Good morning. We'll get started in a few more minutes here. Hello. Hello. Thank you. Yeah. Hey, Tom. Got a couple of minutes here. Yeah, sure. All right, Tom, you ready? Yep. Sorry, let's make a stop. I'm going to share a screen. You can see. The meeting notes. Looks good. Okay. Announcements to start with that. So. There's a few people on the call. So hopefully the message was received by most. They're not saying time started yesterday in North America. And we'll be in two weeks in most of Europe. So for the, this meeting and next week's meeting will be. At this time, wherever you are, and then in Europe, it will be an hour later again. Which I think then means it's an hour later in the US. But to be honest, I get confused when I start thinking about it too. So anyway, so thank you to. I think the senior who's updated all the meeting invites. So moving on to upcoming events. We had a good chat through these last week, if I remember rightly. Has anyone planning on attending. Connected America, which is in. Two and a bit weeks. And we've got private 5G and the edge. Isn't that telecom TV as well? Yes, it is. So that's probably how they usually have virtuals on that. Yes, that's true. Good point. Then we've got in a month. Five weeks or so. Keep calling up some with. Planet to talk today, which is in person only. And they sold out. All of the co-located events are sold out. I believe the schedule for the talk today is now done. So I'm going to see that you were part of the. Putting together of that schedule. So thanks for doing that. And then. Yeah, maybe something to discuss in a minute is this. There's a further session in a bit more detail.  Starting info for what we could do in that. So rather than it really each of these individually, I think most of these we went through last week. I guess, are there any changes to people's views, opinions, participation, et cetera? I want to go back real fast to the informal event. At the coupon. I'd like to encourage people that are. On the waiting list for cloud night of talk today. To come to the afternoon. And be able to be ready for birds of a feather. Possibly a shorter versions instead of a. You know, like a full presentation. They're not going to have. A big screen and, and my depth or anything. So it's going to be more informal. But if we can set it up. Where it's more like a real birds of a feather, if they want to, or at least a discussion about the topic. So some way to tie that in and get. Get the people that would have been there anyways to. Join us. I think that'll be good. Okay. Do you think we can use the. Collocated events team to. Maybe contact the people on the wait list and. Make them aware of this. There's a further session. And kind of share. I think we, we can at least ask them. So if we can take a little bit of time and. Figure out the. You know, how we want to, what we want to say and, and where to send them and everything. Maybe even. We could make like a Google form or something. And say, hey, if, if you're interested in joining us. We can. We can send over. To Google form or something and say, Hey, if you're interested in joining us for this informal thing and you had a. Topic to discuss, but something like that so that. We can send over. Here's what we'd like to do. For this informal thing. And, and then the team. If they're okay with it, they can contact them. For us. Yeah. Yeah, I just thought a couple of sentences here. So this Nikolai. Yeah. Haven't been joining for a while. So I'm, I'm one of those people on the waiting list. The problem is that the waiting list is for the whole. Collocated events. So you don't really. I mean, there's no distinguishments. Okay. I'm on the waiting list for telco day. That's, that's the way that I see it. I mean, I registered myself on Friday and. I don't get a chance to choose on which collocated event. I want to join. Anyway, that's one thing. I think is. If you. Control over schedule and you cannot. As an item. On the back of the schedule, like, okay. This, this, this, and then at 2pm, birds of a feather. Open discussion, whatever you want to call it. Short description. People might be interested. But I'm not going to, I'm not going to, I'm not going to talk about the official schedule. I'm not going to talk about the official schedule. I'm not going to talk about the official schedule. As far as the schedule, what do you, where do you mean? Are you talking about the official schedule? Yes. Yes. I don't think we're going to make it under the official schedule. So we're going to have to do. There's going to be some marketing that'll be needed. To let people know. Now. During cloud of telco day, we can communicate it. It's going to be an informal meeting. But I doubt we'll be on the official. Cube con schedule. I can try to ask, but I don't want to depend on that. Yeah, I mean, if you're booking the room in any case, right? I mean. Because you need the room, you cannot just do it in the hallway. I guess. Yeah, we may end up in the, you know, open meeting areas and stuff. Yeah. We're going to try to get a room. But there's lots of things going on. So if other than the, if you're not part of the official sessions, then it's more difficult to get a room. So this may be like an open area where we take up. But tables that are nearby each other. So I think we're going to try to get a room. And more of an open discussion. What was your. Topic. That's on the waiting list. Oh, you mean the waiting list for the telco day. Topics. I mean, like talks. Oh, okay. Okay. I was like on the waiting list for the attendee. Yeah. I also submitted something as a cost speaker with, with a colleague on the waiting list. Yeah. I don't remember exactly. I can check. All right. Anyway, that's, that's not, yeah, that's not done. Okay. Yeah. I think that the wait list. Taylor's talking about is. So for example, I presented, I submitted a. Yeah. Of course. They're on the wait list for. Yeah. Do you know if, if it will be an accessible area because, you know, there might be, you know, passes only. You know. So if you're not. All out there. If you have a coupon pass, then I, I think it's going to be possible to get where, wherever we'd be for then formal. If you're don't have a coupon pass, then. Yeah, of course. Yeah. You need to do the coupon. Yes. Right. So we would. And I, I think. Yeah. I think that Lucina had some ideas of, of a few areas that may work at the, at the place for like an open area. And we'll look at more into that. And then. If we don't have a set location, we're going to try to go to one of those. And we would be communicating that. And the, I think the. We're going to be, we're going to be talking about. We're going to be talking about the location of the location. On a workday. And then if we can. Decide on it. A few days ahead. Then we say that. And then just say, here's where we're going to be. But probably. One of the main things would be to decide. We're going to announce our location. On somewhere like. Posting to. Whatever that could be Twitter. It could be to the mailing list. If you're not on that. I'd get on the. Working group. And then we would just say, please meet here. And. And then, of course, during cloud night of telco day for any folks there we can. Attending we can message. But if you're on the waiting list for the co-located event. Attending. Not presenting, but attending. But you do have a all acts. You have a coupon pass. You have a coupon pass. You have a coupon pass. And then as long as you can see those messages, then you can meet up there. We'll do our best to try to get people. Available. And then. I think a Google doc for some type of. Topic ideas and. Potential. I mean, I guess it's a potential attendance sort of thing. So we can get a head count and stuff. But I think we need to run this like more like a. And then the. A real birds of a feather where the. Present. I don't even want to call them presentations. They're just someone's. Basically like you'd have a whiteboard and someone writes, here's a topic I want to talk about. And they get five minutes or 10 minutes or something. And then there's. Discussions about things. Besides our plan. If you didn't hear it weeks ago, we were saying. We may want to use part of this time as a working session to do. To dig into some topics like maybe we want to. Work on the C and CF glossary and adding more terms that are. Important for the telecom networking, pod native telecom networking. Or working through best practices that we pick or something like that. So it probably be split between an open discussions and, and some working session time. Okay. I have a related question for this meeting is. I mean, shall I wait for the end of the call and ask them or. Um, you can, is it, you said related as. Yeah, it's agenda item for discussion or just go ahead. I don't. Yeah, my question is more or less, do you have any rough statistics of. Like from the previous telco days is the how to say that the, the interest of like, you know, is it a rising, I guess it is, you just don't have visibility. I mean, I'm a reviewer on the networking track for the main cube, I have visibility there. But I mean, it would be interesting. At least my, my, my impression is that from the main networking. Track, like the telcos seem to be a little bit moving away. So they may be moved to this. Pre event like all located event. I don't know.  That's, that's done, you know, for, for people to present on telco days. I'm not sure I fully understand, but in terms of, so, so we, there were quite a lot of CFPs received for the telco day. Yeah. I mean, is, is the number of CFPs like, you know, significantly moving up, you know, compared to, for example, for the previous for the Detroit, for example. Yeah, good question. There's something we can ask. I can't remember what the number of CFPs was at the last two. No need for exact numbers. It's just like a trend.  I don't know. It's just like a generic. Yeah. To be honest, I haven't really looked and thought about it. It seems to me to be either going up or staying the same. Okay. You know, I wouldn't want to put my name against that statement. But I think, I think that's a good question. And success factor. The, I know that the last one and also this one to an extent, there's a desire to have. A virtual aspect. The very first one we had both. I think that was helpful. The last one, there was a lot of requests in North America. I think the attendance would improve. There's still, there's a lot of travel restrictions right now. And there were, there were some. For the North America as well, but I think it's a, for a lot of people, it's even more restrictions this year. And there's people that want to be a part of it. But they're asking for. A remote. And I think we have a pretty good split between. North America. And EU. For. Telcom companies that are interested. So ideally for the. Cloud native telco day. EU. I'm sorry, for North America, we can get some sponsors and interests and they'll, we'll be able to offer the, the virtual event. And I think that'll, if we're doing, if, if we can get that and get some more sponsors and stuff, then it should improve like going forward as well. So if we have a better attendance, even if part of it's virtual, then I think the interest of that and then the value that people see will cause it to have more the next year. Did you find something Tom, as far as the. So, so there was some post event data that was shared after each. About number of registered attendees and stuff like that, but. Nothing I can see at the moment, which explained the number of CFPs. Okay, so for last year's Europe event. We received 43 CFPs. Wow. For this year's event. We received. 39. So the European one this year was 39. Okay. The US event in the autumn last year was 28. So 43 then 28 and 39. Okay. So Europe seems to be more proactive. Yeah. Yeah, that's interesting. So in terms of the informal session. Whatever, whatever you want to call it. So the, as well as the discussion we just had about people on the presenting waitlist essentially coming in. You know, starting a conversation about the topic they were due to present. There were these other. These other ideas that we discussed. I think last week. I wonder if anyone's got anything else to add to those things or any thoughts. We've mentioned about where it's going to be. That's to be confirmed. So just some, some, sorry, it took me a while to read. Yeah. So at least what, what I'm saying, I mean, I'm, I'm just going to share a thought. I don't know how to, how to exactly form or a farm. Formulate it to the exact topic, but it's like. I'm seeing at least from where I am. I'm seeing this, this trend where, you know, like we get questions. I was certified with this or with that. And I mean, to me, it sounds like the interest is forming its own. How to say it's certification in between the different vendors, like the major players are, you know, sitting together and saying, okay, I work with you. You work with me. I certify you. Certify me done. I don't care about CNCF or guiding principles or this or that. I mean, do we need to somehow at least talk about this or see what's, what's out there and try to enumerate what we know. Or I don't know you. It's like, you know, talking about competition, if you will. Right. Some of the, some of the. Submissions. And I'm not sure what the cloud native taco day agenda is. I need to read through. And I'm not a co-chair or a committee member on that. But I know that some of the submissions that people were talking about were related to things like Silva. The etiquette. Project from elephant and. And other things out there. So it's. That's happening there. And we're definitely looking at things and encouraging people to join in. And talk about them. So. If do you know of others like nephew? Silva. Elephant etiquette. Those would be. Other. Groups that are working on similar things. Do you know of other ones or is there anything in particular. That you're thinking about. Yeah, I would point out open shift, just like, not, not, not as a finger point, but like there's something that sticks out at least. I mean, like when I've been interacting with. Different customers and vendors and so on. It's always like, Oh, by the way, do you work with open shipping? It's like seems to be the baseline for a lot of. People out there. Right. So I don't know if this is exactly a. Like, I mean, if you can compare it to nephew, for example, right, but, but. It's. Yeah, I think it's a great question. I think it's a great topic to discuss it. The kind of informal day, but also. There is a. Yeah. There is a panel session. Which is about project silver. So it may be focused on. Kind of environmental things. Yeah. However, one of. One of the things that some of the participants in silver are quite keen on is having a better process for. Or a better approach to. That interoperability certification. And I've no doubt that operators will have. Opinions they may or may not be willing to share. As well. On, you know, on the applicability or usefulness of. The various approaches that have been taken over the years. And yeah, I think it's a great discussion because it's. It comes up every couple of years, you know. Elephant tried to do it with. Was it called. P was it or something. Then I could try to help with law, you know, with that. And now silver. I think it's the same, same problems being. Tackled from different angles. Maybe it's something. That kind of. Kind of falls into one or both of these points here. You know, almost like. The CNC, CF certification topic. Kind of wider question about. Certification in general. What we can tell. Red hat seems to have a. Certification. Well, it's called CNS certification. So they have the platform. Testing where you can run. Open shift on your own, or you can run their cloud based stuff. So that you have. More of if you're running the platform side as well. And then they have a. The batching as well as a set of tests. In it. They have. A large portion of it. I think it's probably the majority, but I'd have to look through the whole set of tests. I posted a link to the GitHub and zoom chat. But the. A large portion. Was. They were in the CNS certification test. Were used. They were, it's re-implemented. It's a different language, but. Coverage for the same set of tests. And. Most of them, I would say are generic. With maybe little bits that. Are. Potentially some of those tests are a little bit different. But I think it's a little bit different. To be open shift specific. And then the other set of tests are not that are not. Essentially. Copies or. Reimplementations of the. CNCS. Versions are. Open shift. Best practices. So if you're doing this on an open shift platform, here's the things that you should. Do. Do good things. I would say that that's a positive. That if we're leading. Here's best practices and here's tests that we're doing. If others are picking those up and trying to utilize them. It can be. You know, red hat is going to make sure anything works. Really, really well with open shift. Project. Silva under the. Linux foundation Europe. You know, there's. There's something there that. There. I would say. They liked what was happening. Potentially. This is my view from the outside. They like what was happening in the different areas like. And the. CNS certification and the best practice that we're doing. And they wanted something else. I think Tom, you might have some. Potentially some input on, on that, but there's something that was missing. Or they wanted to add something or. When, when there's a four or. A new product that comes out when there's an existing one that's similar. But not, it's not an exact copy. Then there was something missing usually. Of course, there are just straight up copies of. You know, even physical hardware. Or someone. Reverse engineers, everything. And just tries to put out a competing product with no differentiation. I think for. Anarchy. Silva. The open shift stuff. There's. There's at least for part of it. There's things that are. Missing or they, they want it to go differently. So. That's why you have. Others. But maybe. There's probably a lot of room for discussion around. What was missing and what do you lack over here? I know the nefias. Thing was be. Who's focused on helping with best practices for onboarding. Deployment and all of that sort of thing. And. I was hearing that for the CNF working group, the test suite, the test bed, all of the stuff that we've been doing for years. Like where are the best practices that are going to help with onboarding? And. I think that's why we're seeing projects like nefio that are going to help us get ops and what we've worked on. Other people are doing as well. Okay. Maybe it's worth. Move this down. There's a. Central but other. You know, start making a list of other topics that might be of interest to the community like this. Okay. Anything else on. On this informal. Stay. Okay. So. Let's have a look at the issues and the PRs. So open PRs. And. Is a PR open. Do not run contains with a privileged flag. Okay. There's got loads of approvals. I think we can. Merge that any objections to me. Merging this before approvals. Okay. So. Rather go through these one by one. Is there any update on any of the issues in terms of people. Newly assigning themselves to something or working on something. Well, in my case, I started reviewing the. Lightness. I think it's a lot of. Proof. 251. Issue. Yeah, I think it's. There's a lot of. Things to maybe discuss there. So I go to take a look and to the Google docs. There's a link on the bottom. And do we have any full requests that we can close out before we dig into the open ones? Oh, well, yeah. He just show the other one. Oh, sorry. Yeah, no, there's the only the one open. Oh, great. I didn't see the. The other one got closed out. So we, I don't think that we. One thing to remember that I, I didn't do. I don't know what to do and hopefully we'll do on the next one. Victor, whoever. Update the. Best practices for dev. Document to. Add a best new best practice into the document. So if we've, we've just accepted the. Privilege flag best practice. But it's not in the. List of. List of practices. We just have the document in the docs directory. So ideally going forward. And maybe we need like to update instructions. If you're going to do a pull request for a new best practice also added into the. The dev document. Does what I'm saying make sense. Yeah. In that way we can have references. Yeah, I'd like to be able to. Point people. Hey, there's new best practices that were just published and they're in the, in this one document. So we just keep pointing them to the. One main document and they're saying more and more best practices there. Yep. Yeah, that's true. All right, cool. Let's jump back in that liveness, I guess. So, so regarding the lightness. Yeah, thanks. Thanks Taylor for, for starting the discussion there. Yeah, it is, it is great. Like, I mean, the only thing that I was thinking about that particular best practices. How can we, what could be exactly that the best practice besides defining aligning sprouts in the. The definition.  Some proportion of some numbers or how to calculate. The different parameters or things like that. So. Yeah, that's, that's why I would like to. To open the discussion there, like if someone has. Some ideas. To encourage people to use that particular feature most mostly. How to use it in the best way, like a. Specific numbers or certain. Proportions. I think that that could be a good. Good idea. Like. I don't know if that makes sense when I say. It's my point. I think you were. Had some reference links to some stuff. Can you bring up the, the liveness probe. 251. Tom. Sorry. No worries. And then scroll down. So this one's pretty minimal. There's some references here. And maybe click on the doc that. In the comment down below. There's a comment. Yeah. I think this one might have more. The interaction. Yeah, there we go. Okay. Yeah, they, well. The red is, I think, copied from somewhere else. So all of that needs to be filled. So you have there on the side, Victor, let's see. This is motivation. Yeah. I think it's a fast fell pattern. Yeah, exactly. It's like, I was just thinking a lot. Maybe what could be the benefits to use these. The only one came to my mind was a bit fast. Your body's behaving bad. So just. Terminated and a new one. I guess that's a main important to have a light, like this probe there. You know, I think there's a lot of ways to define it. Like. The first one is like the type of a lightness probe. Which could be. Or different types. Like common by STP and TCP requests. Or just your CP. And. And also. There are. Once that you choose. The type of a lightness proof. So you have the type of a lightness probe. So you have to define certain parameters. So. The thing is like, I mean. You can choose whatever adjust to your needs. But I don't know if like that could be like. A good practice to. Have some. Like. Like different portion, like the pain of the number, for example, I'd say that. The best. I don't know. The initial delay in seconds. Parameter. Has some kind of relation with the. And sequence. Or things like that. So. I think. If someone has. Playing around with those numbers and can give us some. Like roles of time or something like that. Where we can use as a, as a best practice. That could be also. Great. Like having some, some, some numbers or some, some things. That can people use them. In that real world. So do you think. And of course, I'm just talking discussion here. Are you thinking that those would be part of the main best practice? Or would we put those down in the. Like the notes section. And can you scroll down to the notes section? So this is notes, caveats. And constraints. It doesn't have to be negatives. Or alternatives. We can have it for additional information that we're not. Saying you must do these things. So these could be. Maybe less strong recommendations. But here's some things to look for. So what, what are you thinking that would it be something more of here's something that you should look at and consider, or do you think it should be part of the best main best practice? What are you thinking, Victor? Well, first of all. The first, the first step is having that information. I think if we have that information. Yeah. Probably the best place to put that information. Could be in that section notes. It's a note. But yeah, I couldn't find like a. A quick search. Those, those kind of information. But if we have it, definitely maybe that's the best place to put that information. Yeah. The only thing that I will avoid to have it is. Very. Yeah. Yeah. The only thing that I will avoid to have it is very. A standard like a. I mean. Yeah. It's for sure like life and it's proofs are a great thing to, to monitor the, the healthy of the. The CNF. Or any. Application in general. But, but yeah, I would like to see something more. Like a. And if we have that information, probably, yeah, that's the best place maybe to put in. In this section. As a. So the initial note. Yeah, I don't know. For example, like, if, if you choose like a. Very. Small time frame, maybe you can have an impact on your CPU probably. I'm not saying I don't know. Like, let's say that you choose like a one millisecond or something like that. So every one millisecond is. Calling your command that you have defined in the, like mis-proof. So which. Probably can be translated as. Like. Over using the CPU to just to. Monitor the app itself. So I think I didn't have, it has to be a balance between. The amount of resources that you are using in the app versus. The amount of resources that you're using to monitor the. The healthiness of the app. But yeah, probably I need to dig more in this idea because. That's the only thing that I came to my mind. I just wanted to bring. That topic in this. This, this meeting. Yeah, I guess it depends a little bit on the type of the function that you think if it's something that's on the critical path. You would most likely want to know immediately. It's tight. I mean, when it fails and helps responding. If it's something like, I don't know. User. Management something. Yeah. I mean, you don't need to ping it too often. Probably if it's still there. Exactly. Yeah, that's a good point. So for me, that seems like. That's a good point. That's the content that will be going to this. What we're calling notes section. Maybe this could have a better. Title there. But if you're implementing this best practice, then here's some things you should look into. And here's some things you should. Be aware of. So you don't have problems. As well as. You know, we may say, don't set it to liveness where it checks every 20 minutes. If you can even do that. I don't know if, if they. Kubernetes constraints it, but I think there's a. Something that would be too high. And then something too. Too often. But it seems like something that we could put into this area. And then. It would be encouraging people to think about those things. Yeah, I agree. But I guess in general, like. Let's let's try to get some feedback about these best practice. I guess. Again, Taylor, thanks for. Putting all these. Together. And it started the conversation. But yeah, definitely we need. Exercise on the. Here on this document. How's, how's that? Just as a start, I can delete the red since we actually have some content and then. Rewarded that portion a little bit and then we can. Add more content on that section. I think that we, we are missing the, the Nikolay comment. About the. All depends on the. The type of the workload. So probably. I don't know if you want to. Absolutely. Putting this as kind of a start. TBD we need to add more. Okay. TBD add information about the type of workload. And the. And say that again. I don't know if that is a word. How critical is it like. Each of these. These are. These are just. For us to talk about. And anyone can come and do suggest edits on these. If you want to. Directly work with us. On these. And you feel like this is a topic. Then let me know we can. Even give direct edit access right now. It's anyone. If you want to. And let me know we can even give direct edit access right now. It's anyone with link can add comments. And suggest edits. So you can, of course, add comments like Victor's done. But you can also. Just do a suggest edit. So it can look like this. So this is. What is this? It's a live-ness. All. Pod types should have. Live-ness. Checks. And then that's going to be there as a suggest. I'm going to remove this. When we just have that. So now. That's there. So this is for those who haven't done this. Anyone that doesn't have edit access. You just start typing or deleting or changing. It'll come up like this. And then we can simply. Check it and add that in. So definitely encourage folks to add anything here. And I do want to point out that we have. Oh, you may not see where I did that. Sorry. I forgot. Yeah. I'm going to share my screen. Tom, can you go up to workload context so that. My words don't sound. Yeah. Yeah. See that. So that one's. And now I can, that one's a suggest edit. And then I can, um, any of us that have added access can just accept that as a change. So. Um, I feel free to just add stuff into any of these. Um, before we run out of time, I do want to point out that all of the get have issues that are best practice proposals. I believe all of them. Um, if there's any missing, let us know. I think all of them have links to draft Google docs for each of the best practice. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think people just add directly to those. And work with us. Of course, people can add comments to the get up issues. But if they want to directly add comment or comments to it, the draft documents, definitely appreciate that. What else do we have on the agenda to close it out, Tom? I think that's it for today's agenda. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I just noticed that in the open source summit in North America, there will be a. A cold. The event. The LFN networking. The one summit. So. I just put it there. Nice. The one. It disappeared. The list of events. That'll be why. So that's the lesson. That's in Vancouver as well. Okay. That's in May. All right. And that's nearly backed back to the big 5G event. Hoping to see some of y'all there. There's a lot of parties. A lot of different, sorry. Telecom orgs, not parties. I was saying parties for orgs. There probably will be parties, but hoping to see. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I'm. I'm. Trying to. Have a CNCF print presence at big five. I, for those that don't know, I'm actually local to Austin. I'm planning on going. Whatever the case and try to promote cloud native and made up. There's. A pretty large. Group of people. It seems to be. More open to. I think that's the. There's another event, which I'm not seeing on the. In this list. Oh, maybe connected America, I think it's more. Specific to. Telecom for. North America. And I think this big 5G would just be open. So Tom. I like Vodafone. I take a, I would at least take a look and then. Make sure that folks know, but I think. It would probably be a good event for anyone, even if you're not a North American telecom. Yeah. I'll share the details. I. Let's just. We'll struggle. Just given the. Location. That seems to be the case with travel right now. Unfortunately. I thought we were getting done with that post as well. I know we're not totally done with COVID, but getting a little better on travel, but. Yeah. Yeah. And the one summit. Event. I don't. We should look into that for. Our own collaboration. Group and what we're trying to do. Thanks for noting that. Thank you. Okay. Let's let's close the call. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. Let's let's close the call. Thanks. Catch you next week. Yes. Thanks. Bye. Thank you. Bye.


Put your hands together because the long wait is over. Melina, the sultry assassin with the wicked grin, is back. My father wills it. The last time we saw mis-geniality, she'd been captured by Kotal and Devorah had kissed her goodbye.  You see, Melina really, really liked being outwards, Enthriss. But wealth, the power, what's not to love? Is it any wonder she's still pissed she got kicked off the throne? Kotal, Jade, Kitana, you all better watch your back. Melina is coming for you.  Good for you.


Welcome to the 59th edition of the Bogleheads on Investing Podcast. Today, our special guest is Dr. William Sharp. I'm John Luskin, and I normally host our Bogleheads live show for the folks of Twitter. I'll be taking over for the normal host Rick Ferry, while he takes a summer sabbatical. Please allow me to introduce Dr. William Sharp. He was one of the originators of the capital asset pricing model developed the Sharp ratio for investment performance analysis and developed other methods for the evaluation of options asset allocation optimization and investment return analysis for evaluating the style and performance of investment funds. Dr. Sharp has published articles and a number of professional journals and is a past president of the American Finance Association. In 1990, he received the Nobel Prize in economic sciences for his work on the capital asset pricing model. You can learn more about Dr. Sharp at WSharp.com. Some announcements before we get started on today's episode with Dr. Bill Sharp. This episode of the Bogleheads on Investing Podcast, as with all episodes, is brought to you by the John C. Bogle Center for Financial Literacy, a nonprofit organization that is building a world of well informed, capable, and empowered investors. Visit BogleCenter.net where you'll find valuable information, including transcripts of podcast episodes. Another announcement. Registration is currently open for the 2023 Bogleheads conference. This year's conference is on October 13th through the 15th in Maryland. We have some phenomenal personal finance and investing rock stars who will be attending A.S. speakers, including Charles Ellis, Paul Merriman, Clark Howard, Jonathan Clements, Michelle Singletary, Barry Ritholks, Wade Fow, and more. And of course, Boglehead's favorites, host of this show, Rick Ferry, Christine Benz, Dr. Bill Bernstein, Mike Piper, Alan Roth, and much more. Go to BogleCenter.net slash 2023 conference to see the full lineup enter Also, you still have time to take advantage of the discounted room rate. Again, that's And finally, a disclaimer. The following is for informational and entertainment purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment advice. And with that, let's get started on our interview with Dr. William Sharp. Bill, welcome to the 59th Bogleheads on Investing Podcast. Thank you for joining us. My pleasure. In 1990, you jointly received the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics with Harry Markowitz and Martin Miller for your work on the capital asset pricing model. Tell us about the capital asset pricing model. The idea is that the more securities you have in a portfolio, the less important is the risk that's specific to a given stock, whether it be from the company's activities or from the industry it's in. So as you put more and more securities in a portfolio, what we call idiosyncratic risk, the risk that's attributable to the fact that General Motors or the fact that it's in the auto industry, that risk tends to be diversified away. And as you diversify more, the risk in your portfolio becomes predominantly due to what's going on in the broader market. So certainly, Bogleheads are fully subscribed to this. We love diversification and we love those low cost index funds. We want the return of the market. We're not necessarily putting all our money into just one individual stock, and that helps manage risk. Let's jump to one of our questions that we got from Twitter. This question is from user named Levi who writes, do you still fully subscribe to the capital asset pricing model? Well, it's a model and models abstract from reality in various ways and get results based on what goes into the model, what you assume in the model. The CAPM, the original version in the dissertation assumed that all stocks had risk that came from quote the market and then idiosyncratic risk that was unique to them and not correlated with anything else going on. So in that sense, it assumed that was not perhaps surprising. I got the result that expected returns would be related to beta values. That is sensitivity to the market. The broader model use just the idea that more diversified your portfolio, the greater would be the component of risk in that portfolio that was attributable to the market as a whole. And so in a sense, it did not assume that the market was the only source of returns. It in some sense got that results that the market portfolio was predominantly, I should say to be careful, the risk for which there would be rewards in higher expected returns. There was a radical difference between the two. And some people who knew the first were had thought that the second result, the CAPM resulted from assuming the quote single index model. That is that only market risk was the correlated risk in securities. It did not. Again, if you have enough stocks that will diversify away and be of much less importance and therefore not rewarded. The non market part would not be rewarded in higher expected returns. This question is from David from Twitter who writes, it would be great if Dr. Sharp could comment on CAPM assumptions and the degree to which the model's value has changed as markets have evolved. It's hard to describe to somebody in today's world how irrelevant the stock market was for most human beings back in the 50s and 60s. Relatively few people had individual stocks that were not 401k plans and there certainly weren't as many securities as there are now or as many different exchanges, et cetera. At the time, the idea was that the market as a whole could be sufficiently dominant in expected returns, that it would be a high, high, high percentage of the influence on expected returns. Now, there was the idea that only the beta of a security would have an impact on its expected returns. That was a pretty far out assumption. Now, there are so many securities, so many markets for that matter, and so many people who own securities, if nowhere else in their 401ks or 3Bs, I think it's, to me, at least a more comfortable assumption. Let's jump to measuring risk. Next, this question comes from a user named 9.5 suited from the billboards forums who writes, should investors consider volatility to be the primary measure of risk while constructing financial portfolios?  Obviously, if they have an investment portfolio of three stocks, there's a lot of non-market risk in that portfolio. But if they do, what bubble heads might by and large, I would assume do. Yes. Yeah, certainly. I wonder if 9.5 suited is referring to some other risks that long current investors might face, such as inflation risk. That's to say, if you don't want to take volatility as a risk, the risk that your investments decrease in value, then you're not necessarily getting rid of all risk so much as you're trading that one risk volatility for another risk, which is inflation. If you're not going to invest in assets like stocks that have historically grown more than inflation, then you might be looking at your wealth decreasing over the long term. Well, I think there's a very strong argument that for most people, the returns that matter are real returns, inflation adjusts. Now, you know, we can talk about how important is inflation for all people versus young people. But in a sense, I would favor thinking of returns not as nominal returns, but as real returns. Pick your country in time period. Inflation may be dominant. It may, if you're lucky for a short period in some countries, be sort of minimal, as we well know and as we're experiencing in most countries in many times, inflation is important. So in some sense, it's easy. You just do everything in real returns. When I'm doing projections, Monte Carlo, what have you, I tend to like to do it all in real returns. Then the literature, there's an argument that for retired people, inflation may not be quite as formidable a factor, depending on if they've bought their house and they paid off their mortgage, et cetera. Property taxes in some places in California, for example, or there's a limit on how much they can be increased once you bought the house, et cetera. My inflation may be different than your inflation. There's some research by David Blanchett that talks about the spending smile of retirees showing how retiree spending might not actually keep up with inflation. I will link to that in the show notes for our podcast listeners. David Blanchett, by the way, was our guest on episode 14 of the Boatville Heads live show. I'll also link to that in the show notes. Let's talk more about measuring risk. This question is from the white coat investor from the Boatville Heads forums who writes risk adjusted return calculators such as the sharp ratio use volatility as a measurement risk. Volatility is the change in price of your investment. The white coat investor goes on to say a long term investor really shouldn't care much about volatility. Does that mean that they shouldn't care about the sharp trainer or sortino ratios? And before we answer that question, perhaps you can tell us what those ratios are. I can probably answer that part what the sharp ratio is. And let me say, by the way, I didn't call it that I called it the reward to variability ratio. And I think it was Gene Farmer started calling it the sharp ratio. The idea of the sharp ratio is to at least take two things into account, you know, an average returns and a standard deviation. Standard deviation for those who aren't investing nerds is just a way that we can measure risk, how much our portfolio changes in value. This is the same thing as the volatility that we just mentioned. Standard deviation, volatility and risk are often all used interchangeably. The T statistic or the sharp ratio, it gives you credit for higher average returns. That's on the top. And it gives you a discredit or demotes your number or lowers your number for more risk, more variation. That's the number on the bottom. And so this has in the numerator and average and on the denominator, a standard deviation. So you get a better number. If you do better on average and you get a better number of the things equal, if you have less variability, it's not unlike a statistical measure called the T statistic, which again is saying, well, here's how you did on average, but how much variation was there? If you did this on average and it was almost the same every single period, then using that number as a prediction makes me more comfortable than if it was that on average, but it was very all over the place. The original idea, as you know, it takes into account the risk-free rate. So it's not just the average return on the top, it's average over and above the risk-free rate. That's because it assumes that you can borrow and lend at that rate. And so you could take that portfolio and lever it up or down at that rate. That's the economics behind it. The Sharpe ratio, it's a useful number. I would not refuse to look at it if somebody offered it to me for an investment. And again, it's particularly important to understand that for a piece of a portfolio, the risk of that piece may or may not be important depending on how correlated it is with what's going on with the other securities in the portfolio. I sometimes say when people ask about the Sharpe ratio, they say, look, folks, we have computers now, we don't need to put everything in one number. We can look at more than one number. You know, what was the average return and what was the risk and what was the beta, etc. We can do things that are more sophisticated. I serve on non-profit investment committees very often the consultant or the manager will show you sharp ratios for every investment in the portfolio. This fund, that fund, etc. That doesn't really help you much with what it was originally intended for. It does help you in the sense it's like a T statistic. It is interesting if a manager did not only well, but did it with quite some consistency. You have more reason to believe that you might get some good results in the future. Recently, some manager who was touting a sharp ratio, I don't know, was five or something, you know, this humongous sharp ratio and looked at it and said, it was based on, I think it was 14 monthly returns for private equity for which there was no market value. It was just an estimate and they put down these 15 estimates. And sure enough, there wasn't much variation and they've done all right according to the estimates. So sometimes there are uses that I would not endorse. For those folks who aren't in divestment nerds, why that is hilarious? For two reasons, number one, a 14 month investment return is pretty much random. And then also, if it's a private investment, the manager can pretty much make up whatever price, whatever investment return. What do you want? What would you like it to be worse? All that's to say how they used the sharp ratio in that situation is quite silly. And then for me, the sharp ratio is very special because I looked at how endowments did next to index fund portfolios for a master's thesis. Hey, what happens with $600 million to invest? Well, the data already exists to show that those endowments would have been better off with low cost index funds. But what about risk? What is the risk adjusted return? So I use a sharp ratio and the Sortina ratio to show even on a risk adjusted basis, considering how much risk you are taking, that the amount of return you're getting, compared to that index fund portfolio is not that great. And of course, if you're comparing portfolios, and you can borrow and lend at the riskless rate, then the portfolio with the highest sharp ratio is golden because with leverage up or down, that can beat anything below it. Let's jump to the second part of the white coat investors question who asks, how can we adjust for the deep risks discussed by Dr. Bill Bernstein, such as inflation, deflation, confiscation and devastation? Let me maybe twist the question a little to a broader question to what extent is it useful to look at historic returns on a security portfolio, the market, whatever, as a predictor of future returns and risks? And that's a very serious question you have to ask yourself. I would say, I think it's incumbent upon you or your advisor to look at history, to see how that particular portfolio would have done in the past. I don't think you should say past is not a predictor of the future. So don't look at all. On the other hand, if a portfolio did well in the past, how likely is it that it's going to do well in the future? And I would say, generally not very likely risk is a somewhat different matter. Past risk is probably a better predictor of future risk. In an efficient market, past expected returns that are abnormally high are unlikely to be repeated as our terrible returns. If it's done really well on the past, the market knows that and the price reflects that to the extent that it's predictive of the future. So don't expect with any kind of certainty abnormally high returns in the future. Let's talk a little bit more about the risk adjusted metrics that are out there. Username Chiggy from Twitter writes, we should ask them if the sharp ratio is the best risk adjusted return metric to compare index funds versus mutual funds. In principle, the sharp ratio should be used for your whole portfolio. In many cases, it's used for pieces of the portfolio. It's useful, but in a different sense. And if you're using it for pieces of a portfolio, then it's more in the sense of the T statistic. How did that piece do on average and how much risk variation was there getting to that average? If you've got that average return almost every single month, then that's a very different story than if you've got it ranging all over the place for a whole portfolio. Don't just use the standard deviation. Look at the whole distribution. How many months, let's say over the last 20 years, did it lose 20% that it was 19% show the range of things that happened and how frequently they happened. That's for the whole portfolio for pieces of the portfolio, even standard deviation than typical risk measure. Standard deviation of a portfolio X plus Y is not just the average of those two standard deviations. It depends on how they move together. So it gets more complicated. Thoughts on the sort keynote ratio. My recollection is that for the sort keynote ratio, for the risk side uses downside risk on the grounds that the risk of that you'll do better than expected doesn't seem to be at something you should worry about. And certinos is certainly right. You're looking at a whole portfolio. What you care about is downside. Upside risk is fine, you know, the more the merrier and there's the issue if the distribution is symmetric around a middle point. You know, when you plot it, it looks sort of the same on the downside as on the upside. Then it kind of doesn't matter whether you use standard deviation or the standard deviation of the downside. Bill, I mentioned earlier that I used the sharp ratio to compare index fund portfolios to the very high fee portfolios of endowments to compare their performance on a risk adjusted basis. I also used the sortino ratio and the results were very similar. That's kind of my expectation. The probability distribution is arch symmetric, but they're typically of a similar enough form. Probably if you rank on one probably rank on the other. This question is from username Derek Tinnan from Twitter writes, are the persistent flows to index funds changing the market structure? Yes, there are two ways of looking at that question. One is, were there not those funds how different what things be? The other is, given there are those now and there were not back in my early days, how different are things? And I'll skip the latter one because the world is so different in general. And I don't even know how to start on that one. I guess one difference if people generally stop using index funds would be that be poorer because they'd be paying higher fees than as Jack Bogle has wrote about and talked about many times. That's not a trivial difference. That's a major difference. One of the ironies of efficient market theory broadly construed is is a sort of a contradiction. We assume that people are really working hard to figure out exactly how much more general motors is worth than general electric. And that all those prices are taken to account information in very efficient ways. And yet we encourage investors to pay no attention to any of that and just call them all. And there has to be a point at which there aren't enough active managers, people doing research on securities to keep the market prices right as it were. To incorporate the information that's extant into security prices. That's a really interesting thing to worry about. And over the many years since we all started in this field, question is how much indexing is too much? My hope at least is that if and when we got to that point enough people will peel off and start doing security research and become active managers, where that point is, I don't know. But it is a dilemma. So you don't want to convince too many people to index. Unfortunately, the people who don't index are paying the price for that research through higher fees. It's a very strange kind of equilibrium. Do I worry about it now? No. Do I index now? Yes. When I started teaching the investments course at Stanford and this would have been 1970 or thereafter, I would start the course by going into the classroom and writing on the board a phone number. And I would say this is the most important information you're going to get in this course. And I'd wait for somebody to say, well, what is that? And I said, that's the new customer line at Vancouver. This is true. And I'm making this up just to please the Bogleheads because they were at that time, the only place you could get an index fund. It's an issue to think about if not worry about is there too much indexing? The answer is no, but I can't prove it. Certainly to your point, if too many index fund investors means an opportunity to make some money, someone's going to try and do just that. Of course. And the question is how much, if any of that will the managers pass through that the shareholders have the fund to quote Rick Ferry. If there is any alpha, it goes to the managers. Let's move on to another question on index investing. This one is from username SB 1234 from the Bogleheads forums, who writes, are buy and hold index fund investors free riding in the sense that they do not contribute to price discovery? I think so. There are certainly managers who get rich by being in some sense superior and getting information and acting on it. I have a general audience teaching the investments course at Stanford and I will divide them into two halves left side of the right side. They're all money managers in this market and they collectively are the market. I would assign half of them to be index fund managers and tell them what they did. They had to figure out how many shares were outstanding of each and buy exactly proportionate amounts. And the people on this side were active managers and I would describe this one does research on this and that one does this and give them a sense of what active managers do. So I'd say these folks own half the market and those folks collectively own half the market and the index managers across each of them owns the same portfolio. But the active managers are all placed. And then I would say, OK, before costs, the market is down 12 percent before costs. What did this passive manager earn and they've seen 12 percent? What did that one earn? 12 percent. Now over here on the active side, what did this one earn? 30 percent. Brilliant. What did this one earn? Minus 12. What did the average dollar earn on the passive side before costs? And they think a bit 12 percent. What did the average dollar earn on the active side? It takes a little while. It's got to be 12 percent. OK, then we take costs into account. In general audiences, when you play that little game, they say, wait a minute, what did he do? Wait, that can't be right. I mean, forget data and standard deviations and equilibrium and all that, just that argument from pure investment check. And the money managers hate to hear that because they don't want to have to have that discussion with their clients. It's a paper. I published a two page paper of the arithmetic of active management. Sharps math, I'll link to that in the show notes for our podcast listeners. They can check out that paper by Bill. There have been attempts by many managers writing articles to say, well, but there are new issues. We get them the good ones first and there's this and there's that. Those are minor perturbations realistically. And that argument for indexing, I mean, it's so self evident actually everybody in the boggle it knows it. Let's move on to some questions on model portfolios. Next, this one is from username exiting for the boggle heads forums who writes a general principle is that people who are much different from the average investor, as weighted by portfolio size or trading activity, those people should deviate from the market cap waiting to take into account their special differences. Does Bill agree? And then we had a similar question from username Tom 76. Let me break that in the two pieces. One is less risk, more risk. And in the theory, you can do that by borrowing your lending. And in the theory, you can borrow and lend at the same rate. But those are very strong assumptions. There's one market portfolio levered up or down. And of course, people don't just take one market portfolio and lever it up or down. They tend to shade a bias towards less risky funds for bias towards more risky, etc. The real world is more complicated than the simple models that economists create. People cannot borrow at the same rate at which they can lend or risklessly invest. There are arguments there. And I would not argue that life is as simple as in our simple models. And again, you need to take your whole portfolio into account, your assets. If you have a whole unoccupied whole, that's an asset. If you have a mortgage, that's a liability, etc. I sort of think of that as more a bond stock issue. Now, in the simple theory, you know, there's the market portfolio includes bonds and stocks. And you lever that up or down at the riskless rate. Well, let's face it, we really don't do that. I think a lot of those issues can be addressed by changing the proportions of bonds and stocks. And that, I think, is the lever that I would prefer to see people pulling and pushing to get a balance. And that goes back to that basic Bokeland's principle, which is take the right amount of risk. And you can do that by adjusting that lever. How much do you want in bonds for stocks? Yeah, that would certainly be the place to start at the very least. I wonder if Exodus is asking about factor investing in this question. Some people's favorite strategy of overwading small stocks, for example, you can do that with index bonds. I don't advocate overwading small stocks because you think they're underpriced. More risk for the chance at higher return. Those higher returns are not guaranteed when overwading small camps. Let's talk about tips, treasury inflation protected securities. These are inflation adjusted government bonds. We have another question for the mogad's forums. This user writes, now that tips have positive real yields, should individual investors who have enough space in tax deferred accounts be using them exclusively instead of regular or nominal treasury bonds? It's certainly nicer now that they have positive, if not so nice for those who help them if they need to sell them. Yeah, definitely. In an important sense, tips or somebody in the US are the riskless security or as riskless as you can get in terms of consumption. Let's return to a question that we touched on earlier on factor investing, such as those factors found by FOM on French. Do you believe in those factors? Well, believe is perhaps to answer on the word. Are they useful? Yes, for some things they are. But do I believe that it is clearly true that people should overweight expose you to a small factor or a gross factor or whatever factor of your choice because there's something wrong with the markets? No. What are your thoughts on international diversification? Should investors be only investing in the US total stock market? Or should we be investing globally? I'll have to tell a story here. I was on a nonprofit investment committee. And one of the members was a semi-retired private equity guy and we had a consultant who was helping us, et cetera, the usual story. And at one point we were discussing a foreign investment and he gave a little speech as far as I could tell was not kidding. Said, well, if he had his druthers, we wouldn't have any foreign investments because it allowed to run businesses over there. And I thought, well, surely OK, this is a joke. It wasn't. He was serious. That's one view. It's not mine. My view is that international diversification should be a good thing in theory, as long as people can without too many problems in terms of repatriation and all the rest and divergent tax systems. I believe in globally diversified portfolios. There is a sense of diversification that said there is an argument for investing at least more than market proportions at home because that's where a lot of your consumption originates. You know, if in fact the company that you have traditionally purchased goods at the grocery store does very well because they raise their prices a lot, you at least have a balance. Well, I'm paying more, but my stock went up and that's a trivial and sort of a silly example. So I think there is an argument for home bias, but I don't think it's totally offset by the advantages of global diversification. So there's a happy point in the middle somewhere there. For those who aren't investment nerds know that the global cap waning is roughly 60 40. That's to say roughly 60 cents of every dollar invested around the world is invested in US companies and the balance of that 40 cents is invested outside of the US. So that is the global cap waiting. If we have a home bias will invest a little bit more than that roughly 60 percent compared to international. For example, Rick Ferry, the normal host of this podcast frequently suggests two thirds, one third in favor of US stock markets, giving us a little bit of a home bias. He talks about that in episode one of the bill heads live podcast. I'll link to that in the show notes for our podcast listeners to check that out. Bill, what do you think is a reasonable mix for home bias? Whether or not you go to world market proportions, which is what I would favor as a default and ask yourself, I don't buy it only companies in California companies in the US and I don't buy only companies in the US. I think you need to really think a little bit about what are your other holdings. You obviously have a disproportionate holding in the US if you own your own home. So if you take your old portfolio, including things like equity in your home, then that gives you a difference. You know, certainly if you've got real estate, your primary residence, maybe even some investment properties, then that further tilts you towards that home bias. Even if you've got that global cap weighted portfolio for your liquid investments, that is a phenomenal point. There was a time there was some investor would say, I only invest in things that are close to home. You think, no, wait a minute, from a diversification standpoint, you win a lot of stake in California or what have you from your property. Let's talk more about bonds. Bill, I'm curious about your thoughts on the following. The risk of equities shows up in corporate bonds. Therefore, if I'm trying to manage equity risk, I don't want to hold bonds that are subject to equity risk in my portfolio. That means opting exclusively for US government bonds for the bond portion of my portfolio as advocated by David Swenson, the late chief investment officer over at Yale's Endowment. I haven't thought of the issue that way. Why should it matter in what manner you invested in the company? It's out there. It's part of the market broadly construed. There is obviously the risk issue. If you take the simplest of a very and very you should deal with combining the overall market with riskless securities to deal with your risk version and you should get everything that's out there in the market. If you can get it, the reasonable expense. Now, kinds of issues you're raising are more subtle. There is not subtle enough to deal with it. My first impression would be whatever the company's issued will buy our proportionate share of everything and then leverage to move the overall risk of the portfolio up or potentially down. Burrito Lover from the Bokeh Hedge Forums asks, is chasing higher yields via a lower duration bond in the current environment, a viable strategy? Well, I would just say generically anything that assumes that you can exploit somebody who is summer than you would not be recommended if you believe in efficient markets. What are your thoughts on changing bond maturity over time? That's to say right now, short term yields are really attractive. Therefore, I'm going to hold a short term bond portfolio and then maybe when rates normalize, I'll update my bond portfolio going farther out on that yield curve. What do you think about market timing, your bond portfolio with respect to interest rates?  And there are a lot of smart people in the market. That's not at all clear that you know significantly more than is embedded in the market. Maybe you do. Make you know more about the futures and the average investor and you have to think of the average investor as dollar weighted, not the average investor, you know, down the street with a small portfolio. The average investor is pretty informed and pretty smart. If you're going to underweight or overweight anything because you think the market has got it wrong, then you're betting against a bunch of folks, many of them in terms of dollars invested know a lot about some of these things. I do not play that game. And I would not recommend it to the average investor. What are your thoughts on foreign bond holdings? This question is from username McHugh from the Little Edge forums, who asks about just holding the US bond market on the bond portion of their portfolio. Well, there's an argument you should overweigh that which you eat. In other words, you live in the US, you buy things from the US predominantly. Well, they're not exclusively, of course, there would be an argument for doing things that are closer to your consumption basket. Put it in economist terms. And I think that's an argument we're thinking about. Of course, we consume a lot of things that in a whole or in part come from it elsewhere. But home bias, you know, maybe makes some sense. But you have to think about it that way. I would argue. Yeah, you make the decision. Let's talk a bit more about real estate. This question is from username Abbas368 from the Bullga's forums, who writes what are his thoughts on private real estate investing, such as fund rise and grand cardone as an alternative asset class to invest in alongside a diversified low cost total market index fund portfolio. I think you should certainly get market proportion, think about market proportions of real estate in the sense of things that are traded on security markets where you've got liquidity, etc. Not in the underlying asset, but in the security. When you start talking about direct investment in real estate, that raises a number of other conditions.  I think it's a practical matter. There are traded securities on major markets. That's definitely something worth considering in proportions on those markets. Abbas368 goes on to say these funds typically have high fees such as one percent and are illiquid. Does that illiquidity increase the probability of achieving alpha? Well, I would not argue that anything with certainty increases of the ability of increasing alpha. I think there's a pretty good argument that the truly average investor should consider liquidity.  You buy real estate that's illiquid because you can live in it. But to buy on the illiquid asset as an investment period, I think you should give some thought before you do that. Let's talk about publicly traded REITs. Investable using Vanguard's low cost REIT index fund to VNQ. These were highly recommended 10 to 20 years ago by Burton Malkiel and David Swenson. I think you should consider investing them in market proportions in the risky part of your portfolio. Again, if they're highly liquid and they're traded repulatively and such shares. When you invest in VTI, VTSAX, that low cost Vanguard total stock market index fund, you're already getting everything in VNQ to your point. Let's pivot to annuities. This one is from username a fan from the forums who writes, can you discuss the rule of annuities versus bonds in a retirement plan? Annuities versus bond. Well, there's a really big difference.  That's a major difference. And the whole issue is should you annuities? Should you partially annuitize is one that takes an awful lot of thought. There are very, very important things that transcend investment discussions on whether you should annuitize or not. One of the questions is whether or not you can even make it to a very old age which you have some probability of reaching.  It's a very complicated decision that involves many issues that transcend or at least overwhelm the economics involved. A single premium immediate annuity. That's the type of annuity you described just now. Yeah. Let's jump to some questions that you suggested about asking artificial intelligence, AI, how to invest. It's pretty interesting. First of all, of course, you well know everybody now well knows the answers. It's astounding what kind of answers you can get. The answers do differ. I asked the arithmetic of active management. Can the average dollar invested in the market portfolio after costs outperform the average dollar invested in active strategies? And one of them said, no, period. The one has to think about what the role of AI will be and investment advice, whether it will replace some humans or it won't just give advice to people who otherwise didn't get it and what the impact that might be. We need to find a way to make sure that the AI I read some of the things that you and I are talking about and such. Certainly, at least for the short term, it's buyer be aware if you're using those platforms for investment advice. Amen. Yeah. Bill, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it as I'm sure as do all the Bogleheads. Any final thoughts you'd like to share with the Bogleheads? My guess is the Bogleheads are on pretty much the right course. If they're truly following Jack, that's a very good thing. I appreciate your interest and I appreciate their interest and I appreciate anybody who listens to whatever the edited version of this will be for spending the time. And that wraps up our interview with Dr. William Sharp. Don't forget you've still got time to take advantage of the special room rate for the hotel for the 2023 Bogleheads conference. Go to Boglecenter.net slash 2023 conference for more information. I'll be back next month returning as guest host for the Bogleheads on investing podcast. Until then, you can check out a wealth of information for do-it-yourself investors at the John C. Boglecenter for financial literacy at Boglecenter.net and check out Bogleheads.org the Bogleheads Twitter Bogleheads Wiki the Bogleheads YouTube channel Bogleheads Facebook Bogleheads Reddit the John C. Boglecenter for financial literacy on LinkedIn and local and virtual chapters. And to you listening right now. Yes, you I'm talking to you. If you could please take a moment to subscribe and to rate the podcast on Apple Spotify or wherever you get your podcast and also be sure to leave a review. The more listeners who do that the more other folks will find this resource for do-it-yourself investors. Thank you for checking out this episode of the Bogleheads on investing podcast. If you want to submit questions for next month's guest, check out the Bogleheads forums. We have a thread going for questions for Jonathan Clements of the humble dollar who will be our guest on the next show. All link to that thread in the show notes so you can drop your question for Jonathan Clements. Until that next show have a great one.


This 2019 Ford F-250 Crew Cab Short Box XLT is stock number 11894Z. We're here at Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. You're new and used heavy-duty truck headquarters. This super clean 2019 Ford F-250 Crew Cab has the 6.7 liter power stroke diesel. This truck has been fully-safetyed and inspected by our service shop as a fresh oil and filter change. All the fluids have been checked and topped off per the state of Wisconsin inspection process, and this truck is 100% ready to go. Oxford White is the color we shoot all of our videos in 1080p, 60 frames per second. So if you have HD capabilities on your computer, tablet, smartphone, or television, turn them on right now because it is definitely your best way to check out the quality and condition of the truck before seeing it in person. And if you like the video and want to check out more videos, then the lower right-hand part of the screen is a link to subscribe to our YouTube channel with the gold subscribe button there. Click that, and then click the bell notifications. You'll get updated daily as we do videos of each and every vehicle that we have here at Summit Auto. This one comes with painted alloy rims. No scuffs or scrapes on there, and it has Open Country Toyo tires. These are LT28575R18 tires. These tires have probably, I'd say, 80%, 90% of the tread left. They look really new, like they were just put on recently. And the frame and underbody on this truck is in nice shape. Front fender is in excellent condition. No dents or dings on there. Headlight lenses are crystal clear. Front bumper and lower valance. No dents, dings, scuffs, or scrapes on there. Grille is in excellent shape, and I didn't see any dents or dings on the hood. Passengers side front fender, excellent condition as well. And the passenger side rim, no major scuffs or scrapes on there. As you go down this side of the truck, take note of how clean the body is, how reflective and mirror-like that paint is. We take these HD videos, so if you are far away, or even if you're close by and you just cannot make the trip down, but you're still interested in purchasing the vehicle, you can see the truck, hear the truck, have confidence in the vehicle so that you can make a smart, fine decision from the comfort of your own home. That's exactly why we do the videos, so you can see the truck and just have a really good idea of what you're getting before making the trip. Very clean down that side. This back rim is in excellent shape as well. And the back tires have just as much tread as the front tires. Frame and underbody, very nice and clean. It's like that all the way underneath, has all the remaining factory exhaust, so it hasn't been altered in any way, shape, or form. Lower rockers, nice condition, and it does come with the factory painted step bars. 4x4 sticker looks good. As we come around to the back, rear bumper is in great shape. It does have some rear floodlights, full towing package, which includes receiver hitch 4 pin and 7 pin wiring. The tailgate is in excellent condition as well. And you do get a trucks port by Truxedo soft tonneau cover. That's in really nice shape. I didn't see any rips or tears on there. And it does come with a drop in bed liner. Get some nice tie down hooks in here. It looks like that tonneau cover. Tonneau cover is a roll up tonneau cover. And as you go down the driver's side, just as clean as that passenger side, no denser dings in the box. And for full disclosure, this back rim is in nice condition too. Driver's side doors look really good. And it does have the telescopic tow mirrors. They are heated, have built in directional signals. They telescope out like that. They also fold in like so. Has the door code entry. We do have the door code for this truck. And we actually did a video on how to find a door code on your 2019 Ford F-250. If you want to check that out, it's in the upper right hand part of the screen linked to that video. Seat is in excellent condition. Kind of the dark charcoal cloth interior. Weather tech floor mats, auto headlamps, power windows, power locks, power mirrors. We'll hop inside, take a look at the instrument cluster, and then check out the radio. Get the built forward tough animation there. We'll dim it down a little bit so you can see it better. 27,261 miles instrument cluster is very nice and clean. Get the multifunction steering wheel with cruise and information center controls on the left. Volume and Bluetooth controls on the right. Does have the six speed automatic transmission. The AM FM radio. It also has serious satellite radio capabilities on here. And it does have your factory exhaust brake, stability control, turned out four wheel drive factory brake controller.  USB jack. That weather tech floor mat goes all the way over the hump. Two 12 volt power points, dual glove boxes, passenger side seat, no rips or tears on there. Looks really good. And the headliner is in really nice shape. I didn't see any rips or tears on that. You do get map lights up there. And we'll take a quick look at the back seats and then we'll start it up. And take a look under the hood. So I kind of like we got the back seats up already so that you can see the storage bin that is right here. Now that is collapsible. So you got to put both sides down and then they'll go down like so nice and flat. But that's nice if you got to store some stuff and you don't want it to roll around or anything. Get the weather tech floor mats back here. Keeping your carpeting looking brand new. These seats do fold back down like so. And there's no rips or tears back here. It does have the latch child safety system and the fixed glass rear window. Side curtain airbags back here. And you do get the child safety locks on the back doors. Bottoms of the doors are all really nice. Then we'll start it up and take a quick look under the hood. No check engine lights or anything like that. I would personally like to thank you for checking out the video today. Work pretty hard at these. Make sure that you get the best information possible and that you can tell just how clean the truck is all the way around inside out. Under the hood we have the 6.7 liter power stroke diesel. Engine bay is very clean. Runs very smooth. Once again this truck has been fully safe and inspected by our service shop as a fresh oil and filter change. All the fluids have been checked and topped off for the state of Wisconsin inspection process. This truck is 100%. Ready to go. Can see somebody put some nice LED headlamps in there. Super bright. And to see more pictures of this truck or one of our other 450 new and used cars, trucks, SUVs, minivans, Wranglers, half tons, three quarter tons, one tons. You name it we got to go to that website right there. www.summitauto.com. Full pictures and descriptions of every single vehicle from two locations all at summitauto.com. And if you'd like to subscribe to our YouTube channel, you can go to youtube.com slash summitauto. And remember to subscribe, like and share on all the videos that you see there, and click those bell notifications to get updates daily. In fact, in a second you'll see a link to subscribe to our YouTube channel in the upper left. The link to more F-250 videos like this one in the upper right. Link to this vehicle on our website in the lower left and a link to one of our latest YouTube videos in the lower right. Click those, check us out, and we're super excited to help you with this Ultra Clean 2019 Ford F-250 Crew Cab Short Box XLT Power Stroke Diesel in Oxford White. Thanks again for checking out the video. And remember to like, subscribe, and click those bell notifications. Thanks again.