I had another tweet. I can't remember it, but it was something. It's got a lot of love, which was 10-year money. I'll tell you, I'll give you your money back in 10 years. And this was Howard Marks, I believe. And he said, honestly, you're doing your clients a favor if you just lock it up for 10 years.

And of course, everyone knows that, but it's hard to do.

There are some.

There's a couple of managers I've seen where they're starting to ask for a lockup,

even in a space closer to the CTA space.

And of course, we think initially so why are they doing that?

Are they going completely into illiquid stuff?

But maybe the truth is that actually it's a much better product for everyone to do that.

I was curious, Jerry, how do you balance innovation versus kind of change?

I mean, clients want us to innovate or investors want us to innovate.

They don't necessarily want us to change.

And as we talked about just before, we also don't want to, you know, try and over, be too clever

about what we look for in terms of research.

How do you balance all of that on your side?

I'm baffled by the things I see and read from other managers about evolving, thinking, coming to mind,

some of the interviews you yourself have done recently. And there's a huge emphasis on evolving,

and I just don't get it. I mean, I think that it's perfectly fine for that trend following underperforms for a long period.

It's going to always underperform.

There's nothing we can do about it or that it stops working.

I mean, these are perfectly acceptable explanations.

But I don't understand using less data, like let's just focus on less data. I think that's sort of

the definition of some of the types of evolving I've heard of. If the markets are changing and

...