Latest / Ghost Stories / Ghost Stories #118: The elephant, not the mouse - how strategic asset allocation underpins a balanced fund

Transcript

Ghost Stories #118: The elephant, not the mouse - how strategic asset allocation underpins a balanced fund · Ghost Stories

• 0:00
  Speaker A: Here's a taste of what's in this podcast with Nico Katzka of Satrix talking about balanced funds and how they work.
• 0:06
  Speaker B: These funds are multi asset strategies as opposed to single asset class funds. The funds we're talking about today is the Satrix balance index fund range. These funds are multi asset strategies as opposed to single asset class funds like for example the Satrix Top 40 which invested the 40 largest stocks on the JSE or the All B. You know, I suppose we're less one trick pony, more sort of multi trick Mustang or I don't know, Swiss Army Stallion or I don't know, you're the creative one, you can think of a better.
• 0:35
  Speaker A: I don't think I'm going to top either of those. I can tell you now I'm going to let you claim whichever one you feel best about. Swiss Army Stallion this episode is brought to you by Satrix, the leading provider of low cost investment solutions in South Africa and a proud partner of Ghostmail. Visit Satrix Co Za for more information. Welcome to this episode of the Ghost Stories podcast. We are heading rapidly towards the end of the year. Only a couple of months left and that gives us a good opportunity to talk about some of the stuff going on out there, but also just to understand how pro investors think. To do that today we have Nico Katzka from Satrix. And Nico, you've been on here a million times, you've been a busy man this year. You've been traveling, you're a voice that is well known to the Ghost Mail audience and you always bring us so much cool stuff. So welcome and thanks for making some time.
• 1:26
  Speaker B: Yeah, it's great to be back on the pod. Good to chat to you again, Ghost. Looking forward to today.
• 1:30
  Speaker A: So among other things we're going to talk Satrix Balanced Fund. And as prep for this, I'm aware that you sent a 30 page strategic asset allocation document to clients recently, which is quite a thing, very interesting. And that means that it is anything but passive investing. Like this is a fund that you at Satrix put a lot of effort into managing and how you actually go about it. So we going to focus on that today and maybe before we go into the detail and some of the excellent insights that sit behind the strategy, perhaps just give us a quick overview of this fund, what it is and who it's for.
• 2:03
  Speaker B: Yeah, so there's actually more than one, but the funds we're talking about today is the Satrix Balance Index fund range. These funds are multi asset strategies as opposed to single asset class funds. Like for example, The Satrix Top 40, which invests in the 40 largest stocks on the JSE or the OBI, that trade tracks bond instruments. So instead of it being a single asset class, these are multi asset strategies. Now multi asset strategies have a wider mandate to invest in different type of fund categories altogether. And these proportions, so in other words, how much equities you hold, how much bond, how much local, how much offshore, ultimately these proportions are determined by the manager. Now our balance fund is great for investors that want to take, you know, the guesswork out of what combination of assets to hold. And as we do all the research and work in the background, you mentioned our SAA report. I mean, we do that every two years and it's a very detailed process that we go by. And this provides investors a great way to diversify their portfolios without much fuss. You know, in many ways it removes the anxiety for direct investors looking to be diversified but not having the skills or the confidence to decide how best to invest. So think of it as a just add water solution for investors, you know, and a really cost effective one at that.
• 3:16
  Speaker A: And this is available to institutional and retail investors, right?
• 3:20
  Speaker B: Yeah, correct. And so it is used as a core building block by, you know, more institutional type investors and then intermediaries advisors as well. But also it's available to investors that directly want to hold something either in a discretionary portfolio or for the long term. And like I said, just want to take out the guesswork. You know, you want to put your money to productive use, but you don't know exactly what to put it in. We do all the work in these funds, so yeah, for us it's a great solution for investors.
• 3:46
  Speaker A: Yeah, very interesting. And so you've mentioned there that it's multi asset in nature, which means equity bonds, all kinds of interesting things in there. And we'll get into that. You've got developed and emerging markets as well. So I guess the process of how you actually build this fund will be something that is really interesting to understand because you've got to choose what these different asset classes are. You've got to think about how much you're putting into each one. So my assumption would be that there's a top down approach here where you're identifying the different buckets and how much you want in each one and then you're probably looking inside those buckets and saying, okay, well within the category of, for example, emerging market equities, there's a few different ways to play that before we actually dig into some of the recent thinking going into this. Is that correct? Is it a top down approach in line with what I've described there or am I off the mark there?
• 4:35
  Speaker B: You're spot on there. It is top down in the sense that we first determine which asset classes we want to hold, for example equities, bonds, local, global, et cetera, and then in what proportion. But then after we've made that decision we believe in keeping the rest as simple and low cost as possible. For example where we have 8% allocation to emerging market equities outside SA. In reality we can be creative and try to add value by picking one stock over another in that segment and be more granular in what we hold. But in truth coast we believe keeping it as simple as possible at that level. And instead of being creative in that sense, we like to hold a cost effective, broadly diversified index which has shown over time to deliver excellent results. Now on this I suppose there's two schools of thought when it comes to investing for the long term. The one believes that long term value creation requires identifying and taking advantage of short term opportunities. You know, being nimble and moving in and out of positions opportunistically. And the second school of thought, and obviously no prizes for guessing which school I attend, is that optimal long term positioning is what truly matters and then keeping costs low after that is what will stack the odd space in your favor. Now the best outcome for clients would probably be somewhere in the middle. In other words, you know, having your long term core just do what it should be doing and then employing active managers that can opportunistically take advantage of short term opportunities. I think a decent blend is absolutely what clients should be going for. But long term strategies ideally should be focused mainly on the asset location decision and the smaller part should be dedicated to being opportunistic or tactical. And this is not just our view. Global meta studies have actually shown the same in that the biggest contributing factor to multi asset portfolios by far is the asset allocation decision. What asset classes you hold. Studies show that tactical maneuvers contribute only a small part. In other words, within, let's say the global equity category. Whether you overweight this stock versus that stock, those decisions, studies show, contribute about 5% if you're generous to overall portfolio returns. This makes me think Ghost of the elephant and the Mouse joke. Now being a dad yourself, you probably know this one too. But it goes like this. Elephant and mouse are walking in the jungle and come across a wooden bridge over a river which they then decide to cross. Don't ask me why they crossed the bridge, but let's just assume they did as they begin walking across the bridge, you know, with each step, naturally the bridge swings wildly from left to right and at some point mouse turns to elephant and says, just like we're making this bridge swing. So for me that's what a strategic asset location does. It's where we at Satric spend all our attention. That's the elephant, the tactical mouse, you know, that we limit and we thereby try to focus on the controllables, focusing less on the noise. You know, it's not the mouse making the bridge swing. It is absolutely the elephant's big pounding feet that make it swing. And this strategy has worked phenomenally well in our balance funds. You know, if we just look at the last 10 years, our most flexible high equity balance fund had the sixth highest return out of more than 130 active fund peers. If you think about this was during a decade where a lot happened, from COVID to taper tantrums, trade wars, you know, Russia and the US overstaying their welcomes militarily, et cetera, et cetera. Now you'd think during such a volatile decade an active hand at the wheel would have been the preferred route over this time. But interestingly, a strategy with its eyes set firmly on the long term has actually managed to comfortably outperform its active peers despite the many challenges and opportunities that existed. So for us, this shows that acting in the short term ghost is not always optimal and that sometimes trusting the process while keeping costs to a minimum can deliver very impressive results.
• 8:22
  Speaker A: Yeah, that's interesting and I love the elephant joke. That's exactly right. Performance attribution and understanding where the elephants are. That's a very fun analogy. Thank you for sharing that. And would it be correct to say that this is then because it's more diversified, it's a less risky fund overall than a traditional equities only fund. Would that be the correct place to put this balanced fund on the risk spectrum?
• 8:43
  Speaker B: It's hard to say. It depends which equity strategies you are following. So as a blanket statement, that might not apply to every equity strategy, but I would suggest that it's more balanced, the risk is spread out more, so you're not overly concentrated to a single asset class. And within the multi asset strategies, we have two options available to direct investors being both the high equity or just the Satrix balance index fund and then also the Satrix balanced low equity index fund where the proportion allocated to growth assets or riskier assets is just lower. So there's A higher risk strategy with higher upside over the long term and a lower risk strategy. So we have both. But I would agree with this statement more broadly that a diversified blend and thinking specifically about diversifying across asset classes should deliver over time a more stable return profile for investors.
• 9:31
  Speaker A: So let's maybe dig into then some of the buckets that are actually sitting here because I'm looking at the strategic asset allocation note that you sent to your clients and there's so much absolutely fascinating stuff in here, but there's a bunch of buckets and I think we should start there. So it's SA equity, SA bonds, ILBs. I'm keen for you to explain that Global Property. I'm going to let you take us through it and maybe just explain bucket by bucket what kind of stuff people will actually find in these balanced funds.
• 9:56
  Speaker B: Happy to do so I think before we do that, maybe it's useful to just take a step back and consider the fact that many of your listeners may think of Cetrix as being a one trick pony in that our funds are just low cost and we don't apply our minds in how we construct our portfolios. This is true in part, but the reality is that we manage actually various strategies where the design is anything but passive. Right. So this includes our factor range which I've discussed with you in the past and that we can again do a refresh on at some time. But it also applies to these balance index funds we are discussing today, which is actually highly technical in its design but with the same low cost structure that you've come to expect from us. So you know, I suppose we're less one trick pony and more sort of multi trick Mustang or I don't know, Swiss Army Stallion or I don't know, you're the creative one, Ghost. You can think of a better term.
• 10:41
  Speaker A: I don't think I'm going to top either of those. I can tell you now I'm going to let you claim whichever one you feel best about Swiss Army Stallion.
• 10:48
  Speaker B: Don't quote me on that, but okay, back to your question. I think it's important to note there's no benchmark or passive asset allocation in multi asset funds. It's always an active decision and how much to hold of equities, bonds, credit, commodities, cash and the like. This decision is what we call the strategic asset allocation or the saa. And this process is quite involved. And this is the elephant and the elephant in the mouse joke that I mentioned earlier. We spend weeks running quantitative models, debating asset class forecasts and expressing Our views on everything from interest rates, inflation, sovereign risk, et cetera, so that our clients know that we've considered all these things when we arrive at our strategic asset location. Now at Satrix, we chair a committee of both internal and external professionals that provide the input before we then ultimately produce a detailed report which I sent to you before recording. And please make it available to whoever's listening. This is not a state secret. We're very much in the game of sharing our secret sauce and we want that for public consumption and debate as well. So we very much want to embrace that sort of notion. That clarity in terms of what you're investing in when you invest in a portfolio should be front of mind for clients. So basically, in reality, before I get to the underlying building blocks, I think it's important to stress that you can think of these funds, our balance index funds, as being like a Lego creation where the creativity lies in which blocks is placed in which order, while the blocks themselves are actually low cost vehicles. The same way with Lego, it's not about the expensiveness or the structure of the individual blocks. The blocks are quite simple and easy to understand, but it's they blend together, putting them in the right order that can actually create quite sophisticated solutions for clients. This way investors know you're not overpaying for the multi asset blend, but you also know it is well diversified. So on the different asset classes that you mentioned, and let me summarize this briefly and I'm going to not do it justice, so please read the report if you want a deeper dive into the different building blocks. But in summary, I suppose we still like essay equities. We believe there's lots of value locally and it's still an attractive investment proposition specifically for Rand based investors. So we hold about, and I'm just going to reference our balance index fund, so the high equity fund, we hold 40% local equities in our multi factor vehicle Smart Call, which has achieved top quartile performance over the past three years and from our perspective has the advantage of harvesting long term factor premia, like I mentioned. Happy to discuss that at some stage again, but just for simplicity, we hold about 40% local equities in that fund. We also hold 17% in local nominal bonds, which we like for various reasons, I suppose least of which being that you are still locking in very attractive real yields through the cycle today. You know, if you look at the bond yields that you can get effectively, you know, for free at the moment you're earning inflation plus. So for us that's a very attractive proposition still. And running off local, we also hold some short duration enhanced cash exposure just to manage liquidity in the fund, about 2%. And we also have a 3% direct property exposure. So if you take the equity block that has about 5% of that local equity building block is property, then you add that through the 3% and you have a more or less 5% allocation to the local property in the portfolio. Now that's about a 62% allocation locally in total. And then we also hold 38% offshore in the form of 20% global equities, developed market equities, specifically 8% emerging market equities. And then we also hold 10% real assets in the form of global listed properties and listed infrastructure. So that's kind of the nice blend that I mentioned earlier. The one asset class we've become quite known for for not holding. And initially, I promise you, when we sold off all of that asset class, it grabbed some attention and we were actually, you know, having to defend it at the time quite a lot. And it's global bonds and credit. So we've not held any global bonds for the last five years during which time our fund has not shed in its negative annualized returns. I can happily say at the time it was a brave call, but ultimately the correct one that we made in 2021 and which we still stand by today. We simply believe that Rand based investors are better served with higher yielding for local nominal bonds which give you a far better and more attractive real yield. And we like that offshore yield come through real assets in property and infrastructure, you know, without getting too technical. That's what we deem to be a more optimal blend. But yes, Open Invite anyone wanting to know more. This is just the highlights. Ghost will share the link and you can reach out if you want to read and understand our positioning on the different asset classes.
• 15:16
  Speaker A: Yeah, and there is a lot to read and understand. I think that's the point is this is quite technical stuff, but therein also lies the value add. Right? Because you're looking at all of these different asset classes and you're using different techniques to figure out where you want to be and to what extent you want to be there. It's the elephant, as you said, more so than the mouse. So maybe just help us understand more about the maths without going into crazy detail. I mean there's some scary looking formulas in this document, so I don't think we're looking to work through that, but rather just the principles that sit behind these elephants. How do you actually go about assessing these buckets where you want to be, especially through the cycle? I mean, you've mentioned that this fund has been doing very well and obviously that's not a guarantee of future performance performance, but it does speak to track record through a world that has done all kinds of crazy things. So just give us a bit more insight into high level, what some of the techniques are that you use to actually assess these buckets.
• 16:07
  Speaker B: Look, I'm very conscious of not having a math on a podcast segment. I know you're going to push back on that. So without getting technical at all. And I want to mention the SAA document mostly hides the math in the appendix, so you know, you can safely read it. But the ideas for us when it comes to the optimization process, what we want to achieve there. Ghost and I think this is the golden thread for us around all our quantitative modeling is to ensure that we are well diversified from a risk source perspective, which is incredibly important because a lazy man's interpretation of diversification is simply saying, well, we hold many different things, but the reality is if those different things are highly correlated or move in the same direction, you know, that's not really helpful. That does not achieve good diversification. I'll give you a good example of where this was particularly important. So when we sold our global bonds to zero in 2021 and rather replaced that offshore yield component with real assets. So like I mentioned global property and global infrastructure, what happened in 2022 was that global equities sold off massively. So I think from a dollar perspective, you lost well over 20% in developed market equities. The problem was developed market bonds also sold off. Memory served 16 or 17% at the time. So the problem was both equities and bonds sold off. So your portfolio didn't really have that defensive ballast in place. And we actually mentioned in 2021 that that's our fear is that there's been this breakdown in the traditional kind of negative correlation between bonds and equities. Because for your listeners, when you build a portfolio, you. You want there to be different types of returns. If everything's moving in the same direction. It feels great when markets are going up, but it feels terrible when markets are going down. So you sometimes want to hold things that you don't really want to hold in and of itself, but in combination in the portfolio actually makes a lot of sense. And so 2022 arrived and what we saw was that the defensive ballast, those real assets infrastructure specifically had a flat year. In other words, it didn't lose money. So it acted as that defensive ballast at exactly the right time. And so it's those things that we identify statistically through quantitative modeling that we then debate internally through qualitative means, just our reasoning that we apply there and our interaction with other professionals, and then we blend both of those. And if I can use an analogy you've probably come to know by now, I like using sport analogies. So for us, when we construct this portfolio, what we try to do is not to pick the 15 quickest players in the Curry cup to play for the Springboks. What we want to do is pick quick players, yes, within their position. But then we want to also have an oxen chair that can scrum, might not run the 100 meters in under 20 seconds. But the point is, he has a specific role in the team. He might not be the flashiest guy scoring tries in the corner, but he has a specific role. And that's the way we think about blending different asset classes. So what often happens is clients ask us, okay, so you're buying this asset class. Does that mean you're bullish on it? Well, it might not. Right. For the same token, that you can ask me, well, when you pick Oxenter for the Springboks, are you picking him because he's good under the highball? Well, absolutely not. But he's good in the scrum. Right. So we need to consider the collective and what our team has and needs. And so this is how we think of blending different asset classes together. And this is such an important decision, like I mentioned. So it's all about balancing risk, identifying statistical sources of risk, and then identifying the indices and that play well together in a portfolio.
• 19:40
  Speaker A: Yeah, I love it. There's a lot of really great insights coming through there. And I think while we've got you, Nico, maybe we should also just talk about the world that we're currently operating in and how this all fits together. Because a big part of being diversified is because the future is uncertain. Right. None of us really know exactly what's going to happen and when. Hence, diversification gives you some protection in an uncertain, volatile world. And there is a lot of volatility. And so you obviously need to think about the stuff when you're doing your strategic asset allocation. But as you've alluded to, you also need to let the thing just do its work over time, effectively. Get paid for being diversified, get paid for making good decisions and picking the right thing, and depending on the maths and historical averages and all the rest. But at the moment as you think about this and as you and the team actually manage this fund, what are some of the big ticket items that are top of mind for you when it comes to geopolitics? Perhaps AI and all the rest of the things that are currently impacting global markets around us. I'm sure the fuel price is one of them as well as.
• 20:37
  Speaker B: Yeah, great question. I'll say at the answer. We try not to be swayed by short term noise or act whenever there's a new truth social post that can cause market anxiety. We try to stay the course. And so it's for this reason that we revisit our strategic asset location every two years because we find that to be an optimal blend between not acting too frequently, which would be more sort of tactical in nature, and also not acting too infrequently, which means that your asset location becomes stale and you're not considering new opportunities, new kind of insights that you can gather. So two years for us is a good blend to reconsider our asset location. But there's so much happening at the moment. You mentioned a few things, but you know, if you think about the pressure that for example, the US dollar is under and the US is standing as a trusted geopolitical partner, which has materially changed over the last few years, you know, we do believe it will take a lot to recover from this lost standing and damaged trust amongst political partners for the us, which was forged over many decades. Right. For me, the thing always goes is a leadership void in defense partnerships tends to be filled by someone. So I wouldn't Simply celebrate the US's lowered appetite for being a defense partner to democratically leaning regimes. It is a massive concern, and it's a concern on many fronts, including what this means for the prospect of free and fair trade going forward. And it's not just the US looking weak on the geopolitical front. I mean, apparently France is violently reckoning with its unrealistically generous social spending regime. Well, you know, the reality is Europe more broadly seems to have declared a trade war with itself and it actually looks like it's winning this war. So much is not making sense from a European and a broader Western economic perspective. There's a lot of pressure. Also, developed markets are straining under fiscal deficits and high debt burdens. Also, key elections are being had in coming weeks, the effects of which will probably only become clearer in coming months. And if you think about it, guys, what's so interesting about the upcoming US midterms? So traditionally US midterms has been seen as an opportunity for a sort of clearing mechanism for policy uncertainty. If you think historically, we've mostly seen markets rally following midterm results, because what follows that is greater policy certainty. But this time around, I actually think that things might be quite a bit different, in no small part due to the more likely outcome of a divided government in the US and the current White House has shown a track record of not fully embracing unfavorable outcomes. I suppose would be putting it very generously.
• 23:07
  Speaker A: Very generously indeed. That's right up there with your Swiss army stallion, Niko. No one's going to beat you at these creative descriptions.
• 23:14
  Speaker B: Look, I'm trying to not offend anyone from a political perspective. I know how sensitive this topic can be. But let's unpack the US Midterm election that's coming up, right? So this election will actually determine who controls the House of Representatives, and up to about a third of the Senate seats are on the ballot. So that means all the House seats are up for election and about a third of the Senate seats. Now, the House currently stands at 220 versus 215, so it's a very narrow lead for Republicans. So, in other words, anyone developing overnight the conscience on any, you know, voting matter can actually swing the result. The Senate is 53 to 45. So slightly bigger lead. Now, from our vantage point that I read again this morning, just, you know, the statistics that's available for predicting this, probably the most likely outcome is a divided government with the House of Representatives going to the Democrats and the Senate remaining Republican. So, in other words, the guys crafting the law, they're going to likely be Democrat, and the guys signing into law, they're going to be Republican. Now, what this means is a divided House, right? So divided government is what markets are predicting, and this would naturally constrain Trump's policy options at home. Now, what's interesting is, historically, when presidents have been faced with this in the US they tend to focus more on foreign policy, which means likely an even more interventionist US Administration from a foreign policy perspective, which is a frightening thought. Either way, existing tax and regulatory legislation would likely remain in place as things currently stand. But the political room for fresh stimulus or broad tax reform would probably be limited in a divided election outcome. So, as a result, we think the fiscal stance is likely to remain broadly neutral to mildly restrictive over time. But the massive deficits and debt concerns still remain. And so we believe the dollar is likely going to remain on the back foot medium to longer term. As a result, US Treasuries are on the back foot. And if you have very high debt levels and you're just issuing more debt, it stands to reason that the market is just going to charge you a high interest rate for doing so. You know, if you're a highly indebted borrower and you want to buy another luxury car, the bank is probably going to say, fine, but I'm going to charge you a very high interest rate. And ultimately this is weighing on the US consumer that as a result faces high interest rates and higher mortgage rates. And also companies in the US that are to a large extent debt financed is struggling also to, you know, recover from that shock as well. So much is happening and then locally our own elections, you know, these may not make global headlines, what's going to happen next week and following the result, but it may very likely have quite the opposite effect locally. Hopefully the elections will provide a new government alliance with more agency to do the right thing as relates to much needed policy amendments. And on this I truly believe I might be too optimistic. But I truly believe, and I hope you agree, Ghost, is that the worst is past us locally in terms of governing problems and economic woes. It's not going to be solved overnight. But I do think we've hit the bottom and we're bouncing up. And the future, I think looks bright in sa. Well, we're in an odd position where probably the opposite may in fact be the case for our more developed market partners. I mentioned it recently to someone that if you look at the US midterms, you know, France going into elections and many European elections looming, and the distrust in the election process, it does seem like South Africa is looking like the shining beacon of stability and democracy at the moment. I wouldn't put that on my tombstone, but you know what I mean. It's a bizarre world at the moment. Many things are turned upside down. And it's I suppose from this perspective that I just want to give comfort to your listeners that we do a lot of work considering all these matters and baking that into our strategic asset location. Does that mean we're going to get everything right? Of course not. But we try to position the portfolio as optimally as we can. Just take the guesswork out of the equation for our clients and provide them with a cost effective, well diversified solution.
• 27:03
  Speaker A: I do agree with you. For what it's worth, about where we're at in South Africa at the moment. I do think we're going to have a pretty crummy end to the year from a consumer perspective. I must Say, I don't personally see huge relief on the horizon for the consumer stocks that have been given such a hiding, but I think overall the South African story is definitely not the worst globally. I'm not unhappy about being here and building a business here and a career and everything else. I have friends who have businesses in places like the uk and I can promise you it is not the land of milk or honey and it's not the land of sunshine either, usually other than for basically what, a month and a half of the year at best. So, yeah, you know, South Africa's got a lot of problems, but we do have a lot of opportunity and I think it's a decent place to be at the moment with everything going on in the world. Let's see what happens for the rest of this year. Because as you've correctly pointed out, some very big, very important elections that will have global consequences and some very important stuff happening at home as well on that front. So lots to think about, and I guess that's the overarching point with a long term diversified investment lens, right, is there's always going to be noise, there's always going to be stuff happening, there's always going to be something to be worried about, something to be excited about, something that scares you, something that excites you. And it's actually pretty important to have this almost stoic approach where you just stay the course, you know, just don't break anything, just keep going. That's almost the hardest part. But in some ways that really is the elephant on the bridge, right? That's really what actually drives success.
• 28:29
  Speaker B: And you know what, I'll also just end off from my side with the perspective that I've shared. And I truly believe this. One should never forgo your long term investment discipline and principles in the face of short term uncertainty. And that's far easier said than done. We have an inherent, almost knee jerk reaction as humans when we're faced with uncertainty. We feel like we must act. But when it comes to long term investing, actually inaction is oftentimes the best course of action. If you've set your course and you know this is the right mix, you know, you should have growth assets in your portfolio, et cetera, et cetera. It's so easy to lose sight of your long term goals just because there's uncertainty in the short term. But if you're investing for 15 years, the short term actually doesn't matter that much. And it's that term dimension, that investment term, that makes all the difference. And so keeping your eyes on the prize, so to speak, is such an important investment principle and I can't stress it enough that even though the world is uncertain, there's a lot happening. If you do the right thing consistently, I believe you're creating wealth long term.
• 29:33
  Speaker A: Absolutely. Nico, thank you so much for your time as always. Really appreciate it. Always great to get your insights here and all the best for the end of the year and I look forward to hopefully doing another one of these with you early next year and maybe we can reflect on how things went in the end and maybe on what's going on in the balanced fund at that stage as well. So I'll make sure that the link is there so that people can go and read about these different funds and go and access the this document. And yeah, thank you for your time. It's been really great.
• 30:00
  Speaker B: Thank you for the opportunity. Ghost as always, great pleasure to speak to you.
• 30:06
  Speaker A: This episode of Ghost Stories is brought to you by Satrix, the leading provider of index tracking solutions in South Africa and a proud partner of ghostmail. With no minimums and easy low cost access to local and global products via the Satrix now online investment platform, everyone can own the market. Visit Satrix Co Za for more information. Satrix Investments Pty Ltd and Satrix Managers RF Pty Ltd. Are authorized financial services providers. Nothing you have heard in this podcast should be construed as advice. Please do your own research and visit the Satrix website for more information on all their ETF products.