CoFounder & CIO
Roundhill Investments
Transcript
Speaking Logicly is brought to you by ETFLogic, the leading provider of analytics and portfolio analysis tools for financial advisors. No information with in this should be considered trading or investment advice.
Scott McKenna:
Hello, everyone and welcome back to Speaking Logicly. I’m Scott McKenna.
Emil Tarazi:
And I’m Emil Tarazi.
Scott McKenna:
Today we are joined by Tim Maloney of Roundhill Investments. Tim, thanks for coming on.
Tim Maloney:
Of course. Thanks for having me. I’m excited to be here.
Scott McKenna:
So Tim, for our audience that might not know much about Roundhill, why don’t you tell us a little bit about your role there and how you guys … how about the ETF marketplace?
Tim Maloney:
Sure. Thanks Scott. So Roundhill is ultimately an ETF advisor. We started the business, my partner Will and I, in 2018. The idea was really to focus on what we think is an underserved audience within the ETF space and to do that by focusing on a self-directed audience and reaching them on the channels that they’re on in a way that perhaps, some of the larger peers in the industry aren’t looking. I will say this, audience skews younger, but that’s more of a result of focusing on self-directive.
Tim Maloney:
All ages are welcome with our funds, obviously. So, and then as far as what our products, it looks like we have the NERD Esports and digital entertainment ETFs, the best sports betting and iGaming EFTs. There’s a third one under our umbrella. I think we’ll get a little more into a deep value ETF around tele-acquired deep value ETF. So that’s kind of a little bit about Roundhill where we’re currently a three-person team as of yesterday, with a fourth joining in a week or two and definitely have our sights set on continuing to create compelling fanatic products for this kind of underserved audience.
Scott McKenna:
That’s awesome and congratulations on reaching 100 million on bets as well. That’s really huge, especially how recently you launched.
Tim Maloney:
Thank you. We’re very excited about what we’ve seen there and I think frankly, it’s an indication of the excitement of the investing public about the opportunity in sports betting and more broadly, iGaming, as legalization comes online across the United States and frankly elsewhere.
Emil Tarazi:
So maybe you could tell me, walk me through kind of how you think about both video games and sports betting online. With the backdrop of this new economy and the pandemic that we’re living through people are at home and they need to be entertained. So in my view, both of these sort of themes have massive tones.
Tim Maloney:
Sure. So I’ll take what I think the easier one first which is the video game fund, the Esports fund. To your point, people are hungry for content. I think that, in a way, the lockdown and everything related to COVID has actually brought people back to gaming who maybe didn’t have the same time for it previously. We saw, right out of the gate, some of the more public and kind of faster disseminated data points around the industry, whether it’s the amount of people watching others play video game on streaming services or the amount of people actually playing and registering.
Tim Maloney:
We saw those numbers tick up materially and then kind of on the back end, now that we’re starting to get earnings from the companies involved in the gaming industry, we’re starting to see it feed through there. So I think sometimes you get lucky, I guess, in times like this. I certainly don’t mean to make light of what’s going on in the world, but for a gaming ETF, it’s a pretty good time to be in the market for the industry. The sports betting side is a little bit more nuanced because obviously, we didn’t have sports for a little while there. I think that as sports are coming back, that the trend is beginning to move in the right direction again.
Tim Maloney:
I do think that sports are going to continue to come back and even if we do see bumps in the road along the way, I don’t think anyone’s of the opinion that sports are going to go away in the longterm. The trend that I think is more important, frankly, underneath it with, as of 2018, it was no longer illegal at the federal level to the sports bet and now the states are kind of pushing the agenda across the country to legalize. I think that trend continues and continues to be really interesting moving forward, even more so in light of potential budget issues that the states are feeling as a result of COVID. So I think in both cases, there’s a story to tell there and we’re excited about both themes on both the short, medium and longer term.
Emil Tarazi:
Where do we stand today with, in terms of legalization for online betting, in terms of number of states that have passed laws allowing it?
Tim Maloney:
So the states typically will differentiate between sports betting and iGaming more broadly. So sports betting is kind of a part of the broader umbrella of iGaming, and I think there’s a, I’m certainly not a legal expert and I don’t want to get too far into the nuance there, but sports betting is moving more quickly than the broader iGaming umbrella. There’s various stages depending on where you look. So for example, New Jersey, we have legal sports betting, in New York, not yet, but the thesis there is that they’re going to be moving it forward so that people aren’t just crossing over the bridge or tunnel into Jersey just to place their bets as it were. So it’s a long-winded way of saying it really varies depending on what specifically you’re looking for, but the progress is certainly being made. I think it’s going to continue, is kind of my core thesis.
Scott McKenna:
I definitely think a lot of people agree with you on that. I know I do and ETF issuers as well. We’ve seen a bunch of thematic ETFs specifically come out around video gaming. I’m curious, how do you guys differentiate yourselves in that marketplace and in terms of your fund construction processes?
Tim Maloney:
Sure. So I think the key difference for our process more broadly against other sematic products is, we don’t go with the market cap weighted. We actually go with what we call kind of a tiered weight or a modified equal weight we’ve also called it or heard it referred to. What I mean by that is when we go through and look at the basket of companies involved in the space, whether if the space is Esports and digital entertainment or sports betting and iGaming, we look to weight companies with a higher weight at these quarterly rebalance if they’re more involved in the industry in question. So what you end up with is you could have a four or 500 million market cap company, that’s getting a 5% weight, assuming it’s sufficiently liquid, rather than the top five holdings being Apple, Amazon, Google and Nvidia.
Tim Maloney:
So the idea behind it is if you’re going to create a thematic product, it really should have the highest possible kind of correlation to the underlying industry. The way you get that is by weighting companies that are more exposed to the theme with a higher weighting. So at the highest level, that’s the idea where you end up shaking out in terms of exposure differences is really we don’t have the same exposure to those kinds of large cap tech space and historically as well, semiconductors, which are important to the gaming industry, but we think are less closely tied to the themes we’re looking at, which is really the Esports and digital entertainment, so more around the social component of gaming. So that, hopefully, is a good, higher level and more specific answer to your question.
Emil Tarazi:
Like Scott mentioned earlier, you hit 100 million in the bets ETF. How did you get there? I’m sure a lot of smaller issuers are out there looking on enviously. What’s your strategy for distribution? How’d you get into people’s portfolios?
Tim Maloney:
Sure. I think we were, frankly, very excited. I don’t want to say surprised because it sounds like I don’t know what I’m doing, but I think the initial reaction to the bets, the sports betting in ETF was, I think, a fascinating case study. Really at the end of the day, our thesis is that you can create a viral ETF. How you do that, there’s kind a number of factors and frankly, it’s hard to measure, which is most important, but you need to have a theme that’s interesting to a kind of broad audience of people. I think a good ticker is important, although I probably shouldn’t say that cause it’s hard enough to find good ones that aren’t being used. Then, I think the most important piece where we differentiate beyond the audience we’re focused on, is really related to the audience we’re focused on.
Tim Maloney:
We’re not focused on the more traditional distribution model of getting in front of financial advisors and there’s a few reasons for that and we can talk a little bit more about it, but instead, where we’re focused is reaching as many people as we can with compelling content about the theme that we’re covering and kind of trusting them to be smart enough to figure out, “Hey, the guys Roundhill sure talk about Esports and sports betting a lot. I wonder if they have anything that can help us invest in that industry.” We trust them to make that connection and our strategy is focused around content creation and then content creation feeds earned media and earned social media, which then brings more eyeballs to our content and then kind of that’s the circle we’re working with. So we’re really focused on a one to many channel that I think is underused and hopefully stays that way because right now I think there’s space to do that and it does work for the right type of product.
Scott McKenna:
Yeah. I follow you guys on social media and I got to say, I’m amazed at how much I can learn about the space just from looking at the content that you guys put out. I actually, while we’re on the topic of social media, I wanted to talk about a specific tweet that I saw from your account that I thought was really interesting and it kind of sparked my interest of having you on and that was about the challenges as a smaller ETF issuer, specifically as it relates to ETF institutional distribution. I think you know what I’m talking about, right?
Tim Maloney:
Yeah, sure. I was surprised about how many feathers were ruffled, not to say that you were in that camp, but definitely got some attention from that post. I want to start by saying, it’s not that we don’t want the advisors to buy our funds, it’s just that the landscape for getting in front of them is really tilted against the small issuer and that’s not to complain. It’s just, we’re working with the opportunities that we have. What I was alluding to with the sort of model for distribution is, so we’re a startup advisor, right? So we had the one ETF. Now we have two and we’ve actually reached some critical massive assets, but for the first call at six months when we did try and build out a more formal distribution channel with the kind of advisory community, there’s too much red tape, I think, for advisors to be able to make decisions independent of their organization.
Tim Maloney:
So what I mean by that is I could call 15 advisors and have a really good set of phone calls with all of them and they work at a large wirehouse and they all say, “This is great. The content is helpful. I’d love to put your funds in front of my clients. Let me come right back.” All 15 of them will basically find that internally, they’re not allowed to buy it because we’re not an approved issuer and the fund is not an approved fund. I understand why that happens, right? There’s a lot of choice out there. Some of these larger platforms want to make sure that advisors are investing in things they understand. I’m not really faulting anyone.
Tim Maloney:
I do think it’s going to change because it doesn’t necessarily work for the benefit of all parties in the ecosystem, because limiting choice for the client is not necessarily a good thing, right? That’s what I was kind of getting to and there was one particular example where, I won’t name names, but I basically did a panel for someone and found out after that my funds weren’t available there and that instead of introducing them to our funds, they’re trying to push forward the approval process or something to that effect, they actually were recommending a competitor’s fund if they were interested in this space.
Tim Maloney:
Again, I don’t even really fault the people involved. I just don’t even think they had thought about the fact that they can’t buy the Roundhill funds because of this sort of due diligence process. But you can’t even find out about if you’re us, right? It’s impossible to get the right people on the phone without bringing on consultants who happen to have their phone numbers at the bank. So anyway, long answer, I think that the system’s really a little bit broken for smaller advisors like ourselves, but more importantly, it’s not benefiting the end clients or the industry in the more medium to long-term in my opinion, so it’s going to have to change. I think we’re starting to see that with the migration of financial advisors from wirehouses to the more independent channels. So long answer and I probably opened up more jars than I closed, so I’ll let it go back to you guys.
Scott McKenna:
No, absolutely. The industry is changing very quickly and it’s something that we work a lot with independent advisors, giving them the same caliber investment research and portfolio workflow tools that they would get from having a team of analysts at a home office. I think technology definitely, obviously, pays a big part in being able to allow advisors to get to that next level, but I think there’s definitely more to that as well. Right, Emil?
Emil Tarazi:
I agree with that. We do see those same trends towards self- directed investors. A lot of people talk about ETFs as being a democratizing force, but a lot of these sort of traditional shops have gatekeepers preventing ETFs from being part of the investment process, certain ETFs are being part of the investment process and that’s serves as a detriment too, for some advisors. So certainly taking that into account as part of your distribution strategy and how you get out there and how you market yourself is really important. I guess the results speak for themselves in your case.
Tim Maloney:
Thank you. I think that to take it a step further, one of the previous podcasts, I forget which one, you had on, I think there was a number thrown around that 17% of an advisor’s time is spent on picking investments.
Scott McKenna:
Jeremy from Wilshire had quoted a report from Cerulli Associates about the use of model portfolios and how advisors who are using model portfolios spend 17% of time on managing investments.
Tim Maloney:
Exactly. So my personal view of what’s going to happen is the role of a financial advisor’s really going to move away from the investment decisions, whether that’s because they’re working more with models or because they’re giving some level of discretion to the end client and then kind of managing around that. More of their time is going to be spent on some of the other things that a financial advisor can help with, whether that’s estate planning tax, to the extent they have the right designation and some of these other pieces of the ecosystem. My personal view is it’s going to move more towards that and I think the most important one to us is, I do think that clients want to have, or I’ll just say people because I don’t have any financial advisory clients. I think people in general, like to have sort of a stake in what they’re invested in.
Tim Maloney:
Now, you’re not going to put 100% of your investment into the NERD ETF because you like video games, but I think it can help to have a portfolio that maybe has some of the more traditional elements of a diversified portfolio with a kind of target retirement date in mind, whatever that looks like, but also has some kind of satellite positions that are more interesting and help keep the person engaged with what it is they’re investing in and frankly, who they’re supporting with their investment. That’s not referring to ETF advisors, but what industries they’re supporting. If they’re fans of the gaming industry, maybe they do want to have a little bit of exposure to a gaming ETF and that may not fit into a model necessarily, and I understand that, but it makes up for it in portfolios. That’s kind of longer term where we think there’s a space in the more institutional channels for us.
Scott McKenna:
Awesome. So really kind of playing the long game to get into that institutional client base, really unique strategy. I hope it works out for you guys and from what I’ve heard of, I’ve never heard of any other ETF advisor doing that strategy. Diving a little bit deeper into the future of being an advisor, what do you think that’s going to look like in terms of the value that’s added to the end investor 10 or 20 years from now?
Tim Maloney:
It’s a great question. For the shorter term for us, we’re going to keep putting these thematic products into the market. That’s the plan. We haven’t filed for anything, not that I’d be able to discuss it if we had, which is kind of a whole separate topic we can get to on the state of our regulations. But our plan for now is really to focus where we think we can be different and win, which is building a brand with this self-directed audience, many of whom will eventually have financial advisors. Our hope is that that can open that channel up to us. If these people are starting to get advisors and they’ve used our products before and they like us and they follow us on Twitter and they’d like to continue kind of being a part of that, that’s a little bit more medium term. In the longer term, honestly, I don’t know what the financial advice business is going to look like.
Tim Maloney:
I will throw one thing out there, which is we’re starting to sort of see already, I would argue, but I think there’s going to be almost financial influencers where, whether it’s specific to investments or just more broadly to building your finances, I think that that channel is going to, for a lack of a better word, potentially explode. How that manifests and what that looks like up compared to the more traditional model financial advisors, I honestly don’t know, but that’s something we’re looking at. I think there could be an opportunity in, in the more medium term to help kind of cultivate that ecosystem where you can maybe invest alongside a personality whose views resonate with you and there’s some way for compensation to be kind of passed along that channel. Again, I don’t know what it looks like, but I think something to potentially think about and it ties back to the regulation stuff, which I’ll leave here and then we can jump back into, if you’re interested.
Emil Tarazi:
Oh, well yes, we are interested in all the regulation stuff. The regulatory changes certainly affect the way that we do business and obviously, the whole ecosystem does business. So I’m curious on what you think about the recent changes, for example, do you have any thoughts about REG BI?
Tim Maloney:
Sure. So I think I’ll start from kind of where we look at it most often, which is a lot of what I do, I’m regulated by the SEC and FINRA and someday they may hear this and that’s fine. But really, the rules that I get quoted when I talk about regulations are from 1933, 1934 and 1940. Those were being applied to offer guidance as to how I should use Twitter to talk about an investment product. So I understand that rebuilding from scratch is hard and I also understand that they’ve offered guidance over the years to try and apply these rules. But the reality is if someone goes on Twitter and says, “The best ETF doesn’t own PEN and that’s a crime.”
Tim Maloney:
That’s just one example. I can’t reply to that. I’m not allowed, from a regulatory point of view, to reply to that. That, to me, is just not in the best interest of anyone, right? I’m a little bit taking a shortcut. Technically, I can reply, but I’d have to take the original post, put a response together, submit it to our broker dealer and they’d have to review it and file it with FINRA. So for all intents and purposes, I can’t reply. I think that has to change before my vision of financial influencers takes off, but I do think you’re starting to see a little bit of a difference with large firms and smaller firms, right?
Tim Maloney:
If you’re working at a large wirehouse, most of them have rules that say you can’t have a Twitter presence. So that’s going to disadvantage, in my mind, people who are thinking one step ahead from being able to build their business, because there are plenty of people, I always come back to Twitter. There are plenty of financial advisers on Twitter who have really used that platform to help build their audience and have in a lot of ways, build very important relevant businesses leveraging that, right? That’s going to continue and if they don’t change the rules to apply to what’s actually happening in the world at some point, you can only imagine where it’s going to go, but it’s not really doing anyone any favors, right?
Scott McKenna:
So, if you’re a listener in a compliance department, but I don’t think anybody really enjoys compliance, right? I think that’s another driving force for advisors leaving larger networks. I think they’re not able to build any kind of personal brand and I think that that’s very important when we’re thinking about what’s the future of adding value as an advisor?
Emil Tarazi:
That’s interesting. It’s kind of related to the regulation around ratings on advisors as well. We live in a world where we have reviews and ratings on everything under the sun on Amazon, on different online retail sites, but you can’t rate advisors and put that online.
Tim Maloney:
Exactly. I think a lot of it is there’s just been, not to get into my sort of broader views on rulemaking and lawmaking, but there’s just so many rules at this point that it’s hard to even imagine calling it in the best interest of clients, right? So if you’re building an advisory business, sure, it’s probably not great if you’re cherry picking reviews that are maybe even not real and putting them on your website, but at the same time, if you’re looking for a financial advisor, how do you find one? It’s not like the most straightforward thing and everyone in the process is hamstrung from being able to actually have a real conversation about it. That’s not doing anyone any good.
Tim Maloney:
Another example is there’s rules around having disclosures in prospectuses, right? So for our ETFs, we have prospectuses that are like 80 pages long with a 400 page supplement. I think there are probably four people who’ve read our prospectuses. It’s myself, my business partner and the folks over at U.S. Bank. That’s not a practical tool for making disclosures to a young demographic of people who hardly get through a full tweet most of the time. It’s not going to work and it’s not doing anyone any good. So again, I get a little animated when we get into this stuff, but some of it blows my mind.
Scott McKenna:
So on the topic of Twitter though, while there’s a lot of great stuff, there is also a lot of trolls and misinformation, right? So when you think about that in the terms of a regulatory landscape, is that something that we should think about the end investors have to do all the due diligence and kind of make their own decisions based on the assumption that they are getting the correct information? Or is that something that we need to focus more on, making sure that the advisor is on top of misinformation and kind of reporting it, things like that?
Tim Maloney:
Again, I don’t know that I have all the right answers, but I think to the first question, I think you need to put some onus on actual individuals to make intelligent decisions. I said earlier that we like to trust our audience to make the right decisions, right? I think that you can only protect them so much and the rules at a certain point do more harm than good. I don’t have the policy answers. I’m not going to get into that, but I think sometimes less can be more. Then the other thing is, yes, there’s a lot of misinformation out there and it’s hard to stop it and again, in a way, trust your audience to kind of do their own homework, right? So when you see all the posts about how Apple and Tesla are doing a stock split, which makes your position worth five times the amount. First of all, that betrays common sense. Second of all, do a quick Google.
Tim Maloney:
You’ll find plenty of resources that say, “That’s not true. Please ignore that TikTok.” But then, the other thing on the other side of this that I think is a little bit, I don’t want to say inconsistent, but there are products out there that in my opinion are in no one’s best interest and they still got signed off on by the SEC. So there’s a whole class of products, and I don’t want to point any fingers. So I won’t get into the details unless what you guys think we should, but there’s whole class of products that the intended use case is to never hold them overnight, yet businesses that make ETFs cannot make any money unless people hold them overnight. So these products got approved and the only way that the business model works is if people hold them overnight, which is not the intended use case. So sure, in the prospectus, there’s a disclosure that says, “These are not intended to be held for long periods of time for the following reason.” I don’t think anyone reads that.
Emil Tarazi:
That’s actually a topic that’s that I felt quite strongly about as well, with the leveraged products I think you’re referring to is most people are surprised especially when they on social media and read about how people are investing and sort of there’s the basic questions. “The market’s up 10% this in two weeks, but why is my double leverage ETF only up 15%?” Well, that’s exactly what you’re saying and unfortunately these products are labeled under the ETF umbrella. They really should be, I think they should be called trading tools. There should be another class of products that are not for investment purposes; they’re for maybe tactical or just like options, you have different levels of permissioning, right?
Tim Maloney:
Right. I think for me, it’s like just make rules that are consistent, right? Don’t allow people to buy 3x leveraged short ETFs, but then tell that same person that they’re not sophisticated enough, even though they are a CFA charter holder to invest in a private company because they’re not accredited. There’s a serious disconnect and I sort of get the feeling that the only ones who aren’t catching it are the actual kind of lawmakers, not to be overly critical. I think some of them are actually doing really good things, Hester Pierce, in particular, I’m a big fan of, but it’s just not consistent and optically, from the outside it’s like, how did these rules come to be?
Emil Tarazi:
So on your last point, we saw that last week, the rules around accredited investors were changed after, I guess, a couple of decades. What are your thoughts there?
Tim Maloney:
I think having a rule saying individuals can’t invest in private companies is a little bit of a stretch more broadly. That’s probably at the edge case of what people would say about this. But I think too, I don’t think they made enough of a change, right? They basically said, if you have a series, what was it, 7/63 and one of the other ones, you can invest? How many new people is that really bringing into the fold because to have those exams or those licenses with the exception of one, I think, I was recently told, you have to work for a broker dealer?
Tim Maloney:
So if you’re already working for a broker dealer, how many more people are now able to access it and why wasn’t something like the CFA included? The curriculum you go through to, I’m patting myself on the back a little bit, but to become a CFA charter holder, it’s pretty robust. To say that those people are not knowledgeable enough about the risks associated with investing in private companies to include them, it’s like, I don’t know. I read the comments. I don’t know how that couldn’t have been included. So again, it’s a lack of consistency.
Scott McKenna:
I’m not really sure. You probably know more than me, but I wanted to go back to a point you made before about the investing influencers. Obviously, there’s one in particular that has been taking over the headlines recently, even for some of the really old school investing guys and that’s like Dave Portnoy and the whole barstool scene. They pivoted pretty quickly when sports went out with COVID and now they’re all about day trading. I’m curious to your thoughts, is that a net positive for the investing community or is it exposing people who need better financial literacy to get into the markets before they’re really ready?
Tim Maloney:
Yeah. It’s a great question. Again, this gets into where the exact right answer may escape me. I will say, on the barstool side, regardless of how you feel about his move into stock trading, you’re looking at it from a business point of view for them. It makes a ton of sense, right? They all of a sudden had no sports. Most of their content engine gets shut down and I can see why they made that decision. As to whether or not what he’s saying is responsible and doing a net good or bad to the overall community, I don’t know that I want to take a strong stand there, but I will say this. I think a lot of the financial services industry rhetoric to younger investors is, “Get started investing, but do so with a professional financial advisor.” Unpopular opinion, but that’s not really a great economic decision at certain levels of wealth, right?
Tim Maloney:
So basically, the official party line from the industry is, “Wait until you have an advisor to help you make decisions.” So as a result, you get a lot of people who don’t think at all about investing and then they get to the stage where they’ve accrued enough wealth that they speak to an advisor, they’ve got like 10 years worth of not investing in there, call it. More importantly, they haven’t had any time to sort of make mistakes with less at risk, right? So net-net, I think people need to be introduced to investing earlier. They need to get involved, put a little bit of money in and learn, the best way to learn not to use a 3x leveraged ETF is to buy one in college and hold it for three months and be like, “Okay, that wasn’t great, was it?”
Tim Maloney:
So I think like net-net, more people getting involved with investing at a younger age is going to be better for them because they’ll learn as they go and they will reach a point where they’ll probably need professional help, but they can at least become self-sufficient enough to that point that they’re asking the right questions when that happens, right? So, and look, it ties in a little bit with what we’re doing. We want to introduce people to ETFs in a way that they get excited about where I don’t think that works so much if you’re pitching them on a broad market ETF, it’s not the same kind of engagement. So anyway, it’s a long answer. I think that it’s important to get people paying attention, to investing more broadly at a younger age, because it’s an important skill and if you don’t have to be the best at it to be better than you otherwise would be.
Emil Tarazi:
I wanted to touch base on your third fund, I guess the deep value ETF. It has an interesting history and value’s been beaten down, especially this year with everyone’s kind of chasing technology and high growth stocks. But there’s another theme out there which is looking for yield or people are trying to figure out how to keep the income generation high in their portfolios and just looking at deep on our site, you’ll see that it’s kind of yielding around 7% or more. Now, how do you view that ETF? How do you view the value versus growth debate right now?
Tim Maloney:
So the value versus growth debate is a dangerous minefield that I don’t want to try and time the market and make any crazy predictions here. I think there’s value for our audience to be exposed to different investment topics and that’s part of the reason that we took on the value ETF this year. We’re actually working with Toby Carlyle who’s kind of an expert in the space for lack of a better way to put it, to make sure that we have a product that’s consistent with its objectives. Excuse me. But part of the thesis here was let’s take a different type of investment strategy that your average kind of gamer or a sports betting fan that owns one of our other funds might not be as naturally inclined to, and see if we can put it in front of them and educate them on the opportunity and maybe some of them will buy it, because having a portfolio with balanced exposure is a good thing to learn about, right?
Tim Maloney:
You’re running a little higher risk, whether you know it or not, if all you own is growth stocks and it might work for a little while, but there may also be a period, and again, I’m not going to try and time the market here, where it doesn’t work and over the longer term, at least knowing those other options are out there, is important. My personal view within deep value is that, at some point it should reverse in my mind to an extent, I don’t know when that will be, but the thesis behind value investing does make sense over a long enough window. Being able to then offer that to our audiences, it’s another choice and that’s another kind of piece in the process of them learning more about investing.
Scott McKenna:
Awesome. Well, we’re coming up on our time here. Tim, was there anything else you wanted to add before we close out the podcast?
Tim Maloney:
No, I think this covered a lot of stuff. I could probably hang up and talk about my issues with the global regulatory environment for hours, but I don’t think we want to bore anyone. Who knew I would get excited about that? I had no idea when I started in ETF business that I was going to become a regulatory nerd, but what can you do? No, this has been great. I think it’s always fun to talk about these things. I love what you guys are working on and I’m glad that you asked me to be on and we’re going to keep churning out products over here at Roundhill over time and hopefully they can be a value to the audience you have, assuming they’re turned on wherever those advisors are.
Scott McKenna:
Excellent. Well, again, Tim, thank you so much for joining us. For those who are interested in their Roundhill products, you can learn more by following Tim or Roundhill on LinkedIn or Twitter, or going around to roundhillinvestments.com. If you’re interested in learning more about what we’re up to with our Logicly platform, you can go to Logicly. It’s spelled a little funny. It’s spelled L-O-G-I-C-LY.finance. You’ll find all the information about our product there as well as a free trial code to try it out for yourself. Thanks, you guys, again for listening to Speaking Logicly, have a lot more great episodes coming up. We are now rolling it out every single week an episode. We’re filming on Tuesday, releasing them on Thursday on a regular schedule. I hope you guys are ready for even more awesome content.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
