You mentioned also earlier on, you know, obviously a lot of people refer to, you know,

trending versus mean reverting.

You were referring to persistent and the back side of that is anti-persistent, of course.

And you said that this is something that you can kind of prove when you look at markets,

et cetera, et cetera. But if that's the case, and we believe that over time that, you know,

trend following as a strategy is more likely to succeed in the long run compared to mean reverting

or any other sort of an anti-persistent strategy.

Why do you think it is so difficult for investors to see that evidence? Because I think that there

is a tendency for people to prefer the mean reverting strategies. They feel better about it. They have

more winning months, perhaps, until, of course,

we know that, you know, from other firms that, you know, you get perhaps a blow, blow up at the

very end. So why can't we visualize this better to investors? Well, I think it all comes down to

Conneman and Tversky, behavioral economics.

I mean, there have been a lot of research done on the actual psychological responses, people in these kinds of situations.

So, you know, one thing I think about is what I do and what anybody who's sort of what a professional investor does is he is essentially

working against in his own psychology. He's working against those behaviors that are that are

typical and pretty much pervasive human behaviors. And to some extent, that's how we make money.

We make money by taking advantage of people

who are subject to those kinds of, shall we say, irrationalities. And that's why I was saying before,

you know, that's why it was so easy back in the 70s to make money as a systems traders, because

almost everybody that you were trading against was, you know,

was, you know, very much subject to the vagaries of fear and greed. And you were insulating

...