20 Mar Will Rising Rates Cause Stocks to Fall? – Podcast
In today’s episode Nicholas Olesen, CFP®, CPWA® and Nicholas Ryder, CFA® talk about the latest topic to take over financial media and investors mind, rising interest rates. We have received many questions from both clients and listeners on what the “drastic” rise in interest rates could mean for stocks, so we cover it here.
- Where are interest rates today vs 3 months and 1 year ago
- The three main arguments to why stocks will fall if interest rates rise
- Why each argument could be wrong
- Which argument has validity to us
- What should investors do
Nicholas Ryder wrote a commentary on this, which can be read here and includes the chart and quote we discuss: Rising Rates and the Stock Market
Please send us feedback and any topic or questions you would like us to cover. Email us at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Nicholas Olesen: [00:00:20] Hi, Welcome to A Wealth of Advice. My name is Nicholas Olesen, Director of Private Wealth at Kathmere Capital
Nicholas Ryder: [00:00:25] And I’m Nick Ryder, the Chief Investment Officer at Kathmere Capital.
Nicholas Olesen: [00:00:28] Today we’re going to touch on a topic that we’ve been asked a ton about from clients. We’ve gotten emails about it coming into to talk about it on the podcasts and it’s something, frankly, that has been in the news a ton. Which is, this raising interest rate environment that we have seen the last few months here and what does that do to the stock market? And there’s a lot of different ways you can take the question and talk about it. But what I want to do is run through a paper or a blog post that you wrote Nick, about this exact topic and kind of digest it and re talk about it and then play devil’s advocate a little bit here.
So to set the stage, as anyone who’s listening to this, it’s March 19th, 2021, the 10 year treasury, which is probably the best gauge or the most common gauge that people follow for interest rates around the world, has gone from a year ago, call it under 1% to now 1 and 3/4 of percent, I think that’s fair to say. And so that, you know, huge quote unquote huge rise, a doubling in interest rates almost has had many people question, “Hey, is this going to bring the stock market down?” “What’s the, you know, what’s the concern if it continues rising”.
So, can you walk me through kind of the argument side of it? Like, what are the three main arguments that you hear about why this can be doom and gloomy for the stock market and then also kind of the counter points of why they don’t concern us.
Nicholas Ryder: [00:01:43] Yeah. So right. We we’ve seen, as you alluded to rates, the 10 years gone from just under one, actually even less than over the last year, go back to January 1, I think we’re at 90 basis points, in today’s you mentioned one, one and three quarters. So pretty significant rise, you know, in, in the grand scheme of things of 80 basis points or so in, in the span of two and a half months. And as you mentioned, kind of alarm bells are going off with segment of the financial media and some investors out there of, you know, big red warning sign of rising rates equals bad for stock market.
And so what I kind of did is as you mentioned, it was. Look through trying to synthesize, what are the three kind of main arguments you hear? And I think if I had to kind of broad strokes, I think one of them is just. Way too simplistic and probably flat out wrong. I think one of them hits to a grain of truth, but it’s, you know, the way it’s phrased probably isn’t right.
And then there’s a third one that I think does resonate. And I think there are some legitimate concerns that need to be contended with. And, and we can talk about each of the specifics of both of those and how I kind of think it ultimately should influence investor portfolio positioning, let’s say .
So the first argument is one that apply that really try to make an appeal to quantitative valuation theory or specifically for, for those kind of, with some experience and investments that the discounted cashflow model. So just just kind of casual models, a very standard way at which you know, investors of really any asset that produces cashflow is seek to value an asset. And so you can apply this to the stock market. You can apply it to real estate. You can apply it to really any types of investments. But when we think about The stock market, really two variables that go into to a DCF model as it’s called one, you need to estimate what are the estimated stream of cash flows to come in the future from that, into this could apply to an individual stock or could apply to the market as a whole.
So when you think about the market as a whole, that it’s kind of estimated cash flows would be what are the dividends is going to be paid out by the companies in the market. And we know that that’s going to be influenced by for future earnings and then the company payout policy. So how much on an annual basis do they elect to return to shareholders via dividends and share buy backs, as well, or retain in the business to invest for future growth?
So you kind of have to make an estimate on what, what I’ll call the numerator here, which is a future stream of cash flows. And then we know the other part of it is that. If I offered you a hundred dollars today, you’re going to value that more highly than if I offered you a hundred dollars a year from now and a hundred dollars a year from now, you’d value more highly than a hundred dollars, 10 years from now.
So we have to do this then discount, as it’s called, cash flows to be received in the future. And so in order to do that, you, you apply a discount rate, as it’s called, to bring, you know, the value of cash flows to be received into the future to about what’s called a present value today. And so, right, that discount rate is going to be driven by and large by the interest rate environment that you’re in as given that you have competing investment opportunities, as well as on a risk premium component. Right? If Nick, you told me you’re going to give me $10. Or a hundred dollars, 10 years from now, I don’t know how good you’re going to necessarily be for it. And so I may want a risk premium rather than the us government saying, they’ll give me $10 or a hundred dollars, 10 years from now. And so there’s a risk premium component that happens. And you think about the stock market that future earnings and dividends are uncertain given you know, of a variety of things that could occur in interceding 10 years.
And so, you know, basically kind of walking through that intro to the DCF model, you can see you’ve got cashflow is on the numerator, a discount rate on the denominator, and those that say that interest rates are a bad thing for the stock market, point in the denominator and say, look, rising interest rates, that’s going to push the discount rate, higher air go stock valuations should come down. Or the other side they say when interest rates go down that lowers the discount rate makes future cash flows more valuable, stock market goes up. Fine. That’s all well and good as, as far as it goes, however, what I, I point out in the commentary is you’re missing a lot of nuance when you try to do that. And you’re really probably oversimplifying the matter by just saying all things equal. Because think about it, if, if you’re in an expansion environment, let’s say, you know, why are interest rates going up? Well, right now we know that economic growth stands to be very strong this year, inflation may be picking up given you know, significant fiscal stimulus and monetary stimulus. So right to the extent the economy grows this year, well, we know that, future earnings could also be higher both in a nominal as well as in a real inflation adjusted matter. So we think about that component, which is the, not the, the numerator in this equation could change as interest rates are going up, given that they’d both be driven by the same factor, which is, hey, it’s stronger economic growth. So then you have an unclear effect on right rising interest rates in the one component would push the discount rate up, but the numerator of future cash flows are also higher.
The other component of that discount rate, as we talked about, there’s the risk-free treasury component. But then there’s also the risk premium component, which is, you know, how uncertain are these cash flows? Again, to the extent economic growth is expected to be higher or better, you know, maybe I’m less worried about Nick, your, your credit worthiness to actually pay me a hundred dollars, 10 years from now.
And so that’s the other component, which, you know, depending on how significant bad change in the risk premium component could either completely offset or in part offset any rise in the risk free component. So, you know, by and large, I look at that first argument is just say, there’s a lot of moving pieces that basically when somebody says higher rates equal lower equity market is just whitewashing any analysis looking at that.
Nicholas Olesen: [00:07:13] One thing, when I hear all that and kind of going through, “what does that look like?” It is easy quote, unquote, easy to say. Okay. There’s this bottom left number in the denominator that says this risk-free rate. So you’re just going to take one of the four ways of kind of looking at say, I’m just going to change this one variable to it. But I think as we all know, you can’t just change one variable and not have it change other things. Like you can in simple kind of theoretical math, but in the real world, if you’re changing the risk-free rate, that probably is going to change other things. You might say, Hey, the, if the risk-free rate went up, well, then your risk premium came down or vice versa, you know, just depending on how you want to think about it.
And if your risk-free rate went up, then maybe your earnings are growing faster. So then that’s what you’re saying is that, that look, the DCF model, the way people think of it. Yes. You can change one variable, but you can also change future earnings to offset that variable and it will kind of offset. So like you’re really just taking a stab at all this.
Nicholas Ryder: [00:08:07] Yeah. And right. And it could be it’s, it’s less of right. It’s it’s, it’s probably less than just the risk-free rate is changing. It’s the fact that there’s some exogenous variable changing all of these at the same time, which is higher expected growth in the economy or higher expected inflation. Which is going to impact every one of those variables and to just isolate on one and assume everything else stays the same, it’s just probably oversimplifying it. Which, you know, it’s actually, it’s an interesting, broader concept when you think about investments or trying to analyze the economy. Which is all else equal, never is the case. Right? And that, you know, thinking through not only the immediate effects on one isolated variable, but also thinking through the immediate effects on the broader ecosystem, as well as the longer-term effects of any types of changes. And you see that answers that seem like it’s A leads to B leads to C probably aren’t quite as simplistic in reality.
Nicholas Olesen: [00:09:01] And I think that’s also the big thing that I, I always joke around about with clients when we’re doing financial planning analysis for them. And I say, Hey, we’re going to, we’re going to show you all the numbers, we’re going to go through this, we’re gonna run it through a Monte Carlo simulation. We’re going to do all this work for you to try and say, here’s what our best guess is. But the one guarantee I can tell you is the number it says in 2042 of your net worth is not going to be accurate. And so I think that’s the same thing with discounted cashflow.
It’s like, we’re all taking a stab at it. Every investor who’s looking out there and saying, what does it look like? They’re purely taking a stab at what their expectations are for it. But in reality, probably not going to get each one of these variables perfectly correct. Yep. And so that’s, that’s the one side on the argument that I think I liked just, Hey, it’s too simplified to just say, yup. That’s right. If interest rates go up this, all that and fails and discounted cash flows, they’re not going to be as good. I think that’s wrong. yeah. So let’s, let’s then move on to the…
Nicholas Ryder: [00:09:56] It’s funny. It’s funny though, like that you see very smart, articulate, thoughtful, you know, commentators, other investors talk about this and it’s just like, every time I hear it, I scratch my head. I’m just like, come on, you’re, you’re better than that. Like you, you know, there’s more going on than just this simplistic story, but I don’t know if it just helps for people to push their preferred narrative, but I don’t know, just an aside there.
Nicholas Olesen: [00:10:20] Yeah. That’s one we could spend a long time talking about the, why, the, why part of that, but yeah. Let’s move on to the second argument, cause look, I do think this is one that has been talked about for a long time. I mean, you and I have talked about this, you know, obviously off the podcast, just in conversations over lunch pre COVID times.
When you look at it and look at this, there is no alternative, you know, if you think of it, Hey, here’s your deal. I’m going to give you a stock that could potentially do something. Or I’m going to give you a bond, that’s going to basically pay you nothing over the next 10 years. Which one are you going to choose?
And I, you know, most people have chosen, Hey, then that means I probably need to own a little bit more stocks I need to take on a little more, more risk. But as interest rates rise, then you can start questioning that a little bit more. You can say, okay, now I’m getting paid, let’s go up from where it is right now, say it goes to 2.5% on the 10 year. Well, now I’m getting 2.5% versus, you know, less than 1%. Am I as willing and able and wanting to go buy stocks when I get that type of alternative?
Nicholas Ryder: [00:11:20] Yeah. And I think, and so you’re, you’re summarizing what I call kind of the Tina argument, which is Tina being short for.
There is no alternative to stocks as the parents’ medical there. And it’s a concept that emerged in the 2009, 10 timeframe. When, when interest rates at first kind of being pushed down to the zero bound, which said, Hey fed policy has driven rates at the very shortest end of the yield curve on cash, money, market, CDs, things like that down to essentially zero, as a result, that’s pushed savers, you know, out from cash into short term bonds or into investment grade bonds.
And, you know, it pushes those yields down so that other, you know, investors might move out of investment grade bonds to high yield bonds. And so those rates then get pushed further down and then high yield bonds down to equity. Right. And so this whole concept of. You know, if I’m offered 4% to leave my money in the bank account I’m going to probably want to demand something higher than 4% if I’m going to take risk in the equity market.
And so look, I, I think there’s certainly again with all of these, there’s a greater truth to, and I think that makes intuitive sense. I think one, one concept we’re probably forgetting when we think about, you know, that Hey, 4% used to be In a savings account or an investment grade bond that inflation may have been different at different times.
So there’s a real component that, that probably a monetary illusion that’s being, being missed. But again, so I think that the theory on this and the intuitive appeal makes sense. And we think about the Teena argument. However, when you really step back and think about it in, in its basis form essentially.
This, this concept is really just focusing on the risk premium argument in the data, this kind of cashflow model, where you’re saying low interest rates drive essentially lower risk aversion because it’s, it’s, I’ll call it lower risk aversion because you’re driving people or, you know, more risk seeking behavior, I guess is probably the better way, which the flip side is a little risk aversion.
So, Hey, you can’t earn anything on cash or investment grade bonds. So. If you want returns, you’re just going to have to take more risks because essentially the Fed’s calculation there, right? And so, you know, more risk seeking behavior, lower risk aversion, whatever you want to call it, that gives you a lower discount rate and the discount cash flow model.
And that’s going to be a higher stock price. And then the other side is interest rates move higher. You’ve got higher risk aversion, higher discount rates, lower stock prices. And I, and I think that kind of makes sense, but it’s probably flawed in a few reasons, right? One, you’re just saying there’s a singular driver of aggregate investor risk aversion, and that’s interest rates.
I think if you think about that more broadly, it probably doesn’t quite resonate as true as it might seem on first blush. There’s probably a lot of other factors that are gonna influence aggregate investor risk, risk aversion, other than the level of risk free rates. The other side of it, which then again, is interesting to think about it as it’s assuming that risk aversion, treasury rates move in the same direction.
Right. And so you’re saying that, Hey, interest rates down, risk aversion down. Or conversely re interest rates up, risk aversion up. But when you think about let’s just think about a traditional experience in a recession, right? What happens in a recession? Well, risk aversion is spiked. That’s causing, you know, people are afraid to own stocks because of all the economic uncertainty job loss is profits, losses, et cetera.
Right? Risk aversion is the highest what’s happening during recessions typically, right? The feds cutting interest rates. There’s a flight to safety in the treasury market. Interest rates are broadly going down. So it’s interesting that the, the lived experience of this is actually quite the opposite, which is.
Interest rates and risk aversion probably move in opposite directions if this models kind of assuming they move jointly. And it also just, again, like, as we talked about with these kinds of cashflow modeling, it’s, naively kind of assuming that nothing else in the model is changing alongside of interest rates and risk aversion, right?
The, the possibility that again, why are interest rates rising? Well, it could because of more benign or stronger economic growth environment or the opposite could be true when they’re falling.
Nicholas Olesen: [00:15:18] The part where I get hung up, to play a little devil’s advocate here, is if you think of it just from, from, you know, taking out the discounted cashflow, taking out that side, but purely just the way it quote unquote feels to investors, you know, being that we help so many individual families, we’ve had these conversations over decades of of risk and what they’re willing to do. And I go back and, this dates me a little bit to when I was, you know, how long I’ve been working with clients, but go back to 2006, 2007, you know, we were able to get, I remember the ING direct and all these places. At that point, I think it was ING Orange was a 6% money market account. Like to me, I think that’s where a lot of this comes from investors, which is remembering for those, you know, for those of us that have, have lived at remembering, Hey, I got 6% to hold cash.
And then in a few years, you know, you go from 2006, 2007 to then it drops down and you’re good. You’re complaining about 2% in cash, you know, to earn cash. And so now come 10 years later, or 15 years later and look and say, wait, you’re telling me that, that the only way for me to earn that, what I remember of my 6% free money, quote, unquote is I have to go buy stock, so I’m going to do that. And I think that’s part of where this, not that there is no alternative, that’s part of the psychological and, and just the, the simplistic math side of it saying, which one am I going to do?
Nicholas Ryder: [00:16:44] Yeah. And I, I agree with, I think, and I, and we’ll get to kind of the reason number three, which I think this influences a lot, and this is why I think like the TINA has got a lot of truth to it.
You know, one thing I’d add to this conversation about interest rates? You know, I used to be able to get six on a money market funder and you know, a high yield checking savings account. Right, right. When we think about all investment returns, there’s kind of two components. There’s going to be the risk free return, and there’s going to be an excess return component when I take risk.
And so you think about risk-free return is what you get just for having that’s going to be by and large determined by fed monetary policy. Right. You know, when fed monetary policy is short term rates up in the mid single digits, you’re going to get that just for keeping money in the bank account. When it’s at zero, you’re going to get zero. That other component, then the excess return is what you get for bearing risk, right. Instead of keeping it in a money market account, I can lend it to the federal government, I can lend it to corporates for 10 years. Right. And I’m going to get a little bit of additional return because things can go wrong.
Or I could buy stocks and there’s an excess return there. And so we need to think about these two variables happening and empirically we can test and look at the fact that the two are entirely unrelated, the level of the risk-free rates and what Fed’s offering on monetary policy has no bearing on excess returns in the future.
Nevertheless, it’s painful and annoying that, Hey, before you used to be able to get five for doing nothing. And now it’s zero, right? What that just says is that expected returns on everything are lower, right? I’m still might only get a 5% premium for investing in stocks versus cash or bonds. However, you know, instead of that being 10, maybe it’s five or six.
Now, that’s just the fact that monetary policy has held risk-free rates as low as they have. And so that does have other significant long-term implications to, to it.
Nicholas Olesen: [00:18:27] Yeah, no, that’s a good point. I think that that then also drives into the third argument, what is the third argument? And, and why do we think there’s a little more validity or maybe not to that?
Nicholas Ryder: [00:18:37] Yeah. And so I think this one is you kind of take an extension of, of the TINA argument, which is, Hey, people have been right in that argument of risk-free rates are down zero and it has driven risk seeking behavior up, which is that, Hey, the highly expansionary monetary policy that’s been in place now since the global financial crisis by and large, right. We never saw short term rates really moved when we moved north of three during the last hiking cycle, you’ve had this very accommodative, monetary policy environment, which has distorted things in the market, right? The interest rates are very valuable price signal in the market that leads investing decisions, you know, by, by real businesses, by real consumers, and you can set that if that rate is held artificially low, it, it distorts things and leads to, yep, you know, unsustainability or distortions in the allocation of capital around the economy. And it could be, right, it took investors that otherwise just aren’t that risk bearing out of cash and, and into investment grade bonds, or out of investment grade bonds and into high yield bonds, or out of high yield bonds and into stocks, like, yeah, that, that is.
Yeah, by changing required rates of return on capital that actually has significant lasting economic effects, which probably leads to mal investment into the economy. And so otherwise unsustainable investments are being made on the basis of they’re being funded and artificially low interest rates.
And so you know, I have a long quote in the article, which I think summarize it. In the argument and it makes me makes the akin to a likely into a comparison to, you know, helicopter parents who kind of rush in and scoop up their children at the sign of any trouble, rather than letting them get skinned knees for instance.
And so they kind of makes an analogy that there’s long-term lasting implications of it, namely 20 five-year-olds. So you can picture living in a basement having no real world experience. But they talk about kind of over money zombie firms. So these firms that. Have unsustainable business models that really have only been funded by the fact that Mo money lending credit has been artificially cheap, given monetary policy and the, the extended implications of that.
Right? If you think about the Tina argument and so right, there’s a lot of business models out there that just can’t survive in a normal interest rate environment, or even a higher, a higher rate environment than the one that’s persistent. And you know, there’s. There’s going to be a reckoning, basically.
It’s kind of the argument, which is fine. These companies have been just fine when they’re able to constantly roll over debt. That’s at three, four, 5%, but they ratchet that up to seven, eight, nine, 10%. All of a sudden these business models start crumbling and there could be a lot of them. And, and I think this one is, there’s a grain of truth to this one and probably the most true of them, all which is, you know, we’ve talked, we talked about it at length in other episodes and in other commentaries, There’s clear telltale signs of excess in the markets these days, right?
Whether it’s the speculative, IPO’s, you know, part of what’s going on in the SPAC market, retail day trading, right? All these things are just driving prices up and pushing the cost of capital down for some businesses that probably shouldn’t have such a low rate of capital, our cost of capital. And so I think this one you know, it’s compelling and it, and it is ultimately one that is influencing how we think about portfolio positioning now.
Nicholas Olesen: [00:21:45] I’m going to pull on that thread a little bit more because I think one of the discussion points or things that we’ve talked about, which is, with the Fed, giving this very clear guidance of, really the next couple of years here, keeping such low interest rates. And you then have had any debt that has been able to, you know, think of the investor or, you know, I’ll take myself as an example.
We bought a house only a few years ago, had a fairly great interest rate at the time that I thought was fantastic, we have refinanced it twice since then. It’s just crazy to me that you then think about these companies, who’ve also been able to do the same. And I’ll take a broader stroke of, you know, the US government, and this is a whole other, separate conversation about this on another episode, but you think that we have more debt, but less, less costs of servicing our debt right now than what we had. And so I look at it that as those companies of saying, Hey, there’s these companies that if interest rates hadn’t stayed this low, maybe they’d be running into problems or they wouldn’t be able to grow as fast, but instead we’re giving them, because of interest rates being so low, we are giving them the opportunity to grow out, you know, kind of grow into their valuation in a way, or take on debt to then grow in the future because interest rates are so low.
And I think that’s part of where this line of thinking in this line of well, okay, well then we have to. You know, again, it kind of pulls all these things together. Like then we have to go buy those companies because they possibly, can, should, whatever, grow into that number.
Nicholas Ryder: [00:23:10] It’s just FOMO too. It’s momentum trades happening, which is these things keep pushing higher and higher because they’re fueled by cheap money. And you know, Hey, why bother with financial? This one on money is essentially free or right. Like. I mean, there’s, there’s a legitimate story to that. And people are then chasing these returns ever higher. And what’s happening is now these companies that may or may not actually have sustainable lasting business models are draining resources or otherwise productive resources from other sectors of the economy, which Hey, to the extent then if there’s a repricing higher of interest rates, that could cause a cascading effect the other way where some of these things start on whining and there’s just a painful adjustment back to reality.
And I think there’s there’s truth to that. I think you know, that it’s something that we need to contend with as a, as a realistic possibility. And you, you talked about leveraging the economy, right? Yeah, corporate. We know that that the, the federal governor I’m in debt situation, right. That’s just skyrocketed over the last 12, 12 years at this juncture households have actually delivered a bit coming out of the global financial crisis and that’s kind of trended down right word and combine that with lower interest rates like debt servicing costs for households are extremely low.
But corporate debt then is really just also continued to rise ever higher over the last 12 years. And again, debt financing cost as you alluded to very low. But what happens if all of a sudden, instead of, you know, the investment grade bond market is currently yielding in the twos, what happens to that’s five, right? That’s significant in the high yield bond markets yielding four. What if that seven again, like what does that mean? Those are real life implications for some of these companies.
Nicholas Olesen: [00:24:41] Well, and I think, I think it’s real life implications. I also think as investors, as we talk about it, there’s, there’s multiple ways to pull on that, which is, if I told you in a few years from now, you’re going to be getting 4% for investment grade bonds or 5% for investment grade bonds, you might say, that’s great. Like now I’m getting that percent. Like that goes back to this conversation about, Hey, I remember when I earned 6% in cash, you know what, if you’re back to earning 6% in cash, are you, are you happy?
I think that’s the only way you’re happy is if you’ve done something to get yourself in a position that you have not lost so much along the way to then earn that 6%. Yeah. And so let’s take them the, you know, we don’t have a crystal ball. And so every time we talk about these, what can you do? What options are there? These are just, Hey, there’s options for you. You, as an investor, don’t have to sit in your exact portfolio as an investor, don’t have to do, you know, chase after the returns. So give me the, you know, a couple, two or three, you know, however many kind of ideas here. About what are investors to do today, thinking about what we just talked about?
Nicholas Ryder: [00:25:42] Yeah. I think it’s continuing the mantra we’ve talked about, which is kind of continuing to move forward, but with caution, right. It’s, you know, seek to continue for, I’ll really just focus on the equity side of the world right now. So to the extent you’re investing in equities, it’s make sure you’re participating in the greatest extent possible while kind of limiting your exposure to those areas that are probably, most, you know, distorted or most right for, you know, Potential damage in a, in a, you know, a reversal of this.
And so for us, you know, when we think about equity portfolios right now, by and large, we’ve kind of got a core allocation to long exposure to stock, plus some strategies in there that have explicit focus on providing some downside protection in the event, things go the opposite direction. And we’ll, we’ll, you know, that those portions will trail a little bit if the rally continues very strong, but right. You’re still participating, but the emphasis on protection The other side of it is, you know, right. As we talked about kind of this momentum trade it’s been all, you know, a large slash mega cap tech slash consumer, right. Everybody calls them all tech, but it’s, it’s probably, it’s a mix of things. It’s tech and consumer stocks that are in there. But you know, tilt away from those and into some of the sectors that have been out of favor for the last decade. Let’s think about more, the value oriented sectors or small cap stocks, which had lagged. You know, of course, some of these trends have started to reverse significantly in the last now five months as some of this rising rate theme has come about.
So you may be starting to see a turn here, but again, we’re going to continue to emphasize those areas that, more attractive valuations, where we think that had actually been harmed more so in some of these distortions and it would stand to benefit from kind of a reversal of this on a relative sense.
Nicholas Olesen: [00:27:23] That’s good. I think that’s useful because I think one of the things that is hardest as investors is, I always say watching your neighbor get rich. Or hearing about the, I bought this stock and it has tripled in value and you’re sitting there and, you know, quote unquote normal investments, not taking these high flyers on it, but I think anyone who’s been an investor long enough has watched these cycles, where you get these ones that rally up and whether they pull back and come, quote unquote back down to earth is to be determined in the future. But knowing your plan and knowing kind of the small steps you can do to keep yourself out of that. Fear of missing out or, or kind of the psychological frustration in these mania type of times makes sense.
Nicholas Ryder: [00:28:00] Yeah, absolutely.
Nicholas Olesen: [00:28:02] All right, well, I appreciate it. We’re want to wrap this up to keep it nice and short. We will do another one on all the fun stuff, the threads that we didn’t get to pull today. But thanks for your time. And if anyone did not get to read it, I will put a link to the post in the show notes, so you guys can see the quote that we did not touch on, and also that graph. Or kind of picture that explains the discounted cashflow. So Nick, thanks so much for your time.
Nicholas Ryder: [00:28:22] Awesome. Thank you.
Nicholas Olesen: [00:28:24] All right. Take care.
Disclosure: [00:28:25] The views expressed on this podcast are the personal views of the participants. As of the date indicated and do not necessarily reflect the views of Catherine, your capital management itself, nothing contained in this podcast constitutes investment legal tax or other advice.
And it should not be viewed as a current or past recommendation to buy or sell any securities or to adopt any investment strategy. The information discussed on this podcast is general in nature and is not designed to address your individual investment objectives, financial situation, or particular needs prior to making any investment decision you should assess or seek advice from a professional.
Regarding whether any particular transaction is relevant or appropriate to your individual circumstances. Although taken from reliable sources, neither cath mere capital management, nor the participants on this podcast can guarantee the accuracy of the information received and discussed from third parties.
The information discussed is current as of the date of this podcast and is subject to change at any time based on market and other conditions. As a reminder, past performance is no guarantee of future results.