Episode 35: Eric Crittenden [Standpoint Funds]

Eric Crittenden

In this episode, I talk with Eric Crittenden, Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Standpoint, an investment firm focused on bringing all-weather portfolio solutions to US investors. 

Eric plays an active role in the firms’ research, portfolio management, product innovation, business strategy, environments and client facing activities.

He believes using an all-wealth approach is the most effective way to prepare for a wide rage of market environments, while producing meaningful investment returns with limited downside risk.

Eric has over 20 years experience researching, designing, and managing alternative asset portfolios on behalf of families, individuals, financial advisors, and other institution investors. 

Eric and I talk about circuitous paths with multi-year dead end rabbit holes, simplicity can be the ultimate sophistication, what do clients want? What’s wrong with investing industry, strategy scaling?

For people who want to understand the capital efficiency argument, this is helpful: Backtest Portfolio Asset Allocation (portfoliovisualizer.com)

• Portfolio 1 = a blend of the more popular managed futures strategies
• Portfolio 2 =  100% Portfolio 1 + 50% global equities. Equities come at the expense of T-bills
• Portfolio 3 = standpoint 

 Towards the end, Eric was referencing a bond video. Here’s the link: https://www.standpointfunds.com/content/bond-return-simulator

I hope you enjoy this conversation with Eric as much as I did…

 

 

Listening options:

• Listen on Stitcher
• Listen on iTunes
• Listen on Spotify
• Listen on TuneIn
• Android users can grab our RSS feed here.

 

 

Have comments about the show, or ideas for things you’d like Taylor and Jason to discuss in future episodes? We’d love to hear from you at info@mutinyfund.com.

 

Transcript for Episode 35:

Taylor Pearson:

Hello and welcome. This is the Mutiny Investing Podcast. This podcast features long-form conversations on topics relating to investing, markets, risk, volatility, and complex systems.

Disclaimer:

This podcast is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, or tax advice. All opinions expressed by podcast participants are solely their own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Mutiny Fund, their affiliates, or companies featured. Due to industry regulations, participants on this podcast are instructed to not make specific trade recommendations, nor reference best or potential profits. Listeners are reminded that managed futures, commodity trading, forex trading, and other alternative investments are complex and carry a risk of substantial losses. As such, they’re not suitable for all investors, and you should not rely on any of the information as a substitute for the exercise of your own skill and judgment in making a decision on the appropriateness of such investments. Visit mutinyfund.com/disclaimer for more information.

Jason Buck:

So just two seconds ago, before we came on, I was confused because your partner Matt had told me you guys were on West Coast time like me, and I thought maybe you were taking a sabbatical in Southern California or something, so I asked you where you were, and you said you’re in your living room in Phoenix. And I’m afraid to admit that I didn’t know, apparently Phoenix does not switch with Daylight Savings time.

Eric Crittenden:

Yeah. Well, I didn’t know that when I first moved here. I also didn’t know that you don’t type one before the area code here in Phoenix. So it took me three days of not being able to use a phone when I first got here. Yeah. So we don’t switch on Daylight Savings Time, which means in the winter we’re on Mountain Time and in the summer we’re on California time like you. And as I mentioned earlier, parts of Arizona do switch, the Reservations, the Native American Reservations, they do choose to switch because they like to do the opposite of what the Arizona state government does. So it gets a little confusing where it’s an hour ahead two blocks away from you, so you just … you roll with it.

Jason Buck:

It reminds of that whole Chicago versus … I grew up in Southwest Michigan, and you’re so close to Chicago on Central Time, and then we’re actually on Eastern Time. We’re like the farthest west you can go and still be on Eastern Time. So it’s always confusing. And then I don’t know about you, but when I’m traveling a lot and trying to set these Zoom calendar invites on different time zones, and then you travel to a different time zone, I get so confused. So it must be even almost more confusing for you in Phoenix trying to adjust to everybody else’s time zone and whenever there is Daylight Savings Time.

Eric Crittenden:

So we’ve been doing it for a while now, so we’re super cautious about setting up our calls and meetings and making sure that people know. And also, I set most of my computers to New York Time just to avoid this entire mess, because it does become challenging when you spring forward or fall back.

Jason Buck:

Yeah, I think when I was talking to Matt about making the appointment and everything, we were actually recording this on Memorial Day, and he said what I love best. He’s like, “I’m not even sure Eric knows what month it is.” And I’m like, “I’m the same way, especially when I’m traveling a lot.” And so I would miss Daylight Savings Time. So yeah, I would have days to adjust. I’d be all discombobulated for days because I’ve missed Daylight Savings Times many times. Thank God for iPhones and computers that just automatically adjust us.

Eric Crittenden:

Yeah. My life changed dramatically when I started using Outlook 15 12 years ago or something. I stopped being late and stopped not showing up for my meetings. And I use it proactively to make sure that I adjust for Daylight Savings Time and all that stuff. But prior to having Outlook, I was a mess.

Eric Crittenden:

Let me get rid of some of this stuff here.

Jason Buck:

I was about to say, speaking of Outlook, you just got a ding from your computer.

Eric Crittenden:

Yeah. We’re going to shut all this stuff down. Should have read the instructions.

Jason Buck:

It’s quite all right. It happens. As you know, it happens every time.

Jason Buck:

I was thinking about all the different things we could talk about, and I was trying to think of where’s my wedge in, but one of the ones I was thinking about, and we’re obviously not going to talk about numbers on this podcast or anything as boring as that, but I was thinking about with trend following, CTA or commodity trend or whatever name people want to call it. I think you call it global macro. Is that right?

Eric Crittenden:

Yeah. I call it, depending upon the audience. Some people hate the phrase trend following. Some people hate managed futures. Some people hate systematic global macro. So I try to use whatever’s the least offensive to whoever I’m talking to.

Jason Buck:

I’m thinking about with, obviously, I don’t think … without talking returns, I think most people know that the second half of last year and then end of this year until probably last month, an amazing return driver has been commodity trend following or systematic global macro. We run one of these funds, but I’m curious, our phone is definitely not ringing off the hook. So I’m just curious what your response has been just from ballasting a portfolio from the trend side. It seems like people are either praying that 60/40 comes back or that inflation goes away. That’s at least my take. I’m wondering what your take is.

Eric Crittenden:

Kind of the same in the sense that we’ve had a lot of interest in what we do, but we don’t hold ourselves out as CTAs or trend followers or any of that stuff, because it’s not what we’re doing. That’s an element of what we’re doing, but there’s a hefty global macro, macro trend. Let’s just stick with macro trend. I’m going to go with macro trend.

Jason Buck:

Okay. Macro trend, got it.

Eric Crittenden:

There’s a healthy macro trend component to what we’re doing, but it looks and feels a lot differently than what people are used to when they would dabble in managed futures, the asset class specifically. So the way we talk to people is about all-weather investing, having true broad global diversification all pulled into one program, and it looks and feels a lot different than pure managed futures. So any tailwind that managed futures is getting right now really isn’t affecting our business model.

Eric Crittenden:

And candidly, I think people gave up on managed futures as an asset class a long time ago. And I don’t think what we’ve seen recently is … I was just looking at the AUM levels of some pure managed futures programs, and they’re so unbelievably low now, 90% declines in AUM from where they were just five or six years ago. I think that tells you what you need to know, that the marketplace simply has voted and it just doesn’t want pure managed futures.

Jason Buck:

Do you think … I think you and I both hate the term they tried coming out of the global financial crisis of calling managed futures crisis alpha, because we know it’s not crisis alpha, right? It’s uncorrelated in a way. But macro trend has ballasted a long S&P 500 only portfolio over the last, let’s say, nine to 12 months. Do you think that’s kind of like almost just luck because it’s been like an organized sell-off and just because we’ve had a boom on the commodity side at the same time, or how do you think about the correlation over a shorter term period like that?

Eric Crittenden:

That’s a tough question to answer, is it luck? There’s a degree of randomness to everything that we’re doing. So some people are going to associate that with luck, but I would say that long vol, long convexity trend-oriented strategies deployed on a global basis, meaning you’re really diversified: grains, energy, currencies, bonds, livestock, stuff like that, has been the best diversifier to an equity portfolio for all the decades that I’ve looked at it. My research typically goes back to 1970, and it’s always been the best balanced. It’s been a better diversifier. By my metrics, it’s been a better diversifier than bonds for 50 years. So I’m not surprised. I don’t know if you were getting at a causal relationship there, meaning the stock market and the bond market are struggling because commodities are going up. That’s kind of a chicken versus the egg. You don’t know what caused what.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. Well, part of that, I wasn’t even necessarily hinting at that, because I’m probably on the same page with you, but part of it though is, historically, pundits have talked about the price of oil and how that affects the stock market. I’m more curious how you think about that causality. We need an oil sell-off for S&P 500 to have a rip higher, although, I guess, it’s been going higher the last week or so, but I’m wondering if you think about any of those causal relationships of the price of commodities versus 60/40 portfolios.

Eric Crittenden:

I used to. I used to think about that a lot, but what I’ve observed over the years is that it’s a problem that doesn’t have a solution. You can never really figure it out, and you end up spending so much time trying to chase that ghost that you lose sight of running your business and just putting one foot in front of the other and doing the right thing, because it’s always different each time. I’ll give you a couple of examples. I had clients back in 2016, I think, maybe 2015, ask me about interest rates. And during the conversation, it came up that I felt interest rates could one day go negative. And I lost business because of that. I had people tell me, “Well, that’s completely insane. That can’t happen. That’s ridiculous.” And then a few years later, it happened.

Eric Crittenden:

Also, on a couple podcasts in 2019, the price of oil came up, and somebody asked me, “Could the price of oil technically go negative?” And I said, “Yeah, if the cost of storage exceeds the salvage value.” And I got a bunch of hate mail from that too. And it cost me business. So it’s one of those things where you overthink this stuff until it happens. You can’t afford to be on the wrong side of the narrative with people. You lose credibility, and it doesn’t come back after. They don’t call you up a year later and say, “Yeah, interest rates went negative and crude oil went negative. I didn’t realize that could happen.” They moved on to the next thing. So my philosophy is stay disciplined, stick to what you’re doing, rely on your research, and don’t overthink things, and don’t try to out-guess the market. The market’s a discounting mechanism, and I’m not going to do a better job than the market.

Jason Buck:

Well, like you said, you don’t have to be overly prescient to talk about negative oil or negative interest rates. What I’ve always loved about macro trend is that you just follow price, right? And so if price goes negative, you just keep following it negative if that’s the direction of the trend. You don’t have to have any global macro narrative. And that’s the point, is you’re just offsetting narratives and people love narratives, so they didn’t like the idea that you said it could potentially go negative. You weren’t calling for it. You’re like it’s just within the realm of possibility. And I wonder, do you think that following trends for so long just opens up your mind that anything’s possible?

Eric Crittenden:

I think doing the research around it and seeing what actually happened. I mean, you can see with your own eyes what happened historically, like the sugar trade in the 1980s, where the price was below the cost of production. And the price didn’t actually go any lower, but you made a boatload of money being short because of the Contango and the futures curve. Right? So today, you fast forward to today, and I talk to emerging CTAs or people that want to start trading their own account, they’ll do the same thing over and over. It’s always the same thing. They come up with all these filters to filter out trades and they say, “Well, if the price is too low, it won’t go short. If the price is too high, it won’t go long.” Well, okay, so one of these days you’re going to experience this phenomenon, and the greatest trade of the decade will be the one that your filter filters out.

Eric Crittenden:

So you try to share with people these observations. I try to learn just vicariously through the experiences of others rather than do it with my current client’s money. So that, I would say, from the research, you can learn a lot if you’re open-minded and you just relentlessly ask questions and look at things from many different perspectives.

Jason Buck:

One of the things you brought up about right now what’s going on, and you said long volatility positioning or whatever, which a lot of people would say a macro trend is a long vol position. And I just bring it up, talking in my own book, is that, in this, we’ve had an orderly sell-off in the stock market or 60/40 portfolios. So we haven’t seen a pop in pure long volatility and tail risk and option pricing. But do you view then though macro trend as a sort of long vol? I mean, I’ve had this argument many times online with a lot of people that are traditional CTA trend followers about is their positioning long vol or long gamma? They’d have to add to the positions if it was long gamma, and I don’t think anybody’s really added to positions since the ’70s. But I’m just curious your take, because you brought up long vol, and you always have different views. So do you think that macro trend is a long vol strategy, and do you need volatility to actually harvest profits from that kind of strategy?

Eric Crittenden:

We could talk for a couple weeks on that particular topic. I’ll take a step back and say we actually do add to positions in a sense.

Jason Buck:

Okay.

Eric Crittenden:

We’re using three different lookback periods to measure trend. So short-term, medium-term and long-term. And I did that because I don’t want the dispersion risk. Sometimes short-term trend followers knock it out of the park and everyone else sucks. Sometimes long-term trend followers are in first place. I want something that’s more consistent and durable. And this can go on. I mean, short-term trend followers can help outperform dramatically for four or five years in a row. So you want to diversify. So in a sense, we could get a buy signal in something like soybeans on a short-term frequency and then a few weeks later get another buy signal on a medium-term. And then a few weeks later, or months later, whatever, get a buy signal on the long-term. Then you would have approximately triple the position size on.

Eric Crittenden:

And then, if that market becomes more liquid, meaning the open interest is increasing in that market, more hedgers are pouring in, then our position size will increase also because of that, at least relative to the other positions in the portfolio. That’s not exactly what you were saying, no one is … I think you’re talking about pyramiding, like the old turtle style pyramiding from the ’80s.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. I was referencing both. But I think you made an excellent nuanced point, is that’s the whole point to multiple lookback periods. And as you know, I’m a huge fan of that, and I wish, hopefully, you push back on me more than you used to with other people. But the idea is, I always think about, when we have, even in our trend portfolio, we’re tranching lookback periods, short, medium, long-term. Same as you are. But I’m curious your take though, if somebody studied these markets and these trading strategies for as long as you have, obviously you can come up with a panoply of solutions and use all the different ways that people incorporate macro trend in their portfolios. But to me, I always thought I’m taking idiosyncratic risk if I’m just betting on you to come up with that versus using multi managers and multi lookbacks.

Jason Buck:

And I’m curious what your pushback would be on using multiple managers that have different idiosyncratic risk to one manager who could maybe try to incorporate the full umbrella of strategies over multiple time cycles.

Eric Crittenden:

That’s a great topic. I talk with clients about that from time to time, because I feel like when I explain to them the diversification across different trend lengths, they feel like, “Well, that’s great, because now I can just put more money with you. I got rid of the multi … solved the multi-manager issue.” And I said, “Well, maybe it solved 60 or 70% of it statistically, but the other 20, 30, 40% is more about the business risk.” Is the person crazy? Do their systems go down? Are they taking cybersecurity seriously? So there’s more to it than just … I’ve done what I can on my end, but I’m in a capsule. I can’t diversify. I can’t start another company and hire another CIO and have them be independent from me. I guess I could, but I’m not going to. So I’m solving as much as I can, and I feel like that’s 60 or 70% of the risk, but it’s still up to … the client still has to be cognizant of the balance there.

Jason Buck:

I think you are solving most of the risk, even from the separate lookback periods, but I’m also curious, have you thought, and I know you have thought about it, is the different even trading strategies, whether people are using [inaudible 00:16:06] curves, moving averages, breakouts. Do you also try to overlay all the different historic macro trends, strategies along with the time tranching, or how do you think about that?

Eric Crittenden:

I’ve thought about doing that. I looked at many, many different ways to measure and identify a developing trend, and what I found, and you know this, is that they all basically pick up on the same thing. They’re just different ways of measuring the same thing. It’s like if there’s a wave coming in and you’re in Santa Barbara and you’ve got a guy from Hawaii and a guy from Oregon and a guy from California, and one guy says it’s four and a half feet, the other one says it’s five feet, and the other one says it’s four, they’re all measuring the same thing, they’re just doing it the Hawaiian style or the Oregon style or whatever.

Eric Crittenden:

So there’s not a lot of benefit from diversifying your entry/exit style, moving average crossover, breakout. There’s a whole bunch of different styles. That being said, you could develop a strategy that uses a moving average crossover that doesn’t have a lot of … in other words, they’re not all created equal. I like breakouts. So I’m kind of in the minority there. I like breakouts because they’re pure trigonometry. They’re just triangles, essentially. And you know the price that would force you to get in, and then your stop-loss is some other price, and you know what that is. And you know what both of those prices are every single day. And that means you can calibrate your risk. You can lean on that. We call that the risk range. So I know approximately how much risk I’m taking to market because I know what both of those prices are.

Eric Crittenden:

When it comes to a moving average crossover, I don’t know what price is going to force those two moving averages to crossover without doing some really advanced, or not advanced but tedious math to come up with a bunch of different scenarios about how they might crossover in the future. So because they all basically pick up on the same thing, but the breakout approach is very clean from a risk management perspective, I gravitate towards that, and I didn’t see a lot of benefit from diversifying meaningfully beyond what I’m already doing when it comes to entries.

Jason Buck:

Do you think the breakout’s also just cleaner from a discretion? I mean, you would think it’s all model-driven and you have to stick to your systems, but there’s a lot of discretion I feel like with a lot of … especially like moving average, and you’re like it’s getting closer to what lookback period I’m using. There’s a little bit of fudge factor there, I think, that people have a little conundrum on their hands when it’s getting really close to their inflection point, where breakout’s just a clear thing so you can’t really deviate from breakout as much.

Eric Crittenden:

I never really thought about that. I don’t use discretion. The only discretion I’ll use is regulatory, meaning like what happened in the nickel market a couple months ago.

Jason Buck:

Yeah.

Eric Crittenden:

When it comes to taking trades, I’ve never skipped a trade in 24 years, or a stop-loss. So I’m not in there agonizing and saying, “I think we’re going to get long [inaudible 00:18:54], so I’ll just go ahead and get long right now.” So I’ve never really been motivated to probe that particular question.

Jason Buck:

You also opened up the question, and I hope we talked about this when we did a Masterclass on Real Vision, I’m sure we did, but maybe hopefully I can ask it in a different way. It’s always fascinating to me that macro trend or CTAs, they have a lot of study on where they’re going to open a position, but it seems like maybe 1/10th as much as taking profits. And so one of the most controversial things in your world and my world is the idea of vol targeting in open position. And I’m just curious to your take on that.

Eric Crittenden:

Well, you have to control your risk somehow, especially with all the new rules coming from the SEC. They’re going to be applied to anybody that uses derivatives that’s managing a registered investment company. So you have to control your risk somehow. Now, we do it by measuring the distance to the stop-loss for every position in the portfolio at all times and multiplying by the contract multiplier, and then dividing by the FX rate, and you get an aggregate number and you divide that by the total value of the fund. You’re going to get a number. For us, that limit is 10%. So that means if we have a 0% success rate, a 100% failure rate in every position, all 60 positions, go against you by five or six or seven standard deviations, the estimate is that you’re going to lose, right now it’s 9.3%, but the limit is 10.

Eric Crittenden:

So vol targeting, well, so if we’ve got a whole plethora of new trades come into the portfolio, I’m going to take them, but I still have to honor that 10% risk budget limit. So algebraically, the only way to do that would be to scale down existing older trades in order to free up the risk to honor these new trades that are coming into the portfolio. And that’s how most CTAs do it, roughly. So is that vol targeting? For us, it’s kind of risk targeting, but it’s a close cousin, I guess, for vol targeting. But then again, when someone says we’re doing vol targeting, if you get 10 different CTAs to say they’re doing vol targeting, you’ll get 10 potentially very different methodologies.

Jason Buck:

So if you weren’t opening up a new trade, then you wouldn’t be attenuating contract size down on any of those positions if you didn’t have any new trades, or you need to open up space for that aggregate max drawdown?

Eric Crittenden:

Can you say it a different way?

Jason Buck:

Yeah. Like you were just saying, if you have an aggregate max drawdown of 10%, and you have a bunch of positions on, and vol is picking up, volatility across all the assets are picking up but you didn’t have any signals to put on any new trades, would you take down the sizing of those, the current positions?

Eric Crittenden:

Yes.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. Because the max drawdown, right? If you felt the max drawdown was going up from stop distance, that’s what you would attenuate the portfolio with?

Eric Crittenden:

Yes, but we’re pretty flexible and liberal. We’re not in there trading every single day. It has to move. It has to be somewhat meaningful before we’ll bother doing anything about it. Otherwise, you just churn the portfolio and have lots of turnover and transaction costs. But yeah, I mean, it actually happened recently when vol really picked up. One day, I ran the operations, and I’m like, “What are these trades for?” Oh yeah, the risk went up enough, such that it’s telling me to scale down every position in the portfolio, or almost every position by a very small amount.

Jason Buck:

I’m curious then what, because I’m sure you looked into it, with having that max drawdown to 10%, how does vol, the actual volatility of the portfolio change over time? I assume it stays in relatively tight bands. Even though you’re attenuating the portfolio to max drawdown, you’re not necessarily targeting volatility. I would assume volatility stays pretty narrow tight bands on that.

Eric Crittenden:

Yeah, it does have the effect of muting volatility when volatility’s spiking and actually increasing it when volatility is really low. But we’re directly targeting what matters to us. Volatility is not risk. Volatility is a symptom of risk. We’re targeting the risk itself. I’ve never understood this complete obsession with standard deviation and volatility. It’s just one way to estimate risk. And you know the markets are fractal and have fat tails and whatnot, so it’s actually not a great way. It works. But depending upon what you’re doing, how much convexity, whether you’re on the right side or the wrong side of convexity, volatility is potentially a very dangerous way to measure risk.

Eric Crittenden:

We’re targeting risk directly, exactly like a cash accounting, like this is how much I expect to lose if this goes off the rails in this market, and I’m going to be pretty accurate to that number, and we’re going to manage that number.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. We’ve talked many times about the terrible naming conventions that are within our industry, right, if it’s managed future, crisis alpha, CTAs, trend following, et cetera. But one of the ones that has surprised me the most is like you’re saying, this cash accounting of like what can I eat at the end of the day? What are my max loss on a cash-weighted basis? Why do you think that hasn’t picked up across other asset classes and asset managers? That would be the number one thing, is CTAs have always been pointing out, or macro trend special …

Jason Buck:

Is like CTAs have always been pointing out, or macro trends specialists, have always pointed out that this is what actually matters is your aggregate drawdown risk, not your volatility metric. But that just doesn’t seem to translate well to everybody else, and everybody still seems to care most about sharp ratios versus max drawdown.

Eric Crittenden:

I think in the securities world, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, it’s historically been a relative game rather than an absolute game. In a relative game, anytime you sell, you’re putting yourself into a position to get left behind. If you get left behind, it’s game over for you, everyone loses confidence in you. Futures guys, derivatives guys, live in a very different world or grew up in a very different world where it’s all about survival. Some of these guys are using leverage and quite a bit of it, so it really was essential that they control the amount of risk they’re taking. So, and when CTAs is drone on, and on, and on about risk management, it drives advisors crazy, because they don’t even really know what you mean when you say that.

Eric Crittenden:

It’s not that important in their world, because a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds, it’s more important to not manage risk, because you don’t want the taxes, you don’t want the turnover, and you don’t want to get left behind. You can look at these psychological studies, and I’ve had people tell me it’s okay to be down 50% once every 10 years, as long as the market’s down 45, or 50, or 55%, I won’t lose my clients. But if I manage my risk along the way, the way you guys do, and I’m up 20 when the market’s up 25, and then the next year I’m up six when the market’s up 11, it’s game over for me. That’s unfortunate, but that’s how it is in the securities industry. So, but when you’re looking at alternatives, and in particular all-weather investments, frame the right way, that all goes away.

Jason Buck:

It seems like there’s a certain pragmatism to it that, to me as an anathema, how it doesn’t translate across. I mean, I understand what you’re saying with a relative value CYA of financial advisors, but it’s just one of those things that I don’t think I’m ever going to quite understand why that pragmatism doesn’t transfer over. Other than everybody’s incented to just keep up with the Joneses, and their neighbors, and if they have the similar draw downs, then they’re okay with that, but it’s kind of shocking to me. The other thing you said again, that I’m always curious, you said, “All-weather type portfolios,” there’s got to be a part of you that wants to get away from that phrase, all-weather, or do you just go with the pragmatism, but that’s what people call it, so that’s what I’ll call it?

Eric Crittenden:

No, I chose it. I went into that with my eyes wide open and embraced it, and feel like the portfolio mix that we pursue is as all-weather as I can make it, based upon research going back to the seventies, and my obsessive look at every asset class, every SMA, hedge fund, mutual fund, ETF index, it’s as all-weather as I can make it. All-weather, to me, means something specific, it means doing everything we can to be prepared to survive and thrive in all plausible market environments going forward. That doesn’t mean that we will succeed in every market environment going forward, but we’re doing everything we can to not put you in a crappy situation, like a 60, 40 portfolio, or an all stock portfolio, lost decades, a great depression, 1970s style inflation, that kind of stuff, so I feel like it is all-weather.

Jason Buck:

Dalio coined that term or made it popular and he sometimes will say, “You need upwards of 16 uncorrelated return streams,” do you think that’s even possible?

Eric Crittenden:

No, it’s not, and I like Dalio, I like his writings, I modeled a lot of what we do off of what their firm did in the ’80s. So, I have a lot of respect for what he achieved, and how he did it, the how is very important. That being said, anyone with a plain vanilla copy of Excel can use a random number generator and realize that three uncorrelated variables are pretty much all you need to be the best money manager out there. So, I don’t know where the 21’s coming from. I’ll tell you hit on something though that there’s only one thing in this world that actually that I’m jealous of right now. That is there’s one risk premia out there that I can’t source, but it would be so valuable if I could.

Eric Crittenden:

So, I’m really just getting three, and I feel like that’s all we need, it’s the best I can do. I think it solves a lot of problems for people, but there’s one more out there that I think is big and sustainable, but you can’t get it from Phoenix, Arizona, and that is the market making style risk premia. Where you need economies to scale, you need poll position, co-locate your servers, you got to be big, and have a solid network. You got to be basically like Amazon or Costco, where you can just muscle your competitors out of the way. You’re like, “Nope, get out of here, this is my real estate, and I’m doing…” It would be so valuable, but there’s just no way we could pull it off, it’s as the guy said, [inaudible 00:29:10], they’re going to get it.

Jason Buck:

Yeah, you’d probably need a hundred million dollars a year tech budget to keep on top of it, like to keep up the Red Queen principle, and then the firms that do do it, they’re not looking for URI investors, so that’s always the hard part. I always think about though market making has this unbelievably uncorrelated return stream, but my always question is it short ball or long ball? It depends on your capital base, and your access to liquidity, right?

Eric Crittenden:

Yes.

Jason Buck:

As markets blow out, it becomes much more a target rich environment, but you have to survive that blowout, and then you’ll be able to come back in. So, you have to really assess what is their dry powder, and or what’s their access to loans, capital, et cetera, from that bank, and is that bank solvent? Am I looking at that fairly?

Eric Crittenden:

Absolutely. Yeah, that’s the economies that scale I was talking about and the network.

Jason Buck:

Yeah, it’ll be interesting to see which one of those firms will blow up in a dislocated market and which ones will survive, and the ones that do survive are going to have unbelievable returns after that dislocation. You said three return sources, so eliminate the three return sources that you believe you have?

Eric Crittenden:

So, I feel like there’s capital formation markets, like stocks and bonds, which are kind of a one-way street, the risk premia is kind of a one-way street. I mean, the bulk of the risk premia is your long stocks, the futures, whether it’s metals, grains, livestock, energy, these are risk transfer markets and risk transfer markets are different than capital formation markets. I feel like risk transfer markets, you need to be symmetrical, you need to be willing to go long or short, because they’re a zero-sum game. They have term structures, so they’re factoring expectations, storage costs, cost of carry, all that stuff.

Eric Crittenden:

So, and then there’s the risk-free rate of return, which used to be a great way to kind of recapture inflation, it’s not so much anymore. We can get into that later on, it’s a fascinating time to be managing money, because there’s a huge gap between inflation and risk-free. But, historically speaking, those are the three that I think makes sense, especially in the context of an all-weather portfolio that uses futures to get its commodity and derivative exposure, because it leaves a lot of cash lying around. So, to go source that risk-free rate of return costs you nothing, there’s no opportunity cost, because you were going to be sitting on that cash anyways.

Eric Crittenden:

So, when I look at all the different risk premium on this computer or the one behind me, historically, I see those three blending together more beautifully, and there’s other ones out there, they just don’t move the needle for me. Things that are related to real estate, credit, they just all have that same trap door risk that the equity market has when the equity market’s going down. So, and then the rest of the time they’re expensive, they’re tax inefficient, they’re illiquid, and then they disappear on… Sometimes they get crowded, I mean, they just cause more problems than they solve. That’s how I feel about corporate bonds, credit, all that stuff. I mean, I wish there was something there, I know other people strongly feel that there is, but I’ve looked at the data until my eyes are blurry, for decades, and I don’t see it.

Jason Buck:

Yeah the way I always think about it’s like there’s only two ways of making money in the long-term is stocks and bonds are basically credit and debt, and they’re intertwined with each other. So, they’re very intertwined, obviously, on risk on, risk off, and then like you’re saying, all those other forms of sourcing are just leverage versions of credit or debt. So, that’s why we say correlations go to one in a sell-off, because they’re all the same thing. Now, during a risk on cycle, they might be fairly uncorrelated, you just don’t know. It depends on if there’s a mark to market or mark to model, but you threw those in the same bucket too, as stocks and bonds. So, I’m curious, how do you think about that? That’s overall a risk kind of on trade, is stocks and bonds, or why do you think about them in a similar vein?

Eric Crittenden:

Well, I was associating them with capital formation markets, rather than risk transfer markets. So, this is an important concept to me, because it goes to the point of why I do what I do, or why I think that macro trend oriented approaches expect a positive return over time, because the futures markets are a zero-sum game or actually, a negative-sum game after you pay the brokers, and the NFA fees, and all that stuff. So, in a negative-sum game, you better have a reason for participating. For you to expect to make money, you better be adding something to that ecosystem that someone else is willing to pay for, because somebody else has to mathematically lose money in order for you to make money. So, in studying the futures markets, and I’ve been on both sides, I’ve been on the corporate hedging side, I’ve been on the professional futures trader side.

Eric Crittenden:

I believe I understand who that somebody is, that has deep pockets, and they’re both willing and able to lose money on their future’s position. A trend oriented philosophy that’s liquidity weighted is going to be trading opposite those people on a dollar-weighted basis through time. It does make sense that they would lose money on their hedge positions, I mean, in what world would it make sense for people who hedge, which is the same thing as buying insurance, to make money from that? It makes no sense, that would be an inverted, illogical world. So, anyone who’s providing liquidity to them should expect some form of a risk premia to flow to them. It’s just up to you to manage your risk, to survive the path traveled, and that’s what trend following is. I don’t know why that is so controversial, and more people don’t talk about it, because I couldn’t sleep at night if I didn’t truly believe that what we’re doing deserves the returns that we’re getting.

Jason Buck:

No, you’ve stated this many times, and just for those that aren’t maybe deep in the space as we are, is [inaudible 00:34:51] will have CTA trend followers, or whatever, just they don’t really know how they make money. They’re like, “It’s trending, it’s behavioral, it’s clustering, it’s herd mentality, and that’s how we make money.” You’ve accurately portrayed it as these are risk-transfer services, speculators make money off of corporate hedgers. But the only thing I would push back, and I’m curious your take on this, is like you said, zero-sum game or negative-sum at the individual trade level.

Jason Buck:

But when we look more holistically, those corporate hedgers are hedging their position for a reason, and it’s likely lowering their cost of capital for one of the exogenous effects. So, my question always is, is it really zero-sum or negative-sum, or is it positive-sum kind of all the way around? In a sense that the speculator can make money offering these risk transfer services that the hedgers are looking for that liquidity, and then the hedgers are also… If we look at the rest of their business, they’re hedging out a lot of their risks, which can actually improve their business over time, whether that’s cost of capital, structure, or other exogenous effects.

Eric Crittenden:

Absolutely, I wish I had… You did record this, so I’m going to steal everything you just said. In the future’s market, it’s negative-sum.

Jason Buck:

Yeah, right.

Eric Crittenden:

But if you include the 50% of participants that are commercial hedgers, it’s no longer zero-sum. But most CTAs, and futures traders, and futures investors don’t even concern themselves with what’s going on outside the futures market. So, but if you pull that in and look at it, you can see, or at least it’s clear to me, we’re providing liquidity to these hedgers. They’re losing some money to us, and the more money they lose to us, the better off their business is doing, for a variety of reasons. Tighter cash flows, more predictable cash flows results in a higher stock price, typically. But you brought one up that almost no one ever talks about, and that is if they’re hedged, their cost of capital, the interest rate that they have to pay investors on their bonds is considerably lower.

Eric Crittenden:

Oftentimes, they end up saving more money on their financing than they lose on their hedging, and they protect the business, and they make Wall Street happy at the same time, so who’s really the premium payer in that, it’s their lenders? So, by being a macro trend follower in the future space, the actual source of your profits is some bank that’s lending money to corporations that are hedging these futures. So, it’s the third and fourth order of thinking, and you can never prove any of this, which is great, because if you could prove it, then everyone would do it, and then the margins would get squeezed.

Jason Buck:

Exactly, it’s like you said, a lot of people just don’t look outside of their concentric… Their circles just keep going out, and out, and out, and we have to figure out who’s making money here, and follow the money. Like you’re saying, a lot of traders just look at the actual individual trade, they don’t think of how the money’s getting made. Do you also think that… I always think of, and correct me if I’m wrong, options traders a lot of times are just risk transfer services as well. Especially if you’re a long option outlet or long volatility, I’m just building an inventory of risk transfer services when people actually want cash. So, please push back if you think that’s a misnomer, the way I’m looking at it.

Eric Crittenden:

I’d have to think about that a little bit more, but off hand, I would say yeah, I think that’s reasoned. But I haven’t put a lot of thought into that before, so you’re putting me on the spot, but my instinct is yeah, that makes sense to me right now.

Jason Buck:

Well, and I’m obviously being very generous to my own book as well, as far as we inventory liquidity with buying optionality, is the way I look at it. But also, so speaking about liquidity, you touched on something that I think is very unique to the way you look at markets is you talked about liquidity waiting. So, that’s very different, I think, than a lot of people look at their positioning, so tell me a little bit about that? Especially if you’re offering risk transfer services to corporate hedgers, it’s really incumbent on liquidity. Because also, as we went out and looked at their cost of capital, their cost of capital is also dependent on liquidity or people’s perception of liquidity. So, liquidity is the number one factor to the way you position, and I think that’s pretty unique compared to most people, is it not?

Eric Crittenden:

I think it is. Yeah, and it wasn’t my first choice. Let me tell you the story, I’ll try to do the two minute version. So, after I left my previous firm, I had a two year non-compete, so I had to sit on my hands for two years. So, I took that time to basically redo all of the research, and rethink every assumption that I’ve come up with. I’ll tell you a little bit about my biases, and my weaknesses, and how they affected the direction I went. So, I have what I call a very strong small cap bias, which is probably surprising, meaning that the way my brain works is I think if something scarce and hard to do, it must be more valuable than what’s laying around and freely available. That is a primal thing that is generally true in life, if it’s just laying around and available, like rocks or dirt, it’s not going to have a lot of value.

Eric Crittenden:

If it’s a diamond, or it’s platinum, or whatever, it’s going to be valuable. So, but that bias has followed me my whole life in my trading, and so I always have been a small cap guy. You have to get in there and trade small markets, you’ve got to do three-way spreads, you got to do stuff that other people don’t want to do. If it’s harder and more time consuming, the risk premium will be higher, and therefore, it’s worth it to pursue all of these esoteric type trades, and whatnot. That was my bias, so my other bias was strict control over risk, and absolute balance at all times.

Eric Crittenden:

Meaning, you get to look at the covariance, and you have to treat natural gas as if it’s special, because it’s uncorrelated with the other energies. Treat [inaudible 00:40:30] they’re special, because they’re correlated with every market, and then kind of dampen things like 10-year T-notes, because they’re the most redundant with all the other markets. So, because on paper, and in an optimizer, in a spreadsheet, it makes perfect sense, I know the math behind it. So, it turns out though that neither of those things are particularly true, if you’re looking at impact, actual impact to what matters to you. So, you build a utility function, and my utility function is the geometric return divided by the risk taken, not the draw down, but the risk you’re actually taking.

Jason Buck:

Define that? What do you mean by the risk you’re actually taking and not draw down?

Eric Crittenden:

So, it would be how much could you lose? How bad could the draw down get? Which requires some assumptions, but we know it’s at least the total open risk that you’re taking, plus the number of times that you have a draw down before making a new high. So, it’s kind of my own version of risk of ruin, that’s my own personal utility function. So, think of it like this, calculate your max draw down historically, multiply that by 1.5, and that’s your downside risk. Then take your geometric or compounded return and divided by that, and then there’s a little bit of [inaudible 00:41:53], too. It’s like, “Well, how consistent is that?” Is it all from one decade and the rest of the time you sucked, or was it reasonably consistent through decades? Not perfect, I’m not talking about that perfect equity curve, anyways-

Jason Buck:

Then sorry to interrupt, just a very specific issue, because I always think about these [inaudible 00:42:09] a lot of times. I assume that’s on your monthly when you’d multiply by 1.5, and then sometimes on your daily you need to hire multiple, or how do you think about that?

Eric Crittenden:

Everything I do is using daily data.

Jason Buck:

Daily, so you feel 1.5 times your max is good on a daily?

Eric Crittenden:

Yes, but I wouldn’t feel that way if I had a more fragile set of rules. So, that’s only fair if you really believe what you’re doing is durable, it isn’t lying to you, basically. All right, so let me rewind here, what were we talking about? I lost my train of thought.

Jason Buck:

You were talking about the diversification effects on whether that’s true or not on a sector basis, and then-

Eric Crittenden:

So, I took two years off, and I built the most elegant thing that I could possibly build, is this super CTA, at least in my mind. It was doing everything that I wanted, it had the most complex value at risk, it was the different versions of modern portfolio theory. Just essentially, normalizing every position, so I did it many different ways, where it was beta neutral, where everything had the same risk contribution. So, I ran it every way I possibly could, it took forever to build it all out in Python, and it looked good. But when I was done, when I was finally done, I looked at it and I asked myself, “Would I put my mom’s money into this?” The answer was just immediately, “No way,” and would I put my own money into it? I thought, I’m not sure about that.

Eric Crittenden:

What’s my problem here? So, I started working backwards and I just realized that it’s just got way too many features, way too many moving parts, and I’m not comfortable or I’m not super confident that all of these moving parts are worth it. So, I did something interesting, I sorted all the features from most important to least important, and then inverted it, and I just started removing them one by one, the least important ones. Then each time I would remove it, I would rerun and look at the impact, and I was just really surprised at how little impact that these features that sound so important makes no difference to the long-term. They don’t increase the return, they don’t reduce the risk. Then if you focus on turnover and the consequences of turnover, the operational heartache, the potential for trade errors, the taxes and stuff like that, it really starts to become apparent to you that I need to be getting rid of a lot of these features, because they’re not moving the needle or making a difference.

Eric Crittenden:

So, I started off with 18 features, I was able to remove 15 before I saw anything that bothered me, 15 out of 18. In that 15 are the things that CTAs and other people feel are so critically important. Now, remember this is a 50-year simulation using all the futures markets that existed during that period of time. So, a lot of different markets, many of which are gone today. So, Eric, you knew this, you knew this intuitively really, and you’re just trying to provide liquidity to hedgers and collect that risk premia in a durable way. You don’t need 50 features, you don’t need 18, there’s really probably only three, maybe four. So, I bit the bullet and said, “You know what? I’m getting rid of all that stuff, and I’m just going with a really simple, durable approach.” It’s got a little bit higher volatility, slightly lower returns, but I can sleep at night, because I really do believe this thing’s durable and it’s going to be around in 30 years.

Jason Buck:

Do you think this is an example of the opposite of curve fitting? Because, basically, everybody builds out more and more features to curve fit more and more. You started with all those features, then just kept reducing, so this was kind of a perfect example of the opposite of curve fitting.

Eric Crittenden:

Yeah, which you could only learn, I think, by doing it, by suffering the consequences of having-

Jason Buck:

Of doing too much, yeah.

Eric Crittenden:

Yeah, but it also revealed to me some of my own blind spots, that small cap bias, I still have it, but I know better. I know better, and I can put policies in place [inaudible 00:46:13]. I know not to trust it, that weird voice in the back of my head that thinks that trading palladium’s important, it’s just not, lumber’s not important-

Jason Buck:

Well, see that begs two questions though, to me, it’s like that’s what we had especially last year, everybody kept coding the lumber market and everything. I kept asking like, “Who actually trades lumber though?” It’s such a small and capacity constrained market, so that’s kind of one of my questions for you is how do you think about that? Whether it’s lumber, lithium, et cetera, or carbon credits, these are very small markets. I know you try to make sure you don’t have too big a AUM, and I think a lot of the classical macro trend or CTA trend followers, their AUM is such a large size that they’re not trading a lot of what we call smaller caps in this space. So, you don’t think there’s advantage there, but I’m just curious, in these markets like this one, we primarily saw just… Whether it’s lithium or lumber, these just crazy markets, but also, that makes it even harder to trade even with the system, because your open trade profit can get smoked and you can blow through your stops on the other side.

Eric Crittenden:

I feel the same way about it that the equity guys feel about micro-cap penny stocks. Yeah, they’re amazing, some are up a thousand percent this year, what differences it make? It’s not real, it’s not real to me and my asset base. So, if it’s not real, I’m not going to worry about it. So, lumber, it’s not going to move the needle in a fund that is making a difference out there for people. [Inaudible 00:47:35] you got to have a couple billion dollars to be making a difference for people, meaningfully, and Lumber’s just not going to fit into that portfolio. The carbon emission credits do, it’s like the 18th most liquid features market in the world. Look, if there’s no liquidity, there’s no hedging that’s available to us to transfer the risk, so where’s the risk premia? It’s not there.

Jason Buck:

But to your point earlier, I think that’s when people are running back tested, don’t have a lot of marketing experience, you tend to run with-

 

Jason Buck:

… when people are running back tested, don’t have a lot of marketing experience, you tend to run with those smaller caps and it looks great on paper until you find out in real life, all of your commission slippage, blowing through your stops, getting limit down, all of those things, they’re not really factoring into their back test. Is that fair?

Eric Crittenden:

I think it’s fair. But if you liquidity weigh all of your rules, your positions and your back test, that phenomenon won’t come back to haunt you.

Jason Buck:

There’s something-

Eric Crittenden:

I run-

Jason Buck:

Go ahead.

Eric Crittenden:

I run my system right now like it’s got $12 billion in it. The model believes it has $12 billion, and then we just ratio down to our current asset base. So that’s important because I don’t want to have the conversation with my clients, say three years from now, that they say, “Oh, I love this thing and I want to buy, tell me how it’s changed.” And it doesn’t even resemble what I was doing in the beginning. That means I can’t trust it. It needs to be fungible from one period to the next. So I run it like it’s got $12 billion in it right now. That way, if I’m fortunate enough to be successful three, four years from now, I don’t have to have that crappy conversation with people how, “Well, it’s not really the same thing and we can’t do what we were doing before.” I’ve done that before. Never again.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. I made all my returns off of lumber in 2021 and now yeah, it’s 2025 and you’re not going to have near the [kager 00:49:19] that you thought you were expecting in that scenario.

Jason Buck:

Part of that, though, is I always wonder is I know you don’t wait the sectors per se, you just take all the trades and just let them aggregate up on their own. But I know this is not the preferred nomenclature is, do you think about the weight to financials versus commodities in general? So the whole one side versus the other side, are you trying to hold a certain amount of the exposure in commodities versus the financials?

Eric Crittenden:

Let’s see. How do I answer that? We have a cap on financials and that’s it.

Jason Buck:

On financials, okay.

Eric Crittenden:

Yeah, it’s just a cap. We don’t allow them. Otherwise, they could become so big that a lot of the diversification benefit goes away. But I don’t like to get into that whole debate over whether it should be 50-50 or whatever. I just put a hard cap in.

Eric Crittenden:

MSCI does this with their index. If MSCI or one of these other index providers build an index around a company or a country like Peru, what they run into is if they do pure market cap weighted, 80% of the index is in one stock, which is crazy. Then 20% is over the next 30 stocks or whatever. So that’s not going to be 99% correlated with that one stock and the beta is going to be 0.98% to that one stock.

Eric Crittenden:

So they created these capped versions where they say no one stock could be more than 20%. So, that first one only gets 20%, and then the rest is proportionally allocated to the rest of the stocks.

Eric Crittenden:

That’s a nice blunt tool to use to get rid of the majority of the problem that we’re talking about. Whereas the S&P 500 small, the mini and the micro and the big contract, collectively are so much bigger than every other market that they would just eat up too much of your risk budget. So I have a blunt tool that I apply to financials and that’s it. Everything else is pure, though.

Jason Buck:

I’m going to ask two questions in one. In 2008, a lot of the macro trend followers made money in Q4 off of just long bond positions. And that’s where they made up for, actually they weren’t doing so well in 2008. In general, just a generalization. Then there was a lot of debate going in before the last two years of how well macro trend followers would do in a short bond environment. And obviously they’ve actually done well in short bond environment. And it’s obviously due to the vagaries of term structure as well.

Jason Buck:

But part of that though then, I always wonder about if you’re going short the stock indices, but usually that’s when volatility is picking up, and if you’re using ATRs for your position sizing, does that really give you a nice hedge or is it just always too de minimis to actually make any difference on the stock indices?

Eric Crittenden:

Well, it’s going to depend on your exposure. It depends on more than the variables that you just talked about.

Eric Crittenden:

I would like to comment, though, on the long bond thing. There’s two things I’d like to say about that. I got that question a lot back in 2014/15. We don’t like CTAs, we don’t like managed features because you guys made all your money from big, long bonds and when the bond bowls over you’re not going to make any money. Then they also understood the collateral yield was collapsing so you weren’t going to get money on your T-bills anymore. I said, “Yeah, I know. I heard it all before. Here’s what I do,” Because you could get caught in this circular conversation that goes on forever with no resolution. I just went back to my own software and said, “Just kick all the bonds out and rerun the whole thing. Just get rid of them.”

Eric Crittenden:

So for whatever reason, I went back to 1970, even though they didn’t have bond features back then, but I just never, ever participated in interest rates or bonds or any of that stuff. You rerun it and it spits out an equity curve and a draw-down and descriptive statistics and there’s very little impact. There’s a little bit, it was 1% or 80 basis points less per year and the draw-down was a tiny bit worse, but not the kind of deterioration that people were thinking. They thought half the returns were going to disappear. And it’s like, no, if you reallocate that capital to your other opportunities, half your returns don’t disappear. So not trading bonds means not trading them, not just sitting on cash.

Eric Crittenden:

So, that was interesting. And that was actually compelling to people. They were like, I didn’t realize that you still have so many other things to participate in that even if you missed the greatest bond bull market of all time, it didn’t destroy your entire equity curve going back in time. So, that was counterintuitive to people.

Eric Crittenden:

The other one though was, and this one I don’t know why people feel this way, but in a rising interest rate environment CTAs aren’t going to do well. Are you not aware of the 1970s? That was the golden age for trend following. You couldn’t script a better plot for trend followers than plummeting bond markets with rising interest rates. And that got no traction with people until now. And now you’ve seen that CTAs are making great heavy duty returns in a rising interest rate environment. People are scratching their head saying, “Wait a minute. I thought they made all their money from being long bonds?” Well, now they’re short bonds while bonds are going down. And then the collateral yield started to come back. So we’re going to start collecting real, not real, but somewhat meaningful returns on the T-bills. It’s still low though, so let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Jason Buck:

Well, there’s two things you said in there I want to pull on. One is as that one of the loudest voices was Roy Niederhoffer talking about on the short bond side, but there were implicit assumptions about term structure. So once again, term structure actually matters. But I’m curious, do you factor in term structure to your trades at all? Or do you just figure that works itself out over the long duration?

Eric Crittenden:

Depends on what you mean. I take term structure and the cost to carry very seriously. That’s half the returns for a good trend following program. It’s almost half. People call it roll yield, whatever. So I definitely want that reflected properly in the trend signal. When we get a signal to go along a market, it’s because we’re looking at the fully back adjusted, term structure adjusted, total return stream of that market and short signal too. But that’s it. So we just take everything and we convert it into a total return stream, and then we have trend signals to come off of that. I don’t then go in and say I’m going to treat this a little bit different because this market’s in backwardation, or this one’s in [inaudible 00:55:55] or whatever, because that information’s already in the signal itself, from my perspective. So I don’t have special rules for term structure. I respect term structure, but I don’t have special rules for it.

Jason Buck:

But that was interesting, correct me if I’m wrong. What I heard you just say though, too, is in any trend strategy that likely half of the profits are actually coming from carry on the term structure.

Eric Crittenden:

Yes.

Jason Buck:

That’s interesting. So you don’t need to overlay another carry strategy if you already have a trend following strategy, because you’re getting carry within the trend strategy. Assuming that once again, the term structure is in relation to the trend.

Eric Crittenden:

Well, not necessarily. There could be a scenario where you want to make money from the term structure, but the price trend is so weak that you never get a signal. So if you wanted to disaggregate them into two things, one is just raw prices. So in the stock world, that would be you’re speculating on the price going up or you’re trying to capture the dividend. Those are two different things. Or you can just merge them together and say, I’m going to stick with the trend and they both need to be going in my favor in order for me to get involved. That’s kind of what we’re doing. So I am not criticizing somebody that wants to separate the two and say, I’ve got a term structure harvesting technique, and then I have a pure price trend technique. I personally like to merge those two things together and let it rip. But for somebody who wanted to treat them separately, I don’t think it’s worth it, but it might be for them. They may know something I don’t know.

Jason Buck:

No. Especially if they’re really trying to do it and going long short and trying to do calendars. There’s interesting maybe ways of playing that term structure carry. But the other one you brought up that I wanted to circle back to, because you brought up the beginning too, is T-bill returns. Like you were saying, you have stocks and bonds in one bucket, you have macro trend in another bucket, and then your third bucket was just deterministic yield from just T-bills. And so that’s what you were starting to say. But there’s also what you referenced is there’s a lag to inflation in T-bills. So, you might keep a pace in general, but there’s still going to be a delta between inflation. And then I’m curious, historically we always just rolled 90 day T-bills because we’re sitting on all this cash, which also opens up… Sorry, this is going to be like a four part question I realize, is that everybody wants cash in a crisis. And it’s always interesting to me that managed future CTA, macro trend, whatever, we are sitting on a ton of cash.

Jason Buck:

So it’s almost like this third or fourth leg of the stool that nobody’s think about is the amount of cash we’re sitting on. Granted, we have to mentally discount that cash though if margins go up, et cetera, draw downs, we always have to think we’re a cash management system, essentially our draw down management system. But like you’re saying, we’re getting back to a point where we can start rolling 90 day T-bills to get some good return. Now granted, it’s going to be lagging inflation. But I’m also curious if you’ve thought about moving even out the duration a little bit to maybe one year or two year T-bills.

Eric Crittenden:

Yes. I’ve thought about it. Right now, I don’t. I don’t invest in T-bills right now. It’s getting to the point where it’s somewhat compelling. When I first launched this fund a few years ago, the cost of trading a T-bill exceeded the yield I was getting from that T-bill. So, it didn’t make any sense. So I just left it in cash, basically in custodial accounts. Not even in the banking system, just sitting there, cash. Because the interest rates you collected from lending it out were so tiny they didn’t even show up on the statement. They rounded to two zeros. So now we’re in a different world, so it’s making sense now to reevaluate that.

Eric Crittenden:

In looking at the curve, the one month and three months aren’t offering much. If you go out to nine months or 12 months, now you’re getting to something that’s closer to 1%, 1.2%, something like that. So I could see it making sense. I don’t think I would go meaningfully beyond the one year duration. I’ve done a lot of analysis by looking at two years and five years and one years. You get more return, that’s true. But you also get more risk and you get business risk too. Meaning like if you need to process redemptions, those five years could be down. And you’re having to book capital losses in order to pull that cash back. T-bills have no volatility because they never… I’ve seen them go down once, but they almost never have a money losing day. But you give up some of the returns. There’s a trade off as you go further out on the curve. And the sweet spot right now, I think, is six to 12 months, from what I see. But I don’t see any benefit from going longer term than that.

Jason Buck:

Well, yeah. And you could just keep rolling them up too. And then the other one that you just referenced is 3D chess of we have to worry about the duration as investment managers. Especially if you’re in [inaudible 01:00:38] and you don’t know when people could pull money and you need to have that cash on hand, it’s better for you to almost tranche out the tenors you’re going to use or figure out other ways to make sure you have enough cash on the books in case you did have a run on redemptions. That’s the real rub, isn’t it?

Eric Crittenden:

Yes. We’re fortunate, like you mentioned earlier, that we’re sitting on tons of cash. For me, it’s 40% of the funds value is in cash minimum at any given point in time. And I consider T-bills to be cash. That’s a lot of cash to be able to handle redemptions. Most of these mutual funds and ETFs are sitting on 1% cash. So they, they essentially need a line of credit to process redemptions and then they start liquidating securities the next day. So, we have it easy when it comes to being able to meet redemptions.

Eric Crittenden:

That being said, interest rates are well below inflation, but there’s nothing out there that’s a proper offset to inflation. There’s nothing. I was going to ask you, if not T-bills, then what? I spend every weekend pouring over all the different asset classes and strategies to find something that would fit in nicely with my macro and my equities, and there’s just nothing. There’s absolutely nothing. It always just comes up and it just says T-bills every time. That’s the only thing that has uncorrelated, a little bit of alpha, and is reasonably liquid. Nothing else fits in there.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. I think to me, this is why it makes inflation so pernicious, is there is not a good coverage. So to me, it’s about diversifying your diversifiers. You want 90 day T-bills, I guess some could argue certain equities might have pricing power to keep up with inflation. Certain forms of real estate might have pricing power that would still lag inflation, but maybe keep up with it. My vote has always been you have correlations in betas, where gold allegedly has a fairly high beta to inflation, but what’s the correlation over what time span? And this is why I think that CTAs and trend following and macro trend, to me, are the best way of covering inflation. This your best bet. Given all the [inaudible 01:02:40] of the universe, this is your best bet.

Jason Buck:

And then you hold the gold, who knows if one day cryptocurrencies will do anything with inflation. But it’s more about diversify and diversifier because what we’re really trying to do is maintain our purchase power parity. And I think that’s the hardest thing to do in an inflationary environment, and that’s why, to me, macro trend is your best bet because it has a higher beta, but maybe not the very high correlation necessarily to inflation over certain… Because it’s always depending on what look back period you use. And that’s why I can’t stand when people are always like, gold is your best batt against iation because the price of armor is the same as the price of bespoke suit ons row and. Yes and no, depends on what duration, like if you use decade long cycles or millennial long cycles, yes. But in any intervening quarter, year, three, five year basis, gold may not do anything for you. So, that’s kind of the rub.

Eric Crittenden:

Yeah. I’ve done a lot of work on gold and I’ve found that it’s not that great of an inflation. It’s great during hyper inflation.

Jason Buck:

Or deflationary bus too. That’s what people don’t realize either.

Eric Crittenden:

Yeah. It’s got a nice smile to it. If things go crazy to the upside, then it has paid off if things go crazy to the downside. But in the middle, it’s just the most frustrating asset class you could possibly own. It just does this. And the other thing I would point out is that as I’m looking for different things and I’m running analysis, it always comes back and says, just do more of what you’re already doing, put the cash into what you’re already doing. That’s the best fix. And I’m like, well I’m already at my risk budget. So I’m just one of those people that has a ton of cash laying around. I may as well go get the yield from T-bills if they’re yielding more than the cost to trade.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. The other ones, you can get really specific with over-the-counter options trades and payer swaptions, et cetera, or inflation break evens with some optionality there too. But you have very specific path dependencies and you’re assuming there’s no yield curve control from the fed. So everything has its trade, it [inaudible 01:04:35] trade offs in it’s rub. That’s why I think it’s more of diversifying your diversifiers. Then I was thinking about, I want to go back, you said you have a bias towards small cap. I think people you and me might even have a bias towards, and you were talking about small cap commodities, but even if we talk about small cap stocks or something, we would like to think that if we really dug in there and we explored this small cap universe of stocks and equities and we could figure out our own DCFS and we could outsmart the markets.

Jason Buck:

That’s where the alpha’s lying because people won’t go there. So one of the ones I think about that is, like you were saying, it’s become too easy. And so I wonder about factor models and [KRIs 01:05:15] data. Once these academic papers come out, you’ve destroyed all the alpha in these spaces. I think about value investors now that just punch up some lines and pull from the KRIs database and now all of a sudden they have a great back test and a great strategy. But it never works moving forward in a real world basis. But part of that I wonder is, like you said it’s too easy, is a lot of people historically would’ve said that macro trend or CTA trend followers is it’s too easy. It’s not a hard strategy necessarily to put on. The hard part is behaviorally with sticking with it. But I’m curious do you have an internal debate of maybe this is too easy and part of me thinks I have to really struggle and strive in life to make any sort of money?

Eric Crittenden:

Yes, absolutely. I don’t have that conversation very often, but so when I go down this road, ultimately I end up in this debate where I say there’s a difference between simple and easy. We, as human beings, tend to confuse. That’s where my small cap bias tends to come back to haunt me, is that historically when I was younger would confuse simple with easy. What you want is something that’s simple enough to be dependable, but not so easy that everyone else is going to do it and create competition for you and squeeze your margins down to just the low cost provider can survive. And that’s the debate going on with the factor models and whatnot is that when the academics get a hold of something and they publish these beautiful back tests and papers, and everyone starts to do it, that the margins come down.

Eric Crittenden:

That would make sense, that’s how supply and demand works, and I think there’s an element of truth to that. But the thing that no one’s talking about is just how much of what they’re seeing was just spurious and artifacts in the data to begin with. So I think it’s a combination of those two things that computers are relentless. If you torture the data, you’ll find something that appears to have worked historically. And you’ll find many things that appear to have worked historically. But the vast majority of them, it’s just random, spurious nonsense that the computer tried a trillion different combinations and said this one, the butter prices and Bangladesh lead the S&P 98% of the time, so therefore it’s causal. It’s like, no, there’s just enough stuff going on in the world that something’s going to appear to have led something else.

Eric Crittenden:

So it’s a combination of those two things. I don’t know what bias is that in the back testing world, where I just call it spurious curve fitting, combined with, if you make it easy for everyone to implement it and that’s going to squeeze the margins, those two things lead to this predictable outcome over and over. The academics simplify it, but the only ones they publish are the ones that are easy to implement in real life. You just need Excel and a brokerage account to run a lot of these factor type approaches. So it’s simple and easy, so that’s not what you want. You want simple, but not easy.

Eric Crittenden:

And you alluded to this earlier where the sustainable edge in the markets is having control over your own behavior and dealing with your own psychological problems. I said something the other day that stuck with a client, and I said, “You are your own worst enemy. Until you conquer that one, you have no business fighting with anyone else about anything.” And that’s what I see in this industry, the CTA industry, the biggest threat are the people running the funds themselves because they always, not always, but many of them screw it up when they’re under pressure. Clients are redeeming, they’re in a 20% draw down, they change everything and come up with all these new filters or rules, and then it’s pretty much game over at that point.

Eric Crittenden:

So maintaining your confidence and your faith in what you’re doing, because you paid your dues on the strategic research side, and you have a plan in place to deal with volatility and good times and bad times going forward. That is such an advantage. And I wish everyone could take two years off and just rethink everything and all their experiences with no pressure. But I wouldn’t have the discipline to do that if I didn’t have a non-compete that I had to honor at the time. So I wish everyone could try that.

Jason Buck:

Speaking of fallacies, that’s one of my favorite ones that you don’t suffer from is sunk cost fallacy. You’ll go and study AI, you’ll study all your prior assumptions. You’ll spend two, three years down a rabbit hole that’s not fruitful and then you’ll scrap it and move on, which is fantastic. But I wonder, like you’re saying is it’s so hard for, I think for people like me or you, correct me if I’m wrong, we’re always trying to question our assumptions, look at what’s underlying there. We talk about risk transfer services is actually where people make money in futures or options space. But part of that day too is then it falls under the rubric of this is behavioral and behavioral is a catchall for everything. So doesn’t it bother you though to think this is behavioral where people can’t be disciplined, because you even used the term faith, but there’s a lot of things we can’t explain. So maybe that’s why we throw them in this nebulous bucket of behavioral, because we can’t necessarily explain that discipline and maybe that’s where the real money’s made?

Eric Crittenden:

Yeah, it is. Well, it’s exhilarating and frustrating at the same time to have this mushy thing. I don’t use words like faith and art very often, but there are elements of success that require you have to believe in yourself, you have to stick to the plan and stay disciplined. And if you want to call that having faith, then let’s call it that. And then the art side of it is some things just simply shouldn’t be automated like dealing with the SEC and compliance issues and stuff like that. You don’t automate those. Somebody has to stand up in front of the board of directors, put their ass on the line and be held responsible and accountable. You can’t automate that part. So yeah, there is a mushy part that everything that’s deemed behavioral goes in there, and I don’t have a lot to say on that topic.

Eric Crittenden:

Other than what I said earlier in that is the enemy you need to be worried about the most is the one inside of you and that part’s behavioral. Until you understand your blind spots and your weaknesses, but you’re the patsy in the poker game. You may still make it and you may make a lot of money if luck’s on your side, but you’re still the patsy in the poker game. You got to figure that part out first and it’s not easy to do. It requires help and people that you trust and some honesty. And sometimes that honesty’s brutal. But until you do that, you’re operating in a disadvantage.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. I just thought about this for the first time, and I think maybe the real difference is for maybe you and I is if I think about people that have singular strategies, like value investors or small cap value investors, they’re like, yes, we’ve been in a decade of pain where we’ve underperformed our benchmark. And I hate benchmarks in general, but you-

Jason Buck:

Well, we’ve underperformed our benchmark, and I hate benchmarks in general, but you’re just like there’s power to stick with it, right? And just to assume that you can endure more pain than anybody else. But when we start allocating to diversified asset classes, and we have to rebalance, we don’t have to deal with that necessarily, that decade long pain that value investors do. So it’s a different form of discipline. Do you think that’s fair?

Eric Crittenden:

Well, I think what you’re describing with strict adherence to a particular specific style, have to have such incredible willpower to stick with it, and what you’re saying is, intuitively, it’s not worth it. There’s, other things that don’t require… Willpower is a terrible strategy. Willpower is something to get you from one spot to the next. It’s supposed to be a temporary thing, it’s not a lifestyle. Because anytime you’re invoking willpower, it’s like auxiliary power, because everything else has been blown out. It’s supposed to be a temporary thing. So if you’re out of favor for a decade, which can happen, I think it actually happened in the [inaudible 01:13:03], out of favor for 10 years, yeah, that’s going to require willpower. I don’t why know anyone would want that lifestyle.

Eric Crittenden:

I’m in the business, or trying to be in the business of making my clients happy. So I try to be honest about, is there a suitable fit between what I’m offering and what they both want and need? It’s not a sin to give people what they want, you just got to make sure it’s also something they need. And the smartest way to do that is to find something that they need, that they don’t currently want, and then see if there’s a way for you to repackage it, such that they now do want what they need. And that’s all we’ve tried to do at StandPoint, is take something we feel people need and repackage it into a form that they want. And then it’s everyone wins, the triangle wins, the client, the advisor and us. That’s our goal. And that requires a whole lot less willpower.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. The other way I think about it is, and this behooves what you do is, there’s always these cabals of strategy and everybody has their own faith and systems, and then rarely do they cross over. And I remember all the time, you and I talked about before, when I used to always read about market wizards and CTA trend managers, where do you get hurt? Or what would be a nice uncorrelated strategy to add? And it’s like, buy and hold 60-40, and it’s just anathema to their faith, so they’ll never do it. But like you just said, I just want to make clients happy. So by combining these two, they get a better portfolio that’s easier to maintain over the long term. So it’s just about, okay, what works? And not having this strict adherence to faith and within your secular religion or whatever strategy you have.

Jason Buck:

But one thing you touched on and I don’t think I’ve ever asked you this, what’s always fascinating to me, is people say a decade when trend underperforms, right? And I think that if you take the 2010’s, people are like, well trend underperformed. And I’m always like, what benchmark, right? They’re going to probably say S&P 500, and underperformed the stock market. But I think if you look at the Stock Gen Trend index, I think it carried a 2% CAGR over the 2010’s. And I’m like, that’s brilliant. If I can layer that in with other strategies exactly like you do, I can carry this thing as a positive carry silently, where I’m waiting for this last 12 months to pop off.

Jason Buck:

I just don’t understand, once again, maybe I’m hyper rational and I just don’t understand people who are like, they don’t want to carry something that they can layer in there, but that has a positive carry, even if this was only single digit over a decade where you’re waiting for a target rich environment like we’ve just seen. Maybe I’m just preaching to the choir, but maybe hopefully a push back on that.

Eric Crittenden:

So what I’ve found is that it depends on how they’re consuming that, let’s just call it a 3% CAGR, for a period of time. If that’s an individual line item on their statement, they naturally view it as an opportunity cost. They’re like, well if I weren’t with this idiot, I could have invested with this other guy that made 18% returns a year. So somebody made a mistake and I need that person punished, and you need to fix it and move on, so that we don’t have this ever happen again, that’s the way their brain thinks. Right? But if it’s not really an opportunity cost, meaning it’s embedded in with the rest and part of a holistic plan of a growth plan, that includes some assets that are going to compound at 15 and some that are going to compound it two, and you don’t know which is going to be which, and they don’t see an individual line item that they can identify as an opportunity cost, well then you get very, very different behavior. Right?

Eric Crittenden:

And then what we talked earlier about cash, that’s a very, very crucial, important point of what this conversation is, in my opinion. I’m not forcing people to incur tremendous opportunity costs and probably no opportunity costs at all. A lot of people feel like, oh well, you’re adding in global equities to what you’re doing, you’re watering it down or whatever. I’m just using some of that cash. A typical macro trend manager is going to be sitting on 80 to 95% cash, at any given point in time. They just stuff into T-Bills. Right? We take about half that and put it into global equities, and all of a sudden those out of favor kind of goes away. The in favor comes down. You just get this much smoother ride that delivers something that doesn’t drive clients completely insane. Right?

Eric Crittenden:

So if I just leave it in cash, they lose their minds, if I put stocks in there. But it’s not coming at the expense of anything other than cash. So once people understand that part, there’s just this relief that, okay, I’m not getting ripped off here, I’m not stuffing all my money into this low performing asset class, and I don’t have to worry about that part anymore. That I feel is a self-inflicted wound that a lot of people in our industry just never get around to understanding what the real psychological behavioral conflict is between them and the end clients. And if they understood it and they did the algebra and said, well, this isn’t costing me anything at all, right? So why don’t I just do this, and so everyone can be happy? And so StandPoint is basically that experiment, to see if the marketplace agrees. So far, I think they have.

Jason Buck:

So we’ve always tried to bang the drum on this idea of, I wish more people understood the future space and capital efficiency, right? And our performance bond. And that’s how we put up capital to be able to trade with. And we’re really, like I said, managing draw downs or our cash positions. But I find this is one of the hardest things to express to people because it’s not the way their mind works, the way they’ve been taught about investments. And you’re much better at explaining things, connecting with clients than I am. So I’m just curious, have you thought about any anecdotes or analogies or stories that help connect clients to their use of capital efficiency, like you’re saying, where they don’t have that cost? I think you just did a great job explaining it, but I’m just curious, what’s top of mind, or any quick stories that you’ve used and analogies you related to this, to clients were where you feel like you got your hooks in.

Eric Crittenden:

Well tentatively, I will say yes. But before I go there, I will say, if you just do it for them and deliver them results that doesn’t trigger the need for the metaphors and the analogies about it, I think you’re going a long way towards making life a lot easier for you and them. So, that’s my philosophy. And I know that might be too cute for some people. And they’re like, well, I can’t do that because I’m specifically doing tail risk hedging or stuff like that. I get it. I don’t have an answer for everyone.

Jason Buck:

But when you’re saying you do it for them, then you need the initial adopters and you need a track record to prove that what you’re doing makes sense. And then you can point to it. Right? So there’s a chicken and egg problem, right?

Eric Crittenden:

Yes. And that’s basically what StandPoint is. Is that we knew we’d have to pay for this ourselves, build it, put our own money into it and then go out and beg people for years. And we’re in the third year now, and now people are saying, hmm, I think I understand. Because now they can see it. They can taste it. They can feel it. They bought a little bit of it. And they’re like, oh, this is pretty good. This isn’t so bad. Why didn’t you just tell me this? I tried a million different ways. It just needs to be there. There needs to be a picture on the menu, and they need to be able to taste it and say, all right, yeah, let’s do this.

Eric Crittenden:

Now that’s a luxury that not everyone has. And we didn’t have it in the beginning either, when everyone hung up on us and they wouldn’t take our call. But it gets easier as you get a longer and longer track record, and some AUM. So, that’s one solution. It’s expensive. It’s scary. It’s time consuming, until it works. And then it’s no longer scary and it’s no longer expensive, it’s paying you, and it’s a great way to live.

Eric Crittenden:

On the capital efficiency side, the only success I had is essentially using metaphors that they’re familiar with. Things like, you use real estate metaphors. If people say, wait a minute, I don’t understand. You only use 10% of the money. Why don’t you use a hundred percent of the money? And I say, well, if you’re buying a house… Let’s say you’re a professional real estate investor and you’re going to have a 20 house or apartment complex portfolio. Do you pay cash for these things? Of course not. You’re going to have banking relationships, lending arrangements, and whatnot. You’re going to put 10% down. Right? Well, does that mean you’re using 10 to 1 leverage? Well, it does, if that’s all the money you have. But if the other 90 is in the bank or in some uncorrelated, low volatility asset, then you’re not using leverage. Right?

Eric Crittenden:

So now they’re understanding. They’re like, oh, I don’t have to worry about the fact that you’re sitting on 90% cash, that 5 or 10% you put down is essentially like a down payment on a house. You’re getting the full exposure. And you’re also being prudent in that, that cash is sitting at the bank, or it’s invested in T-Bills, or whatever. Okay. Now I start to understand. Otherwise, you’re just in this infinite loop that you can never resolve. So that would be one, the real estate example. Sometimes I try to use sports examples, but without some story to focus on, nobody wants to go through a spreadsheet and do the math. They just don’t.

Jason Buck:

Well, I want to talk about spreadsheets in a second on that too. But the real estate metaphor works, assuming somebody’s prudent to what the rest of that cash were. I think most real estate investors and developers are just using a hundred percent of that cash at 10 to 1 leverage. But I think that our mutual friends, Cory Hopstein, and Rodrigo Gaurdia at Resolve and their team have done an amazing job with these return stacking papers. And how that phrase has caught on and how they show capital efficiency in that way. So hopefully it’s starting to catch on a little bit, but I’m wondering also, in the last 12 months, has it been relief for you or vindication? Or neither?

Eric Crittenden:

I don’t know, the last 12 months. You mean in terms of, in what-

Jason Buck:

Well, macro trend is really ballasted at 60-40 portfolio. The thing you’ve been talking about for years. And it’s one thing for clients to look at a back test versus how it performs in real life, and be like, see, I told you so.

Eric Crittenden:

Yeah, that doesn’t feel so great. I guess there is some vindication, but success for me would be doing a good enough job to convince people to put their toe in the water and try some of it out. And I think we were successful at that. I’m more happy about that, than having been proved right about bonds going down. Because, there’s no reason I needed to be right about that. I just said it could happen. I very specifically told people, even in those podcasts I did, and the videos I made about the potential for bonds to go down, I said, there’s maybe a 40% chance of this happening. But if it does, you’ve got nothing. Stocks and bonds can go down together. The only lesson I wanted people to know is that in the 1970’s and in periods of stagflation, both of these assets can go down at the same time. You’ve not experienced that since Reagan was president and you’re not ready.

Eric Crittenden:

So, if that’s a risk you do not want to run, there are other options. And here’s what that pain really looks and feels like. And it’s like, until you give people a visual and something to kind of latch onto and say, yeah, that’s not… Even if it’s only a 40% chance of that happening, that’s not something I’m ready for. And you look at all the boomers and all the retirees, the last thing they need over the next 10 years is a big draw down in equities with no return from bonds. Right? Is it plausible that, that’s what they’re going to get? Yeah, I think it is. That would be almost poetic at the end of 40 years of excess, for you to pay the bill at the end. So if that’s not what you want, you need to look elsewhere. And there’s risk involved in doing that, but there’s no guarantee that the risk is going to come to fruition.

Jason Buck:

I think part of it’s, broad diversification automatically leads to a form of agnosticism and humility, that’s not necessarily vindication. It’s like, I didn’t know what could happen. I prepared for anything happening, and the portfolio is just fine. And it’s plugging along, is a way to look at it. I was also thinking… I think it was Jason’s Zweig. I got to find out exactly who said this, but it was such a great quote of especially showing back tests, whatever. It’s like, I could show you a picture of a snake, but if I throw a snake in your lap, you’re going to react very differently. And that’s what you’re saying. Everybody thinks they’ll manage their 60-40 portfolio well, until they get into draw down and they’re in sheer panic mode.

Jason Buck:

So, that’s one way of dealing it. The other word that you brought up multiple times. I’m always curious, your hot take is stagflation, right? People… You use the word stagflation a lot. My personal bias is I hate historical analogs, because I think the future is always slightly different from the past. Even though it may rhyme, good luck picking that rhyme scheme out in advance, or a priority. And so when people say stagflation, do you think it’s like a cop out? Where it’s like, some stuff’s going to go up, some is going to go down. So therefore stagflation covers all my bases and I’ll be right either way.

Eric Crittenden:

Yeah. I think it’s dangerous to only use the last four or five market cycles and say, I’m going to get one of those. What you’re going to get is a descendant of a couple of those potentially, or something you’ve never seen before. And I think what we have right now is something that… It’s not that much like the seventies. In some ways it is, but in other ways it’s not. And why should it be? The demographics, the balance sheet, things are very, very different now than they were in the late sixties and early seventies.

Eric Crittenden:

So I don’t know any better way to prepare for an uncertain future than to have a completely unconstrained, long volatility, globally diversified portfolio, that’s willing to go anywhere on a risk adjusted basis. I can’t guarantee that it’s going to work out, but I can guarantee that I believe that’s the best and most prudent way to navigate a terribly uncertain future. And that a 60-40 portfolio looks great in seven out of eight market environments. But it is a nightmare in one of those, and potentially another one that we haven’t seen before. And it’s a free country sort of, so you get to choose. You get to choose what risk you want to run. And I’m just trying to offer people an alternative to what they, right now are already uncomfortable with.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. We’re always concerned about the consequences of even those lower probability times when 60-40 goes down. And I am not going to touch with a 10 foot pole, when you referenced we’re a free country sort of, because I know I’ll open up another rabbit hole. We’ll be talking for another three hours. I do want to change subjects a little bit here to end on. And what’s fascinating to me is, I was just at the EQ Derivatives Conference in Las Vegas last week and it was surprising coming out of COVID, and maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised, that 99.9% of the room was dark suits. Right? And so for people listening to this and they’re not watching the video, I’m in a hat and a hoodie, because it’s cold here this morning in California, you’re in a T-shirt, you’ve got a great gamer setup chair that you’re sitting in and everything. And I always just wonder, when are we going to take into account our just intellectual abilities and our abilities to build businesses, and it’s not like subterfuge or camouflage to use dark suits, to think that shows our level of importance.

Jason Buck:

And so for example, you brought up back test earlier, it’s hard to show people back tests. But I love when I get some from you, just to give the audience an example. I got one from you the other day and the tabs were, this is the lame blend, the awesome blend, and even if shit sucks, or even if it sucks, this is the blend. And it’s just like, that’s realism. I’m still amazed that people pretend that we have to be so buttoned up.

Eric Crittenden:

Yeah. I don’t get it. I used to be one of those guys. I think it’s the conformity insecurity. You don’t want to stand out. I’m not sure. I think when you’re truly comfortable in your skin and what you’re offering, and you’re okay if people say no, then you can just be yourself. I wish everyone could get to that point. That’s where I am now. I think that’s where you are and have been for a while. And I find that it’s actually credibility building when you’re just totally authentic with people.

Eric Crittenden:

This is how I dress. I’m wearing shorts right now. I’m in Phoenix, it’s 106 degrees out. I don’t need to manipulate you with a suit and tie. You can judge me and our firm based upon the merits. And if I show up smoking and wearing a biker jacket then, well within your rights to pass or whatever, but I don’t know. I think just when people are comfortable in their own skin and authenticity is more accepted, it’ll get more of it. It’s happening. But I haven’t worn a tie… I think I wore a tie once for a picture like six, seven years ago, but it’s been 15 years since I wore a tie, because I had to.

Jason Buck:

Even to extend that a little bit is like, I think what happens and Cory Hopstein and I argue about this quite often with personal accounts and everything, is that you and I build portfolios that are exactly the way we think based on our experiences in life. And there’s no cognitive dissonance there, so it’s easy for us to talk about them and everything. But it does beg the question for me is, how do you get comfortable in your own skin without an enormous amount of personal failure, and tough personal experience? Is there a way to do it, where you could sidestep that part?

Eric Crittenden:

I think that would be a form of mental illness, probably. No, I think it has to be learned. But you’re right, and you probably noticed… I’ve never heard anyone say that before, but the lack of the cognitive dissonance is something that you can see in somebody. You can pick up on it just in the way they frame their questions, the way they listen, the way they carry themselves. I see it myself when that cognitive… You never completely get rid of cognitive distance, but when you it’s no longer the driving force in your life, managing the cognitive distance between things, when it’s gone, it’s just all that bad pressure goes away. And I could just tell when someone’s just absolutely relaxed, but it’s not because they’re high. It’s not because they’re tired. They don’t have the internal struggle going on anymore. It’s nice to be around those kinds of people. All my coworkers are like that. Everybody here has that glow. I don’t know how to call it, but it’s that lack of internal conflict. And I think that’s why I chose them.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. I used to always talk to my brother about it in a way he’s like, you’re really good at like sales and everything. I’m like, no, actually I’m terrible. But if I 100% believe this is the best thing I could do with my own money or for myself, then it’s easy to transmit that to somebody else, because you know you and I like to really pinpoint things and not leave them nebulous. But that is the nebulous thing that we pick up on people from subconscious cues, is that if they’re cognitively dissonant to what they’re talking about, we just don’t invest. We don’t know why, but we won’t. It’s like I always told my brother, you won’t be able to raise money if you are thinking, what’s my plan B or my exit strategy or whatever, right? It’s almost like that. It’s, unless you 100% belief, that’s what we’re transmitting almost to people is, our belief and our comfortability in our belief, and how much we’ve thought it through.

Eric Crittenden:

Yeah. And I think that’s actually the secret to sales, or at least nowadays because the world is so saturated with tactics, that what’s scarce is authenticity and good intentions. But you can’t be shy either, meaning you’ve got to be willing to take rejection. Because you’re going to get rejected the first 9 times out of 10, even if you have good intentions. But it’s the people that have good intentions and look, if this isn’t a good fit and you’re not going to be better off for this, I don’t want your money. I’m not looking for drama. I’ll live on whatever it is I earn. And I don’t want you regretting your purchase later on. So I’m not trying to sell anybody who doesn’t want. But I will help them make a good decision. I view that as a success, and all of us do at StandPoint.

Eric Crittenden:

It’s like, look, if we give them all the information they need and help them understand what a good decision looks like, the decision process, not the outcome, but the process itself, and they choose to move on, that’s a win. We just scratched them off. They got what they needed and we’re free to now pursue somebody for which we’re a good fit. That’s a win. Not every place is like that. It’s like, a bad outcome, someone needs to get punished.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. Or everybody just wants AUM and capital. So I know we’re very similar is like, right when we’re in the first conversations with clients, we’re trying to fire them as fast as possible. Because if we’re not a good fit, that’s what people don’t realize is, you should be vetting your investors just as much as anything else, because if it’s not a good fit, you don’t have sticky capital. Now you’re going to have headaches for the rest of your existence with this client. So it’s like, yeah, you want to fire clients as fast as you can to try to find the less than 1%, that might be the perfect clients that understand what you do, and don’t have the similar cognitive dissonance.

Jason Buck:

I want to thank you for coming on, because part of this transition in our podcast is that, this is just going to be a conversation. So I gave you no priors. I didn’t give you bullet points we were going to talk about, but I love that you always have the comfortability to come on and like, yeah, let’s just shoot the shit and record it, and see what happens.

Eric Crittenden:

Yeah. I learned a long time ago that when I prepared for podcasts, they weren’t great. If I just didn’t prepare at all, it was much easier. Of course, I made some mistakes along the way, but those were cool. Those were the fun part, right? So just be yourself, let the chips fall where they may and if you have good intentions and you have quality, you’ll get ahead in life. It’s not more complicated than that.

Jason Buck:

Perfect. Thanks Eric.

Taylor Pearson:

Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed today’s show, we’d appreciate it if you would share this show with friends and leave us review on iTunes, as it helps more listeners find the show and join our amazing community. To those of you who already shared or left a review, thank you very sincerely. It does mean a lot to us.

Taylor Pearson:

If you’d like more information about Mutiny Fund, you can go to mutinyfund.com. For any thoughts on how we can improve this show or questions about anything we’ve talked about here on the podcast today, drop us a message via email. I’m taylor@mutinyfund.com. And Jason is, jason@mutinyfund.com. Or you can reach us on Twitter. I’m @TaylorPearsonME and Jason is, @JasonMutiny. To hear about new episodes or get our monthly newsletter with reading recommendations, sign up at mutinyfund.com/newsletter.