Podcast - November 28, 2023
The hosts discuss various financial topics in this episode of the Barenaked Money podcast. They talk about the possibility of Canada experiencing a recession and whether the recent negative GDP growth could end the recession cycle. They also discuss the performance of bonds and stocks in the next five years, the unpredictability of geopolitical events, and their impact on investments. The hosts emphasize the importance of not trying to predict the future and instead planning for multiple futures and investment outcomes. They also highlight the need for investors to have a diversified portfolio and not make hasty decisions based on news events.
Transcript is automatically generated
Announcer (00:00):
You are about to get lucky with the Barenaked Money Podcast, the show that gives you the naked truth about personal finance. With your hosts, Josh Sheluk and Colin White Portfolio Managers with Verecan Capital Management, Inc.
Colin White (00:14):
Welcome to the next episode of Barenaked Money, where we get naked and talk about money, at least figuratively speaking. Anyway, had Josh and Colin coming at you this week, it’s been while since Josh and I have recorded together, so it’s going to be extra special. We have all kinds of extra things saved up, right, Josh?
Josh Sheluk (00:34):
You got it. We’ve been taking a couple months off just banking up extra special things for the audience. So
Colin White (00:41):
We’re coming back here. Josh. Josh has come back with the five key stories that everybody needs to know about right now and what our fresh take is on them. Right. These are the top five stories. That’s what you picked, Josh?
Josh Sheluk (00:52):
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Something like that. Top five stories in our mind, that’s for sure. Oh, okay. Yeah, you might see the audience, or sorry, the media take a different take on what the top five stories are, but as we do, we take our own unique take on things. So these are our top five.
Colin White (01:08):
Well, there is some meat upon the bone as it were.
Josh Sheluk (01:12):
Yeah, yeah, no doubt. So I’m going to hit you right off the bat. Colon with a good one. So as we’ve been talking about, there’s been two consecutive quarters of negative GDP in Canada marginally. So just negative. But my question for you is, is it possible that we’ve just experienced the recession? The recession for this cycle and in this technical recession and that we just returned to growth from here? Just negative now. So could we go back to growth?
Colin White (01:49):
Well, the answer is yeah, we could. Now the technical recession you’re referring to, which is something we’ve chatted about, isn’t the margin of there we could call this a recession and then 18 months have these numbers restated realize that it really wasn’t a recession, but have we seen a slowdown? Yeah, and waiting for a slowdown. That’s why be did that. Is this slowdown sufficient enough? I don’t think that the label of being a recession and non-res is as valuable as to, was it enough? It was slow down or not enough will slow because that’s what we’re looking for. We’re looking for things to slow down to a point. We think they’re sustainable. Well, the whole point of what we’re going through right now is trying to slow the economy down to a sustainable base. It’s called tapping the brakes, if you will. So have we tapped the brakes well enough to allow growth to resume? When you say growth resume, what do you think normal growth should be? Josh, what growth do you think when we get to resume growth, what does resuming growth look like to you?
Josh Sheluk (02:52):
Well, I guess we could talk all day about what the right amount of growth is. I guess the sense of the question is just do we get back to positive from here?
Colin White (03:02):
I think there’s a possibility that we could. Now, the problem in Canada specifically is the consumer debt situation and more specifically mortgages with regards to that. Now, right now it’s set to be an apocalyptic couple of years as a bunch of these mortgages come due, and if everything else remains constant, it’s going to be pretty painful. Now we see enough of a slowdown that central bank policy begins to reverse and that is reflected in an easing further at the yield curve, and these renewals are not as bad as we think they’re going to be right now. If I think there was six ifs there in a row, if that all lines up, then we could be just fine on its current trajectory. If that doesn’t change, I still see that as a really major risk because broke people at people who are in bankruptcy don’t buy much stuff.
Josh Sheluk (03:59):
So that’s all fair. This isn’t one of my five questions, but I have another question for you. So I’m cheating a bit here. Have we even seen a recession? Is this really what a recession is?
Colin White (04:14):
Again, the challenge with, we haven’t seen it reflected in the jobs numbers, and that’s the part that people will most talk about. Most feel it has the biggest impacts or big direct impacts on just people in general, absent it being reflected in jobs S, it hast seemed like it. Does that mean that we haven’t actually slowed the economy? No. We may have slowed it without going through as much jobs paying as would normally have been expected, and it could have been that we had such a great number of available jobs when this started, that the actual, again, I haven’t checked the numbers for a number of unfilled positions that came very close to equaling the number of people looking for work within the last 18 months. I haven’t checked to see, but it could be that we just have a more reasonable number of jobs unfilled now than we did go back 18 months or two years. So it may have fixed itself without having as much of a, in your face people kind of impact that we would normally expect to see when the economy is slowed down.
Josh Sheluk (05:25):
Yeah, you said it certainly doesn’t feel like we’ve gone through a recession. To me, and a big part of that is the unemployment. I think too.
Colin White (05:35):
I think a big part of it too is it’s been made into this big boogie monster. We’re going to have a recession and your nose is going to fall off your face and you won’t be able to see, and it’s this big hairy monster that, and we haven’t seen a big hairy thing. I think to a certain extent the recession may have marketing, the recession has been oversold and it hasn’t lived hype. Therefore people are going, nah, that wasn’t such a big deal. So it could be that whole expectations game that we keep coming back to the expectations game. It wasn’t as bad as people expected it might be. I mean, gas prices have come down, oil prices are reasonable. There’s lots of other things that are very much in reasonable range. The one exception is still what’s happening with more materials.
Josh Sheluk (06:19):
Yeah, yeah, that’s right. So here’s question one B or one Z or I don’t know what number, but who’s counting it? It’s our podcast. We can do whatever we want,
Colin White (06:29):
Right?
Josh Sheluk (06:30):
Is it possible that the bear market that we experienced last year and we did see a 20% correction in global stock market, is it possible that that was it for this cycle that sort of preceded the recession that we’re seeing and we continue to hit new highs over the next few years from here on actual investment market?
Colin White (06:52):
Are we ever going to retrie the lows that we saw? No, it’s really tough to say. Like I said, I think we have a few more things that have to play out this. I think it’s reasonable to expect that we were anticipating a recession. It may or may not have happened. We may or may not need one. Now, I don’t think that there’s the same belief that we need a recession at this point. I think early on in this correction cycle, the impression was we need to see a major recession in order for this to write itself. I’m not reading that now. I’m not seeing that prevailing wisdom, if you will, for what it’s going. So yeah, could we slowly tremble upwards from here? That absolutely I think is possible, but it’s again, and I’ve said it before and I think more people are saying now this is what a soft landing might feel like.
(07:41):
We hold it out to something. It would be so nice to have a soft landing. No, it’s just really uncomfortable because you don’t afraid you’re going to haul more like you kind of hit the ground. You kind of think everything’s okay, but it’s just really it. And I think that it’s almost more uncomfortable than if we had had a full blown recession and we saw unemployment go to eight or 9% and we saw all the stuff that you thought we were going to see and we were on the other side. This is almost a little freakier. It’s almost like you’re in your house. If somebody came home late and they’re trying to sneak in the house and by sneaking into the house, you can’t really tell somebody came in the house. So they make little noises and you think those little noises could be something bigger and they’re not. If they had just walked into the house and made the full amount of noise and you knew it was over, see you’d be fine. But it’s the little squeaky noise. It’s like, what was that? Is that a thing? Do we want to pay attention? And in fact, that’s how it looks to me.
Josh Sheluk (08:32):
Well, yeah, it’s almost like you’re more suspicious. You’re sneaking into the house. If it was me a teenager coming home and you’re sneaking into the house trying not to make any sounds as I’m turning the key in the door. Exactly. You as a parent are like, what the hell is going on? Something’s going on here. Whereas if you just came into the house normally and made normal sounds, you’d probably go back to sleep and not think a second of it.
Colin White (08:56):
I really think that’s kind of what we’re going through. I think that that just descended right now that way of explaining it. But that’s exactly how I think it feels. Is this over? Is that the last, is there going to be another noise, right?
Josh Sheluk (09:10):
Yeah. So it’s funny you mentioned we maybe don’t need to have the recession that we thought we needed to have last year perhaps, and this was really all a story of inflation. So we needed to have an inflation, what we needed to bring inflation under control. So that feeds into my next question quite well. This is question number two for those track, what was inflation? In fact, transitory?
Colin White (09:44):
Well, it’s a yes no question. I’ll say yes, but not only the fine transitory. Transitory over six months, six years, 60 years in the long run, everything is transitory. This is where people try to put labels on things. So we saw this happen. We saw the global shutdown, we saw onshoring, we saw all of the just in case manufacturing instead of just in time. We saw all of these fundamental changes to the system based on the shop to the system, and we saw ridiculous. Sorry, ridiculous might be a stretch. We saw accommodative monetary strategist throughout the world that just
Josh Sheluk (10:24):
Borderline ridiculous. We can say they’re border bordering on ridicule. I think so.
Colin White (10:30):
I think they might’ve been right at the time when the whole world is panicked and everybody needs a hug. Maybe it needed to happen, right? That’s all I’m going to say. But on top of everything else, it was kind of in hindsight, it’s easy to say this with hindsight. It was inevitable you were going to see about inflation. So to the extent the monetary policy contributed to that, this change of monetary policy should be contributing to pix it. So monetary policy, a definition is transitory, right?
Josh Sheluk (11:02):
Well, yeah, I got to call you out. I think you just fell into the hindsight bias trap saying that inflation was inevitable because look, we could have looked back at all of the monetary policy and fiscal policy over the last 15 years and said that it was apparently inflationary, but it took so long and it really was that covid policy that nudged things finally into an inflationary stance. So I don’t think it was inevitable. Maybe it was, but we will never know.
Colin White (11:32):
Think again. I was reading on a backward looking piece and they were talking about back in 2008 whens effectively went to zero and then stayed there all the time, the whole time everybody was looking and kind of waiting for any kind of inflation show up
(11:49):
Because it’s hard to give monetary just because you want to be responsible, that doesn’t get you very many votes. So there was probably somebody somewhere in the room was watching for any side of a place to kick in and it never showed up for whatever combinations or reasons. So whether that was an lasting band that was getting stretched or whether it was something that was building up and then it manifested itself, and again, the pandemic was the unlocker of the whole box of Ted inflation. Again, I’ve think this is something that they’re going to teach courses on at universities when as it plays out. I think it’s a amazingly nuanced thing. Were parents of a transitory, were some of the drivers transitory for sure. Some of the stuff, the lockdowns during the pandemic, some of those actual policies both within the country and internationally were absolutely contributing to this. And those policies went away, aired out spac, they were transitory the effect, the external of a whole bunch of other things own,
Josh Sheluk (12:59):
Yeah. The rhetorical question you asked back at the start of that commentary I think is the relevant one is what is transitory? How short does a time period need to be for it to be transitory? And it comes back to the same thing when you make a change in an investment portfolio, for example, or somebody calls for a bear market or a recession. At some point, yes, there is going to be a bear market, there is going to be a recession, but at some point you’re too early for it to be really a right call. So I don’t know for me, was it transitory? Probably not. I think it stuck around a little bit longer and it was a little bit more impactful than we could call it transitory. But if you’ll look back 10 years from now in this period of time and look at the inflation data, it was what, 18 months when it was pretty highly elevated? You probably would look back at that with no context on the time and say, yeah, that was just transitory. It was just a blip. So we’ll
Colin White (14:02):
See. I think it also depends on how you define the word. I think Tiff Mackin would define the word as not my fault and I don’t do anything about it. I think that’s how he was using the word. This inflation thing is transferring meaning it wasn’t my fault and I don’t have to fix it, and which he eventually changed his mind.
Josh Sheluk (14:20):
Yeah, well newsflash tiff, it might not be your fault, but you do have to fix it.
Colin White (14:26):
It’s not your fault, but it is your responsibility.
Josh Sheluk (14:28):
Yeah, it’s not your fault, but it is your problem.
Colin White (14:31):
Yeah, exactly. Welcome to be in the Paris. Yeah.
Josh Sheluk (14:36):
Okay, so my third one here feeds into both those first two questions. Are bonds a better investment than stocks for the next five years?
Colin White (14:46):
Steve, you want the soundbite? You want the 10 word answer? Well, it depends. What are you trying to get done? It’s about, if you’re talking about pure growth as far as on a risk adjusted basis, is it reasonable to expect they’re going to be way healthier than they were? That’s my expectation. They’re way healthier than they were, but the stock market’s also trading below peak. It’s got room to go get back to where it was, and if we do feel that we don’t need a recession anymore, that begins to pan out and the stock market could also take off. But if we keep elevated interest rates that the longer end of the curve, the bond market is going to be more of a competitive for capital than the equity market is used to. So it could become a self joint prophecy a little bit. It goes, can we start see stronger returns in bonds that’s going do not actually put a bit of a cap on sectors and stock market. You don’t see pressure as hardly anymore. All the interest rate sensitive stuff is going to struggle as that headwind, if that remains. Sure. It’s almost a self. I think I’m happier and we internally have more of a leading at fixed income than I’m happier with fixed income than I have been in 15 years as an asset class as far as having a reasonable expectation from this point forward that you can maintain ly power using a fixed income portfolio. I think we’re back to more normal investment types.
Josh Sheluk (16:20):
Yeah, interesting. It makes sense that you’re happier than in 15 years because interest rates are higher than they’ve been over that 15 year period of time. Really
Colin White (16:28):
There’s an alternative, right? If the blog title was, again, I’ve sat there and you’ve sat through presentations where people try to convince us that balanced to mutual funds are actually bonded and we twist ourselves into a pretzel because the bond market is so shitty. Well, if we do X, Y, and Z and well, that’s not a bond. It’s like, well, yes, but it could bond like returns. I’ve stopped seeing those presentations over the last little while, so that makes my head a little bit happier. So it’s a bit more traditional from that perspective. And with the expectation, I think a realistic expectation, we do tend to swing the pendulum on either side that we could see a period of decreasing sometime in the next number of years that adds additional fuel or expectations into a portfolio that you could actually see some capital appreciation as well. So I think that’s a real possibility that again, we haven’t seen it in horizon.
Josh Sheluk (17:23):
Yeah, that’s kind of where I was coming from with the question is if you see interest rates pull back a little bit, then you give a little bit more juice potentially to the bond side of the portfolio. And with interest rates on government bonds in the four and a half ish percent range and a bit of a spread to corporate bonds, and you could easily see 5, 6, 7, maybe percent recurrence over five years, maybe not easily seven, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility at this point. If you think that equity markets are maybe a little bit on the high side of valuations, maybe their returns there are a little bit lower over the next five years. So it’s possible. Possible. It’s not impossible, but certainly for me, I’d still stick with the probability that equities are going to do better over the five years just because that tends to be what happens.
Colin White (18:21):
Echo question, can I echo a question back at you?
Josh Sheluk (18:24):
I’ll allow it.
Colin White (18:26):
Thank you. We have apparently experienced an increased correlation between equities and bonds over the last number of years. Is this something that we’re going to continue to experience or are we going to get back to having it be more valuable as a diversifier that maybe has been for the last eight, 10 years?
Josh Sheluk (18:51):
I would go with this side of, again, historically pendency wise, they tend to be a bit better diversifier than they have been over the last couple of years for sure. So I would expect to get back to that. Now that interest rates again have come up a little bit, but it’s not unusual to see bonds and stocks have a slightly positive correlation. So we did go through a long period of time there and sort of the two thousands and 2010s where the correlation was slightly negative between the two, so they acted as better diverse buyers. But we have gone through long stretches historically where there are slightly positive correlations as well. So I think they will be better, especially when you look at last year, 2022 was just a terrible year for both stocks and bonds, which is highly, highly unusual. So I don’t think that that’s going to be the norm going forward. I don’t think we’ve established a new precedent or a new trend or anything there. I think that they will be better diversifiers on that going forward, but maybe not as good as they have been over the last 20 years on aggregate.
Colin White (20:04):
Well, yeah, I guess maybe with bond have gone as low as they went, they were not behaving in a similar way to maybe what they once were. So maybe that’s it. Maybe this is just moving back to having things get into more of a normal place. We can see some of that stuff come back.
Josh Sheluk (20:22):
Yeah, I think anytime you see interest rates go up 5% over the course of a pretty short period of time, that’s going to be a tough market for bonds without a doubt and highly likely to be a tough market for stocks as well. So that would be a potential timeframe where the diversification aspect is not going to be there again. But still, I still wouldn’t expect us to go back to 2022 scenario where both are down. I think bonds last year were down 12, 13% and stocks globally were down 20 or so at one point throughout the year. So I’d be surprised if that type of environment occurred yet per calendar.
Colin White (21:09):
You have my permission for question four or question beta or the triangle question or however you’re going to bring it.
Josh Sheluk (21:16):
Okay. Is oil being down when there is this really significant war going on in the Middle East? Is it the most unpredictable financial story of the year?
Colin White (21:30):
Well, wow, that’s a high bar. If you were going to say is an odd story. Yes. Is it the most odd? Well, bitcoin’s a thing again, I find. Isn’t that odd? I don’t know.
Josh Sheluk (21:43):
Okay, so let’s take those two. What’s more surprising to you that oil would be down in based of Middle East conflict in actual war or that Bitcoin is at whatever, 38,000 or whatever? It’s
Colin White (21:57):
I think on a rational, because oil, I was just going to say oil behaves more rationally and then I checked myself. No, it really doesn’t.
Josh Sheluk (22:06):
No, it does. I think that’s true also
Colin White (22:09):
More ly than Bitcoin,
Josh Sheluk (22:12):
Relatively speaking to that. Okay,
Colin White (22:13):
Yeah, yeah. Compared to Bitcoin oil is rational. But no, it is surprising for sure that we are going through this time of halt is so many ways that seem to be sitting right on the doorstep of all of the oil producing nations with the potential to disrupt all kinds of things, and we’re not seeing a market react to that. Now, it could be that the whole Russia, Ukraine thing I was reading recently where Russia is actually agreeing to ship gas and things, again, it could be that they recognize there is a recognition that this global stripes, there’s still a fundamental underlying self-interest in maintaining oil markets. Nobody’s going to put themselves in a business issue where they’re not taking in revenue is seeming to be where we have got. So maybe the expectation is that, yeah, you got to go the war you want, but in order to fund all these wars, they’re going to have to keep selling oil maybe how it’s being looked at. But I would think that is certainly short term because man, the short-term oil market has been some of the more knee jerkier markets that’ve seen over time. Anything that allows the pricing of commodity to go negative, it must have moments of being disconnected from reality for shore. So yeah, that probably would rank as one of the more fundamental big surprises that gold didn’t go to $5,000. Now it’s as many of them things told me I was going to, so that’s another one that hasn’t.
Josh Sheluk (23:48):
What kind of friend do you have?
Colin White (23:51):
I try to keep my mind open to all different points to do because every once in a while they say something smart.
Josh Sheluk (23:55):
Yeah. It’s just if you give people the facts ahead of time, Israel and Palestinian state are going to be in a major conflict. Iraq’s going to be involved in some way, shape or form Lebanon
Colin White (24:11):
Lebanon’s because there’s stuff going on over the border like Lebanon’s
Josh Sheluk (24:14):
Rockets. Yeah, Egypt now has some stuff going on. So that whole little circle is just that absolute chaos right now. And then oil is hitting four month lows last week. I don’t want to say it’s mind blowing. We expect stuff like this. We see stuff like this all the time when it comes to financial markets. But this would just, I would say if you said before I actually was able to observe the price of oil, what’s the percentage chance that oil is going to be up when you have a conflict like this? I’d say 90%.
Colin White (24:53):
You would’ve said a hundred.
Josh Sheluk (24:55):
No, pretty sure. I don’t think I would say there’s not too many things. I’d say a hundred percent of oil especially, but when it comes to this type of thing, but I dunno, 95, 98 maybe highly, highly, highly probable that oil would’ve been up. And it’s just what? It’s
Colin White (25:10):
Crazy. Well, this is the fundamental bedrock of how we manage money. There’s lots of stuff you don’t know, and trying to treat any of these as things that you can actually use as an investment thesis is just tragic. And I think what are the fundamental cornerstones of this whole podcast is to try to debunk some of the thinking that’s out there, some of the confidence to shine a light to say, Hey, listen, look closely at what just happened because it didn’t go the way you wanted. We’ve played the game before. It’s like, Hey, listen, tell you what I’m going to give you tomorrow’s newspaper and all of the news events that happened without the stock page, without the stock market’s reaction. I’m going to give it to you and I want you to tell me what happened in the stock market based on the news of the day. You know what we should do that we should blind ourselves what or the other us should just blind ourselves not read anything for a day. At the end of the day, have the other person present that and say, here are the top five headlines. Give me the market closes.
Josh Sheluk (26:12):
Yeah. Well, I’m glad you brought this up. It feeds into my next question and my next question. It’s a bigger picture question specific to geopolitics. So if we could predict geopolitical events with absolute certain, would we be able to achieve better investing outcome?
Colin White (26:31):
No. I could use more words but had no, I can think of half a dosing or more examples just off the top of head of major world events and major elections standing for Donald Trump becoming president to felt there was just a global pandemic hit. No, I could think of too many major events that were completely unpredictable when interaction net influences on global equity or fixed income markets. No, and this is why when I talk to people who you’re so confident about, obviously this is going to happen as soon as you say that the market’s probably already priced to dip. It’s so obvious it’s already in there, and you pointed out very eloquently this week in the conversation we were having internally, but it’s not guessing what’s going to happen next. It’s guessing what has the market priced in and then what it’s going to be reaction to a surprise one way or the other. That’s more interesting. Trying to gauge the overall expectations of the market thing called the marketing, and then understand how it’s going to react to surprises, positive value. I think that’s the more important calculation. But no, I’ve become completely, I completely do not believe a liability to read a news story and understand what the market reaction is going to be at any moment in time.
Josh Sheluk (28:05):
Yeah, I think you’re right in the sense that you can think of a lot of geopolitical events over the last five to seven years where it happened and you thought, or I thought that the market reaction was going to be one way and it went the complete opposite direction. I think that’s pretty easy to pick out. Those examples, like Trump being elected is in the quite obvious one. The market was down for literally an hour after he got elected, and then it was up from there. And then you could think of Brexit and then as we were talking about this conflict in the Middle East most recently, and it’s backed on oil and markets actually, quite frankly, because markets have been great for the most part since that invasion happened. But I still think that could we get, obviously give us the geopolitical event with perfect foresight. We are not going to be perfect on our prediction that our investment decisions going forward, but could we be better than we are without that foresight?
Colin White (29:13):
Oh, okay. I get it. I
Josh Sheluk (29:16):
Think could we be a little bit better? I have to think we could be a little bit better. See,
Colin White (29:21):
There it is. There it is. That’s what I was going to say. You have to live in a world where more information needs to better decision.
Josh Sheluk (29:29):
It’s not more information. It’s like a crystal ball. Well,
Colin White (29:32):
Exactly. More information with the future. It has to lead to better decision making. That’s the only world that Josh can exist in. A part of me needs to exist in that world too. I absolutely get the inclination. I’ve just been horribly disappointed. Too often that part of me has died a little bit, and I’ve come to accept case the sun’s going to come up tomorrow and we’re going to sign the way forward.
Josh Sheluk (30:00):
I’m with you. The fact that I’m even asking this question is really, really, it’s eyeopening in itself because if you ask anybody, you’re like, well, yeah, if I know what the future’s going to be, I’m going to know how to invest for, it’s like, ah, do. You might not.
Colin White (30:20):
Oh, that’s so cute. Buttercup here, I tell you what, let’s play a game. But no, I like the game I just came up with, I think that’s the future podcast one or the other most needs to go look at a Darko tent for a day or two or something. And then the other person just said, okay, whatever. Read, do the headlines. You tell me what happened.
Josh Sheluk (30:37):
Yeah, we should have done that. As you know, I was just away in Chile and I was in the mountains in Patagonia for three days with really no internet, so it wouldn’t have been hard for me to avoid, because the hard thing for us is trying to actually avoid any mention or semblance of what’s going on in the world for even 24 hours as we’re looking at phones and talking to other people in the business and all that stuff. But I like the idea. I like the idea because I think it can have some legs. It would be a lot of fun, and it would be very eyeopening for us, I think. Oh,
Colin White (31:13):
Okay. I’m going to make that.
Josh Sheluk (31:16):
So next time one of us is off the grid for a few days. Got to come back. First thing we do when you get back, go on the podcast and we’ll do this.
Colin White (31:27):
Yeah. Oh, absolutely. That would be entertaining. Yeah.
Josh Sheluk (31:31):
Good. Any more echo questions for me, Colin?
Colin White (31:35):
Nope. I said the best they can. I think there’s a recurring theme. I guess we’re trying to tie our storytelling to the current events and correct questions that are going out there, but underlie the whole thing is just since abandoning, abandoning to the chaos, because if you fight against that, you end up getting overconfident. They can really make big decisions. And for us to try to apply and point out where the chaos lies and turn against is kind of the whole point of this thing. Great job. We bring it forward some stories. So hopefully we’ve been able to shine a light to this to show that no, we don’t know anything about these things, but it’s okay going to be okay. Global economy is going to find it straightforward and sometimes it’s flood, everything.
Josh Sheluk (32:31):
Yeah. So for me, the investment takeaway is planned for multiple different futures and not only multiple different futures, but multiple different investment outcome based on multiple different futures
Colin White (32:44):
Instead of the infinities. Yeah, absolutely. And remember, the most important thing about being a successful investor is not blow it out. It’s not about finding them one right thing or the one right path or the best. Now it’s about not blowing it out. If you don’t blow it up, you’ll be fine.
Josh Sheluk (33:04):
Yeah. Going back to what I said, finding that one path that’s going to get you out of all of the different future. You just want to be on that one path that’s going to get you there at the end of the day. Cool.
Colin White (33:18):
Big finish.
Josh Sheluk (33:19):
Big finish. Well, we’re there and I think we’re going to be back consistently from here on out. Can you say that with Confidence Hall?
Colin White (33:28):
Absolutely. Notwithstanding, I’ve got to go play a mythical creature from another land for a little bit, but I’ll leave it at that
Josh Sheluk (33:37):
Tune in next time. We’ll tell you what he’s talking about.
Announcer (33:39):
If you’re breaking a sweat trying to figure out what your financial advisor’s talking about, you’re not getting the service you need. You probably hate trying to get an answer from them, but you also think moving your accounts will be a headache and it might be, but working with don’t rock the boat. Wealth planning.com or AU isn’t exactly stress free, is it? Call us. We will demystify the world for you.
Announcer (34:00):
Raan Capital Management Inc. Is a registered portfolio manager in all of Canada except Manitoba. So sorry, Manitoba. Nothing in this podcast should be considered as a solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell a particular security statements made by the portfolio. Managers are intended to illustrate their approach and are meant for in information and entertainment purposes only. They should not be construed as legal, tax, or accounting advice. This podcast has been prepared for information purposes only. The tax information provided in this podcast is general in nature, and each client should consult with their own tax advisor, accountant, and lawyer before pursuing any strategy described. As each client’s individual circumstances are unique. We’ve endeavored to ensure the accuracy of the information provided that the time that it was written. However, should the information in this podcast be incorrect or incomplete, or should the law or its interpretation change after the date of this document, the advice provided may be incorrect or inappropriate. There should be no expectation that the information will be updated, supplemented, or revised, whether as a result of new information, changing circumstances, future events, or otherwise, you’re not responsible for errors contained in this podcast or to anyone who relies on the information contained in this podcast, please consult your own legal and tax advisor.
