But I agree with you, Jared, in general, from what you were saying before. I mean, I think it is, I wonder, I mean, is it just because we talk about our industry the way we do? I mean, is it what we call ourselves on Manus futures, trend followers? I mean, I know trend following is a good word because that's what we do, but

I'm sure you remember that there were times when people were kind of changing the narrative around

what they were doing. Certainly in the 90s when there weren't, when CTAs weren't, we weren't doing

so well back in 94 and people were more, or maybe we should call ourselves

a hedge fund and then they were talking about that and then they went back to the term CTA.

And I wonder, I mean, what if we were just talking about what we do is a long short portfolio.

You know, long short equity seems to be pretty popular and maybe we're just long short futures.

But I agree with Jerry. I mean, what we do should be applied to a much larger part of the portfolio.

And we shouldn't be fighting over, can we get into a 5% allocation?

And then people expect us to do any meaningful protection or non-correlation

for the 95%.

I mean, it's kind of ridiculous really.

And this goes back to this point about, you know, are people over-diversifying to some extent

since they're only willing to put 5% allocation in this space?

I don't know. Any thoughts?

A lot of thoughts.

One of the things that I find is that in our mutual fund, we are used by other RIAs who are trend following the equities and bonds for their clients.

They allocate 5 or 10% to Chesapeake for the alt piece, which is silly.

You know, I mean, here I am stuck with 5 or 10%.

And these young guys starting up a business,

you know, trend following is good.

It's accessible.

...