody wanted insurance, but that was a good time to be selling insurance, you know, and then it’ll tell selling insurance as well, it compresses down, then we have like pops like 2020. Like it just keeps, it keeps expanding and contracting. And usually people are kind of on the wrong side. But it’s just like that really historical references. Like you saying, you have 2017, you had all sellers, and then February 2018, you had volume again, it pops. And then if we reverse course, again, like it just keeps going back and forth.
Jeff Malec 53:39
The problem to me is that timing rent, so like cool, I know it’s gonna revert, but if it’s post 2020, and that echo remained around for a long time, it’s like, yeah, it took too long to revert, and I got carried out on a body bag, like, so you can know it’s going to cycle but if the one edge of the cycle takes too long,
Jason Buck 53:55
well, yeah, you can what’s the you can predict things but not the timing or whatever. Like you can say directional, but not don’t give a timeframe. So you’re talking about like, you know, 2020 every single, you know, shortfall sitting in equities. And then you know, currently we’re set up for of all expansion. So once again, that’s you know, but once again, what is the timing and Jim was talking about what the debt ceiling and that anything under two years the market is a voting machine. He feels that liquidity slim in the tails. So maybe that’s also why you can see that that reversion you know buying and this is not investment advice, you buying that skew that deeper the money skew, if that liquidity is then and people just keep, keep brushing in there, you know, on a potential, you know, low liquidity environment that you could see that the deeper the money tail like pop again,
Jeff Malec 54:41
made me a little nervous overall that several people were like, Oh, it’s getting to be a better environment for the tail protection like if everyone’s noticing it isn’t really going to be there.
Jason Buck 54:50
Well as you and I both know, it was like it might be a better environment might be what we quote unquote cheaper but it can be cheaper for years and get and get even cheaper than that. Right. So that’s the price problem, right. But at least it’s not the asymmetries back at least, but you might just still be bleeding out.
Jeff Malec 55:06
Right, but mine are 2,000,000,002% better than 6%. Here.
Jason Buck 55:09
Yeah, Mike pointed out that everyone likes conviction. So they’re just buying calls for upside instead of delta one, which also might skew other people’s metrics on like put call parity, etc. And whether the market is bullish or bearish.
Jeff Malec 55:23
Which also comes back to Jim’s overall thesis that people are moving whole hog into options.
Jason Buck 55:29
Yeah, in Giemsa, the recession isn’t the biggest risk Stagflation is. So I thought that was interesting, secular, sticky inflation, and we’d have like a middling economy. I don’t know how much he’s got. I don’t think he’s been talking about that too much lately. So that was that was fairly new. Mike said, though, he pushed back said he’s not worried about stagflation. But he is worried that credits credit spreads could be explosive. And then you’ve probably heard him say this before. He’s talking about once again, like, quote, unquote, populism is local. And capitalism is global. And he feels that we were shifting back to that local populism where we’ve been in a global capital world for for decades, or, or as he likes to call it planet Palo Alto. And then he referenced once again that the zero DTE becomes a problem if it gets unbalanced, like, everybody was talking about how, how balanced it’s been. And then And then Mike asked that question again, if like, if the OCC, you know, changes those intraday margin is that a catalyst for that zero dt to blow up? And they both kind of, you know, agreed that could be the potential catalyst. But that was yeah, there was it was like, it was a quick back and forth and ended rather quickly. And I’m not, you know, they were trying to, I think, got, I didn’t write the notes down, they were trying to basically go through a lot of history of options trading, you know, back into like the 80s and 90s. So that’s I’m saying I think he got too compressed and a little a little bit jumbled. And you’ll probably need two hours for those. Those two to have a good conversation. They could
Jeff Malec 56:57
add their whole own day. Session, panel three with Jim, my panel six.
Jason Buck 57:02
Yeah. And then after that, one, I had to run to run to catch a flight. But then there was another, you know, talking about Q is again, there’s a fireside chat about equity derivatives. And I really wish I would go to saw the risk management portfolio diversification in 2023. But once again, had to had to catch a flight
Jeff Malec 57:21
here, and you gotta go catch by now. So fish. Awesome. This has been fun. Thank you. We’ll see you again next year.
Jason Buck 57:30
No, thank you. I appreciate I appreciate you.
Jeff Malec 57:37
That’s it for the pod. Thanks, Jason. Thanks to RCM. Thanks, Ed for the great conference. And thanks to Jeff burger for producing. We’ll be back hopefully with Jay Parker next week. Peace.