That's interesting. And actually speaking about since we often refer back to AQR and their content,

and they do produce a lot of great content, I did hear their latest podcast episode, which was

actually the debate about systematic versus discretionary trading. And I thought that was a

fascinating conversation. And I think that was a fascinating conversation. And I think

that the key takeaways were really, to a large extent, was really how, and I think they had the

founder of Maverick, one of the largest hedge funds on the show as well. And he basically said,

you know, my analyst, they may only have two or three positions. They only follow two or three companies.

They need to get to know them, you know, better than the CEO and so on and so forth.

And of course, AQR comes in and say, well, you know, we do the complete opposite.

I mean, we diversify as much as we possibly can.

And and and and, but what they, what, what was interesting about it, they had done some kind of large study on performance

and this, I think, will surprise people. So their conclusion was that both type of strategies,

if you look at a large universe of discretionary managers and systematic managers, to a large

extent over different timeframes, the performance

was not that different.

But what people may be surprised about to know is that the systematic guys had much less risk.

And I thought that was interesting because I think a lot of people believe that when you have a human person doing it in the background, that there should be less risk on that side and systems will end up being much more risky.

But in fact, the conclusion was the complete opposite.

So more or less same return, but the systematic guys did it with less risk.

And therefore, I guess you could say that the risk adjuster returns were higher.

And so I thought that was interesting.

Yeah, the systems are objective that are rule-based.

...