The new era of rolling mini cycles in the market

Welcome to Beyond the Benchmark, the EFG podcast with Moz Afzal.

Moz Afzal:
Hi everyone. So today I have Chris Senyek, who is Chief Investment Strategist for Wolfe Research. Chris, welcome.

Chris Senyek:
Thanks for having me. Always good to see you.

Moz Afzal:
Yeah, it's great to have you on the part. It's been a while, so I'm very, very excited to be catching up with you and thinking about what your thoughts are at this kind of critical time. Just before we came on air, we were talking about how we all deserve a 20% pay increase because of what Trump is doing to the markets, both from a noise volume and interest level. He's certainly keeping us in a job.

Chris Senyek:
Indeed. Yeah, no, I've worked more Sunday nights and weekends this year than I've worked in the last four years even. It reminds me of some of the days that we had back during COVID, right? So I'm hoping summer we get a little bit of a summer reprieve, though it doesn't seem like that with a July 9th tariff deadline and incessant tweets, but we'll say it keeps us busy.

Moz Afzal:
Yeah. Well something keeps us busy. I completely share your sentiment. In fact, still recovering from a bit of a cold, so my voice is still a little bit husky, but actually much better than it was last time. So Chris, let's go straight into it. So thoughts about the S&P 500 at the moment. What are your thoughts in terms of targets and maybe a bit of a deep dive into your sector thoughts and market cap and then we could talk a little bit about cycles.

Chris Senyek:
And so the big picture is I think we're in this wide trading range for the S&P 500, between 5,000 and 6,000 for the foreseeable future. And when we skew towards the high end of that range, which is where we are now, we lean a bit more defensive in positioning when we're towards the bottom end of that range, which arguably some might call the “Trump Put”, we can get more offensive reduced cash holdings and so forth. In thinking about the outlook for the market at year end, you have to think about the earnings outlook and for the S&P, we're at 260 for earnings this year. We're at 295 for next year consensus. By contrast, this year is 265. I think those numbers are still a bit too high, particularly for the last two quarters of the year considering the impact of tariffs and just the normal downward revision cycle that you see.

And then when we think about what multiple they put on that earnings number to get a year end objective in my mind that the multiple on next year's earnings of 295 should somewhere be between 21 and 22 times in the current regime that we're in. So that gives you kind of a 6200 to 6500 year end range. Not a lot of upside from where we are today, and that's why I think it's going to be more important the sectors and themes that you think about. Then the market itself, and we'll talk about in a minute, that we do think we're in this later cycle environment and we'll find the reasons later and we're going to be in that environment in the US for most of the year. And in that environment in terms of styles and themes, larger higher quality are areas and growth stocks are themes that we think are the most interesting in that.

And again, we'll dive more into the sector later in terms of thinking about the investment approach where you're in this wide trading range and what breaks you out of it, we have more of a barbell strategy where we believe in AI as a theme. We think AI spending is going to continue. You're now seeing areas beyond the US start to invest in that. We also like some of the utilities as a hedge on the other side and industrials, which are expensive, but offer I think interesting thing and an industrials, aerospace and defence are our favourite names there. There's some secular growth and they have real free cashflow. And this tax reconciliation bill that's going through Congress will provide some clarity for defence spending and you're seeing defence spending clearly obviously grow outside the US as well. So we do like the barbell with the sector, have some offensive, have some defensive, but we're not leaning all in early cycle offensive sectors. I didn't talk about that. We want to own autos and materials and energy.

Moz Afzal:
I'll go those traditional cyclicals. I've actually been pretty underperforming over the last few weeks and actually for the last, in fact, couple of months obviously we've seen commodity prices pick up. We're starting to see gold, silver are now platinum and some of these other metals starting to pick up. I just note the stocks are not behaving in the same way as the commodities are, which is quite fascinating.

Chris Senyek:
Yeah, I think that there's this hope that global growth picks up later in the year into next year and certainly we think 26 growth will be stronger than 25 because you're going to get some fiscal stimulus in the US and I think the reality is across the world, growth will be better than it is now. But I think the reason that the stocks haven't been working is I think there's just a permeation of short-termism in the market, whereas people are thinking about next quarter and aren't thinking about the longer term outlook for those groups. I also think that those groups are signalling to us very clearly that inflation will pick up and despite some signs that inflation, at least in the US is coming down in quiescent, we haven't really seen the impact of tariff cycle through that. And recently the ISM services prices paid component number had started to really turn up and to me that was a bit disconcerting more so than anything else because that's the service side of the economy, which is only indirectly impacted by tariffs. So I think those are signalling that we're going to have some reflation and there's some inflation in the pipeline. We just haven't seen it all in the reported numbers just yet.

Moz Afzal:
So that suggests to me at least a, continuous steepening of the yield curve as we go into year end into next year to reflect that.

Chris Senyek:
And I think I've been at the view that the 10 year rises above 5% by the end of the year while the short end you know kind of stays anchored where it is, I'm becoming more of the belief that the Fed's not going to cut much over the remainder of the year because I'm the view that growth in the US hangs in there, call it 2% and inflation's a bit sticky and we start to see some re-acceleration inflation albeit modestly in the back half of the year. To me that's an environment where the Fed's not cutting, maybe we get one cut, but we need to see some weak payroll numbers to really get that. I think Powell's more focused on employment than he is on inflation at the moment. So a steeper yield curve environment probably helps some of the financials in the banks. But I think the concern I have more tactically over the next couple months is that we get another rate scare with the long yields backing up some and then of course that starts this circular process of how it impacts the deficit and interest cost and so forth in the economy.

Moz Afzal:
That certainly makes a lot of sense. So moving onto the cycle, and I guess my first observation then maybe a question to you is, unlike previous periods globally, the cycles are different. So Europe seems to be a little bit more advanced, it was possibly lagging before and it's kind of moved forward. So global liquidity, if you like, is already starting to improve ECB, obviously cut rates last week, the Swiss National Bank, the Bank of England, obviously the Chinese have record low interest rates and the US and arguably then the UK are probably the two ones that are holding back. But overall global liquidity seems to be okay. So has that been an offset to I guess the more tighter situation in the United States?

Chris Senyek:
Yeah, I think that some other countries are more early to mid cycle than the US and I think there's these different cycles. I also think the US is in a series of many cycles too, and what we've kind of been calling rolling recessions really since the energy downturn back in 2016 and 2017. But yes, the ECB has been cut, others have been cutting, things are even in China, I think it's more early cycle than it is late. Things are just a bit off cycle. And we were looking at a chart the other day that showed how the tenure has reacted after the Feds start cutting rates going back 35, 40 years. And this is the only time period in which the 10 year is actually 10 year yield and 30 year for that matter is actually higher after the start of a rate cut. And maybe that's just reflective that there haven't been that many slowdowns without recessions.

But yeah, I think it's just a different cycle. You've got an election cycle and so forth and central bankers are cutting as quickly, but that's okay. We saw this in 94 and 95 where they cut enough and then they let rates level off and everything was fine in terms of growth. But they're usually when you're in a later cycle environment like the US is the ECP cutting interest rates and other countries usually isn't enough in of itself to shift you back because of there is some interdependence among countries, but it generally is not enough to move the other way. Now when the US is doing more full throttle liquidity and cycles than there can be, but you also don't have as much liquidity in the US sloshing around as we did before. But the concept of rolling recessions is really interesting. And there is even an argument, we have this debate a lot in my team and in meetings about whether the US can even afford a recession given a 6% plus deficit.

One of the reasons we stayed positive back during the tariff meltdown was that we had the view that Trump would ultimately capitulate. He does focus on the stock market. And two is that Bessent is a very smart person and I think a great Treasury Secretary, was aware of the physical situation along with other advisors and wouldn't let us go into a recession because again, we can't go down that rabbit hole. And there's even an argument that not even this, but even past ones and Fed chairs and Treasury Secretaries after the great financial crisis wanted in a way conduct policy to smooth out business cycles. And so I think we would've had a recession under normal circumstances in March of 2023. But when the regional bank liquidity problems started to manifest themselves, Central Bankers, Treasury and the Fed rushed in and threw all this liquidity into the system in de facto guaranteed deposits, we would not have seen that kind of policy response pre great financial crisis.

So policymakers are acting much more proactive, which is I think causing its own set of problems, but also I think trying to smooth out some of the business cycles. And I think that maybe the conclusion is that the impact of having a materially rise in the unemployment rate and the implications from that is not worth maybe having a little bit more inflation in the system around that. The only way in which we're going to really remove inflation from the system is to have a recession, in my mind. And that's the only thing when you kill demand and you kind of break that psychological mold of inflation where businesses and other folks are compelled to increase prices, do you really kind of break that inflation cycle and we're just not there yet.

Moz Afzal:
No. And part of me thinks that we'll never get there because we're in a situation where debt not just in the United States, but pretty much everywhere in the world, UK is a big case in point where quite frankly you need to deflate the debt and that's through having a bit of inflation and high nominal GDP growth. So I think that's to me is actually quite essential if we're ever going to get the debt to GDP levels down to a more sensible level is that you kind of need nominal GDP to be in the region of 5% to be able to deflate that data away. But I do like your thought process around this kind of rolling recession concept that we never quite have a deep recession because we can't afford one and Central Banks have got the tools ready to go whenever there is a threat of that happening to ensure we don't have one. So we have these rolling mini cycles and the old age or the old age days of looking at big cycles and going long commodities, short commodities is based on the cycle is gone. And probably why investors are probably so fully on growth investing these days because it's the only thing that kind of works in that kind of rolling recession environment.

Chris Senyek:
Yeah, no, indeed. And that's why we started, I think in and after the great crisis when we saw the energy downturn in 16 and 17, you didn't see a downturn in the service-based economy. It was an industrial recession. COVID created its own set of obviously issues, but we didn't really have a consumer recession there, oddly enough, because of all the stimulus. And then if you think about the downturn that was starting to persist in 2022, it was arrested by policy actions and then you had the AI with Nvidia in May of 2022 and then it sort of 23 and that it sort of just added another late to cycle. Meanwhile, if you look at things like real car volumes, they're down for two and a half years.

It's still, housing is in its own mini downturn. Existing home sales are 75% of the normalised level because of the lock in effect where US homeowners have three and a half or 4% mortgage for 30 years and aren't going to move. Right? Autos have been fits and starts. And so those groups, those earlier cycle groups have been in a recession arguably for maybe two, three years, even analogue semiconductors. So we over consume goods during and after COVID, we overbuilt inventories and then we had the hangover and media thought maybe that would end earlier this year. And because of some of the tariff and policy actions and uncertainty, it's actually persisted and of the mindset that perhaps 2026 is another re-acceleration of that goods industrial earlier cycle environment, not only in the US but around the world. Maybe we end up having an energy downturn or something else. We'll see. Its energy's really interesting what's going on now with rig counts and so forth.

Moz Afzal:
Yeah, no, absolutely.

Chris Senyek:
But yeah, I don't think the concept in many recessions is going to go away. I think some of its stimulus induced and some of it's just policy induced and like you said, it's not a secret that we need high nominal growth not everywhere globally to get out of that cycle. If there's one way to do it and someone added inflation wouldn't hurt. And that's to your point, why growth stocks, which generally are stocks that have pricing power where there's demand continue to be just a very dominant force in the market. One of the most common questions we often receive in meetings, which is frankly a source of frustration for some active managers is the concentration in the S&P, right? And you have the top five companies comprising about 26% of the overall index, but there's a reason for that because if you look at some of the cheapest stocks in the market, there are stocks that need a cyclical upturn or some kind of re-acceleration growth and they just haven't had it. Arguably too, when you're in, I don't even call it a Japan environment where you have zombie companies, but there's some zombie companies when you don't have recessions, you have companies that are in existence that probably shouldn't be right. And we see it in the retail world that there's retailers stores that I don't know anyone that's been in for 10 or 15 years that are still in existence and probably we will continue to be.

Moz Afzal:
Yeah, yeah, no, it very we'll come back to that theme in a second, but what are the catalysts you're looking for to get out of this late cycle deceleration phase that you call it to the early cycle? What are the three or four things that you're looking for catalyst to get us there?

Chris Senyek:
So we divide the cycle in the six phases sequentially. We're in phase five out of six now, and when you're in phase five, half the time you go into a recession, half the time you shift back to the first half of the cycle. And so we think a lot about catalyst that shift us one way or the other. Now if we're sitting here in a little bit lower growth environment with uncertainty and some exogenous shock happens, we had COVID in 2020 doesn't need to be like that. Anything else, it can easily tip you into recession and you can look at that back in 18 and 19 things were slowing. It's like we were in this same phase, phase five and then we had COVID, but it could have been anything else. So what shifts us back, and we are positive on the economy, we're positive on the cycle.

I'm not so positive on valuations, but I think we're in this trade, which one is tariff certainty. So even if, and we think the average effective tariff will end up being somewhere in the low teens when all the dust settles. If companies know what the rules are, they can plan accordingly in terms of pricing or eating end margins or pushing back suppliers, knowing what the rules are with that will be helpful. I think we'll find more about that over the coming quarter or two. I think China's going to be slower, but there's some progress being made there. So one is having more clarity on tariffs, then companies will unfreeze their spending plans just as companies don't really want to fire employees now because of tariffs, they don't necessarily want to hire a lot either. Right? Same thing with capital expenditures. So companies that are impacted by this are very, for us, two is the tax reconciliation bill that's going through Congress right now.

We expect that tax reconciliation bill, which is in Senate now, and we should get some more details on that over the coming weeks, will pass by the August recess. If the tax bill passes by the August recess, there's some key provisions and they're on the corporate side. There's some incremental consumer stimulus that could start hitting in the fourth quarter and will certainly create a bigger stimulus to effect probably by 40 bps of GDP for next year in 26. That should shift us next year earlier in the cycle for that. And then third reason, which is related to tax and or tariffs is that that causes corporate confidence, capital spending to pick up as companies have some tax benefits on the capital spending side and also have more certainty with respect to tariffs. So those are the positive JOLTs. We're getting an added bonus call it.

Number three would be if we start to see the Fed either cut rates, which consensus, assuming they're going to two cuts right now, or financial conditions, which is really the means by which Fed policy influences economy continue to loosen. So we like to actually look more at financial conditions and we look at the Chicago Fed, which has 105 different indicators, and I think it's a very good broad number, which comes out weekly as a better barometer for where the economy's headed because incorporates Fed policy, the Fed in my mind is backward looking data dependent and two year yield will tell you more about where the Fed is going to go than what the Fed funds futures or the Fed itself. Well, right, because they're following where things have been. So if we get a further loose of financial conditions that either is caused by the Fed cutting or some other variables, tax policy tariff, certainly then that too could be a catalyst. But again, I think these are things that shift us earlier, late this year or next year. So I'm much more confident that next year we have an earlier cycle environment than we do this year. I think we're just kind of bouncing around for the remainder of this year until we get some of those take place.

Moz Afzal:
Have you looked at the dollar impact? So obviously the dollar's been a lot weaker so far this year and on a year on year basis that hits mostly in the September October level. Is that a concern when you're thinking about your earnings numbers given? Certainly year on year impacts the dollars depreciated say certainly by I guess November, December by about 10% or so.

Chris Senyek:
Yeah, it could take a couple dollars off S&P earnings. So that's why I feel good about being $5 below consensus at 260 for this year because there's some puts and takes with currency to be clear, I think the US dollar is in a structural decline here. It's not going to happen overnight, but all pass lead to that based on policy, global trade and so forth. So we're going to have these rips higher and volatility around it, but I think we're in the structurally weaker dollar period for many years, and I think that's part of probably the plan and an intended consequence. And you can see that at least under this administration, even though they won't probably readily admit that. So I do expect further dollar weakness as we get into the fall and year end.

Moz Afzal:
Yeah, no, we certainly share that view. I think longer term we do think that in that zone, just circle back a little bit on the tax bill. Let's assume it passes with some minor amendments from here. What kind of impact do you see that having on those certain sectors and earnings bonus depreciation you talked about, which could certainly help the industrial sector quite a bit, but what are your thoughts around that?

Chris Senyek:
Yeah, so there's really two key provisions in the corporate bill, which I don't think get, I think we'll pass and won't get. There's not really much controversy on, so it's going to a hundred percent expensing for US-based CapEx, and that would include structures, so manufacturing facilities and the like, which is new. Those previously have to be depreciated over 39 years. That's one of the reasons I think if reshoring is going to be a theme, this is the greatest chance of it occurring because it's just a tax incentives where you can build a new factory and fully depreciate in year one and everything inside it. That's as big a tax set as you're going to get.

And then the second is full expensing of US-based R&D, today you have to capitalise R&D and amortise it over five years. So those two incentives aren't going to have an impact on gap earnings because they're temporary items. They're going to have an impact on cash flow. And so companies will have better cashflow later this year as a result of these provisions depending upon their capital intensity and their R&D intensity, it does benefit some of the big industrial companies that do a lot of US-based CapEx. It's in the US and also some pharma companies. Not every pharma company you have to do a lot of pharma companies that do. A lot of US based R&D are also going to be relative winners. And then we recently launched a reshoring thematic stock basket because I think that the reshoring is going to be a theme.

I was skeptical, frankly, I was on it in some of these past iterations, the CHIPS act, which was going to be relatively small, Intel still can't finish building their plan in Ohio. Feels like it's going to take forever. But the tax incentives I do think make it different. I think restoring is going to be a big theme. I was skeptical, but I think it's going to finally happen because of the tariff fall on the one side and then you have the tax incentives for the next four years on the other side of it. But again, the tax itself is not, has really no ongoing impact to gap earnings. It's a cashflow.

Moz Afzal:
And I think that obviously also fits in with an early cycle development in 2026 and beyond. So that certainly fits in your thinking. I just want to circle back to read recently didn't get a chance to attend unfortunately, is your activism conference, which is the first one that I've seen. I can't recall ever seeing anything like that before. In terms of a specific topic around that. Obviously people talk about activism as a theme for many, many years, but in the environment where you alluded to it a little bit earlier in terms of zombie companies have been surviving just about in this environment where quite frankly they should have been taken over or completely eradicated. What are your thoughts? Why now? Why is this a particularly interesting time for activism?

Chris Senyek:
Yeah, I think we're in the golden age of activism and special situations. If you think about activism, where it started yet, I think of the eighties and barbarians at the gate and Carl Icahn and RJR and all this crazy stuff, and they're great movies and shows on Netflix, but it's matured and it's becoming an area where in the past activists just focused on smaller mid companies and I think they'll continue to, right? And there's a lot of, as you mentioned, there's a lot of companies frankly that have been SMID cap type companies where management's making a lot of money. They like to continue to make a lot of money and not lose their jobs, but they aren't creating a lot of shareholder value. And some of the times the answer might be that you should really sell the company to a larger one, but managements don't want to do that because they're going to lose their jobs.

And then what's also happened is that activists are now targeting much bigger companies and they're able to do it with not buying enormous stakes. And so I think just activism becoming a little bit more of mature area, funds themselves getting bigger and broader has caused this to be a real dominant theme. I wanted to do this activist conference in New York for many years and frankly being at an independent research shop like Wolfe Research allows us to do that because no big bank would ever allow it because it would really anger their corporate clients. We had a fascinating day of panels, right? And activists. So some of the key takeaways were that activists don't need to build big stakes to target companies. So no company is safe. You saw that where there's in the press, Elliot's targeting bp, they targeted PSX. Elliot ran a very successful campaign for Honeywell to break up.

So Honeywell is a huge industrial company that does a few different things and wasn't maybe unlocking value the way it should have. And Elliot helped nudge it. So we had a conversation at the conference of constructivism versus activism. So constructivism is what a lot of funds do. They give feedback to management and what they should and shouldn't be doing. And sometimes management ignores that or the board does. And then it ultimately goes to full scale activism and strategies. The other wrinkle in it that's causing some angst to activists and their advisors is the rise of passive funds. So many of these larger across the market and not even that passive funds are causing it to be more difficult for activism. So perversely, as more money shifts into passives, overactive, it causes there to be less efficiency, in my view in the markets and causes there to be actually more entrenchment management because if your stock is zoned by 50% of passive funds, passive funds generally will tend to side more with the company.

If it goes to a shareholder vote, a proxy vote for activism than with the activist itself. And they have to be more careful, be more strategic, be more surgical in targeting companies because of the influence of activists or sorry, because the influence of passive holders because they just, again, how they vote is differently than an active manager. And not to say that they're voting wrong, but they just don't. They rely on recommendations from other firms and don't do all the diligence work that an active manager would do. So I would say no company, any size is safe anymore from that and the funds have gotten bigger. It's a matured industry and you're going to see a lot more of it I think going forward because you've got these growth companies which have these very high valuations on the one side, and then you have a lot of other companies, which the stock prices have been flat for a few years. And if we're in this trading range where you don't break out to the upside because of valuations, activists often look for companies that have been underperforming for the last three to five years and might have a sleepy board. So it was a great conference, we learned a lot. There's a lot of takeaways from it. They're doing the right things, they're targeting the right things.

And companies again would never see an activist targeting a hundred billion market cap company in the past. And now that's fair game.

Moz Afzal:
Yeah, it's absolutely fascinating. Any specific sectors that are particularly targets or it's all is game?

Chris Senyek:
No, I think they like healthcare. Intech software is always an area where I think it's understandable and sometimes company, it's easy to push for a sale of a software company to a bigger software company within Intech, some consumer more in the staples side where you have a lot, something's going to have to happen with, there's four or five stocks in the staples sector, Costco, Walmart, Philip Morris, P&G that are driving all the returns. And then you have a whole other group of staples companies that are trading at 13, 14, 15 times earnings that aren't growing volumes. Earnings are flat, something's going to happen right at some point. So I think staples are stable, understandable, discretionary is harder. I think activists, the one takeaway from conference was that you have to tread very carefully in consumer discretionary because some of these businesses may be value traps and have just a lot of structural issues, maybe even melting ice cube. So I'd say healthcare and tech and staples are the big ones. Industrials have been a bit over. I think they've kind of poured through a lot of industrials and now they're even targeting energy, which is new. You didn't see that much energy before. But I think energy because they can hedge out some of the macro exposures. I think activists are looking at energy companies and that's new. We haven't seen that in scales that we've seen in a while.

Moz Afzal:
No, it's absolutely fascinating. I'm sure over the coming months and years, this is certainly going to be an area of focus. And I tend to agree with, you tend to be more stable sectors though the healthcare staples are probably ripened. Some of the big ones like 3G and so on so forth have been relatively quiet, although there have been slightly more activists recently. But it'd be quite interesting to see how they come back. And of course Warren Buffet, the ultimate activist sitting on a lot of cash at the moment, that is at some point going to burn a hole in his balance sheet. So it'd be quite interesting to see how that plays out.

Chris Senyek:
Yeah, no, definitely. Like I said, you're seeing brands also matter. So you saw some activism in Starbucks, you've seen Chipotle a while ago. So there's a good solid brand that just tends to be out of favour that they also target those as well.

Moz Afzal:
Yeah, no, absolutely. So we are drawing to a close. Chris, any, I guess the last word from you, any sort of what is your biggest worry at the moment with respect to markets? Is it a tariff? Is it the debt deficit? If there's one you really had to pick up that's maybe not so much in the mainstream media, what would it be?

Chris Senyek:
I think it's the complacency with interest rates on the long end that we become hinged and that if you go back over a long period of time, we're an environment where it's inflation rates that the genie of the inflation's out of the bottle and the tariffs only going to be a further accelerate to inflation. And so I think markets are very comfortable with interest rates and assume that, for example, the US tenure is going to be between 4 and 5%, and that can lead to a multiple for the S&P of being between 21 and 22 times. But we all know the math that if the tenure goes above five and on a more chart technical basis, that once you're slightly above five. So I think there's a lot of complacency with rates and inflation, and we're passing a physical tax bill that's going to add stimulus next year to the consumer. Do we really need to do that? Maybe not? Right. And that's on a much smaller scale than what they did during COVID, but we might look back in 6 months or 12 months and say, geez, did we really need to pour more juice onto economy? That was doing relatively fine. So I worry about rates and inflation. That's not anything new, but just because of the debt levels today, I think that we're hypersensitive to rates, particularly obviously the US government.

Moz Afzal:
The bond vigilantes are well and truly out there. They're back.

Chris Senyek:
That's what we said in our note recently that they're lurking out there and that's why we're watching these treasury auctions, right? We've seen some signs of it. That's some of the early signs that you have. And then currencies, a weak dollar, all these things start to interplay with each other.

Moz Afzal:
Yeah, absolutely. Yeah.

Chris Senyek:
And we're trading expensive valuations to start. That's the risk, right?

Moz Afzal:
Yeah. I guess those rolling recessions mean you never do get a valuation reset.

Chris Senyek:
Yeah. Yeah. Well that's the byproduct of that too.

Moz Afzal:
Yeah, absolutely. Well, Chris, listen, thank you very much for spending the time with us. It was very interesting, fascinating as always, always something new. We are learning now, it's about activism. So thanks, appreciate your work and hope to have you again on the podcast soon.

Chris Senyek:
Yeah, thanks a lot. That was really appreciate as always, great chatting with you and happy to be back on again.

Moz Afzal:
Great. So that wraps us up for today on Beyond the Benchmark, and listen to us again very soon. Thank you.

This podcast is provided for general information only and assumes a certain level of knowledge of financial markets. It is provided for informational purposes only and should not be considered as an offer investment recommendation or solicitation to deal in any of the investments or products mentioned herein and does not constitute investment research. The views this podcast are those of the contributors at the time of publication and do not necessarily reflect those of EFG international or new capital. The companies discussed in this podcast have been selected for illustrative purposes only, or to demonstrate our investment management style and not as an investment recommendation or indication of their future performance. The value of investments and the income from them can go down as well as up, and investors may get back less than the amount invested. Past performance is not a guide to future returns, return projections or estimates, and provides no guarantee of future results.