Alright, let's call the meeting, don't worry about that. Two minutes late, three minutes late. Alright, we're getting started, John. Whenever you're ready. Well, good morning everyone. I'd like to be able to be there in person and see you all, but we're gonna do you know, John and I were just joking, two guys over fifty, probably not the best idea to be running this technology, but here we go. So hopefully you all have hard copies in front of you. Okay, we're here. Alright. So let's begin, we're picking up where we left off last time. We really have, if you turn to page one, our goals today are two-fold. One is to confirm the set of asset allocation mixes to evaluate the upcoming asset liability study. And again, these mixes explore the impact of changing the fixed income allocation and adding possibly, you know, a modest, mitigating the modest overweight to U.S. equity home bias and adding an allocation for new asset class and private credit. And then the second component that we're gonna do today is to evaluate potential alternatives for the international equity structure. So again, let me begin by doing a time check. How much time do we have this morning? Hour and a half. Tops. Tops. Okay, I don't think we're gonna be using an hour and a half, but let's begin and as you pace through, it should look very similar to what we saw, or what we presented last time. And I think if you turn to page six, right John, that is the page that looks at the list of alternatives that we are looking to hone in on. Hey John, can I get you to share your screen? Do you have the presentation on your screen? John, do you want to do the share screen? I'm trying. And also, I would like to ask, so we're on camera, we're being videoed, is everything okay to release? Yes. Okay. Okay. Do you need some guidance? Let's see, I can't get more on here, hold on. Can you guys see that? It's coming up right now. There we go. We got it. Okay, this says draft, John. What is that? That's a 2021 one. Oh, well, false hope there guys. Sorry. Can we possibly... Can you see anything that's going on here? They can follow us. Maybe. That's cute. If you don't have that handy, John, I just emailed it to you. Alright, here, let me check. Path keeps coming back to that thing, guys. I don't know. I don't know. I think we're at periodic. I don't want to do this, guys. I'm sorry. Yeah, we're following along. We just want to make sure we're on the same page as you are. We'll do our best. We'll be sure to call off the page and stuff like that. Okay, so on page six, we have a list of portfolios listed here. And we have the asset classes in the far left margin. And then towards the bottom of the table, we have mixed characteristics. So that's where we show the expected return, the standard deviation, which is a proxy for risk, and then the Sharpe ratio. So the Sharpe ratio is the risk return metric. So as you look at the alternatives, if you look at the green bar, it kind of tells you what are the differences in the asset allocation. And in the green shade to the far right, you see there's a mix called target. That's your current target. So that's our starting point. And then the first one listed is ten percent core fixed income. So the difference there, what we've done is from the target, we've added ten percent into the fixed income category. And I might as well just kind of turn it over to John and kind of walk through. But the significance of that is that if you add ten percent core fixed income, this is more of an illustration than anything else, that you see the standard deviation goes from 12.8 in the target to 11.1. So what does that do? That means it's reducing the risk, but correspondingly, you see the expected return falls to 6.88 percent. So that's not ideal from our perspective, because your actuarial assumed assumption is that you're going to earn seven percent. So this is more or less just for illustration purposes in terms of the risk. The next one, next mix to the right is, I'm going to label that number two, is plus four percent fixed income plus five percent private credit. Okay? And you see the differing asset classes, the adjustments that are being made. John, do you want to walk through each one of these? Yeah. Just backing up all the way to 30,000 feet, right? We're choosing policy mixes here that we're going to run through the asset liability model, and we're going to present to you in August, right? And when you see this table, all the mixes you see on the table are the same mixes that we looked at back when we met last time, with the exception of this second mix, okay, which is what we're increasing fixed income a bit. We have a modest, we're increasing the amount of the proportion of investment in U.S. versus international. That's what that U.S. bias means. And it also has a five percent allocation to private credit, right? So, and again, from 30,000 feet, we think, given current market conditions, relative to where your target is now, it is appropriate to incrementally increase the allocation of fixed income. Remember, we talked a bit about this last time, that we did the asset liability study back in 2022. We were forecasting on the order of 2 percent return for fixed income, and now we're looking at something more like 5 percent. So, fixed income, the most defensive asset in your portfolio, and now conferring a lot higher yield. You know, that coupled with, as we know, in particular the U.S., equity valuations are pretty high. We think it makes sense, again, on the margin, we're coming in from no changes here, to tweak the portfolio from the target and increase that fixed income allocation. And indeed, when you look at, you see the vast majority of those mixes we're going to examine here, you see that they all, almost all of them, have more fixed income. So, again, that's kind of the key thing that we're recommending here, that secondarily, right, we want to look at the impact of private credit. And private credit, yes, from a modeling perspective, right, you're improving the diversification. And indeed, let's just refocus on that second mix, the Mix 2. We can see that, you know, the expected return of that is slightly north of the actuarial assumption, and the volatility is mainly reduced in terms of standard deviation relative to where you are now, right? You see how the Mix 2 has a standard deviation of 11.7, whereas the target mix right now has a standard deviation more than a percent higher than that, okay? Now, I want to kind of put a point on the private credit. It's like, yes, from a modeling perspective, private credit does improve the diversification portfolio, as I just demonstrated, but you are increasing the portfolio complexity, right? So, that's kind of a fork in the road. They, again, say, yes, we think it makes sense to increase the fixed income on the margin. The private credit, you know, it kind of depends, you know, do you guys want to kind of add additional complexity to the portfolio for the potential of diversifying, you know, in there? I mean, John, do we, I don't think we have, we were talking about this before the call, we don't have a firm recommendation there, right? I mean, let me pass it back to you, John, for your thoughts on that. Yeah, certainly. So, the idea here is that does it have a diversification benefit? Yes. What is the downside? It's complexity, right? It's administratively more correspondence with the organization, legal documents, et cetera. So, then the question becomes, you know, is the change worth the effort? And, you know, so, by comparison purposes, if you look at, if you just scan to the next mix, you see that that does not contain, does not contain any private credit, but it has increased the fixed income. So, when you look at the expected return, that's at 7% and the standard deviation 11.93. So, when you compare the second and the third mix, you're saying, okay, so you're getting approximately the same return and you're taking a little bit more risk, but you're also doing it without the complexity, right? So, that's the question. Is the difference from a modeling perspective material enough to add the additional asset class? And, again, that's, you know, it's easy for us to, you know, stand here and say, okay, well, overall, you know, it's good for the portfolio, but in terms of being practical in implementation, is it really worth it? And that's really a question you all really need to answer in terms of are the resources required to do this? Again, we would look at the two. We'd say, well, the third alternative is it's streamlined, it's less complex, it kind of gets you to where the same place, but doesn't include something like private credit, which, again, we're supporters of, but we try to be realistic. We don't pound the table saying, you know, you have to have it. So, I mean, if we were talking about something that was indispensable, we would tell you. And, certainly, we think the private credit is nice to have but not required. So, I said a lot of words there. Are there any questions about that? I'm sorry to interrupt. I've got a question. So, you're talking about the complexity and about increased correspondence and legal documents. Can you kind of describe, I guess, as if maybe I'm a high schooler, what that actually means in practice? Like, what does that actually mean? I mean, does that make sense? Sure. And, Susan, please weigh in if you like. But, certainly, when we're talking about rebalancing and moving money around and making sure that the allocations are on targets, it corresponds with the custodian bank, right? It's telling the bank, we need to move X, Y, Z money from here to point A to point B. And it may be multiple portfolios involved to do that. We know that there's distributions that take place on a monthly basis. And we go through the process in chat, as well, looking at the current allocation versus the targets. We take away money from the overweight target to kind of effectively rebalance. Getting the accounts set up. Making changes in terms of direction. This is more akin to what we do, what's required for real estate, for instance. So, again, as we are unwinding the JP Morgan portfolio, there's been a lot of correspondence back and forth about redemptions. Putting in for redemptions, getting money back, may not be the entire amount. In terms of getting the legal approval, as soon as you're acquainted with this, getting accounts set up in those documents, and then ultimately, in the end, reports are being produced, questions from the auditors, etc. So those are some of the things that are required. It's not particularly taxing on us, but we're also cognizant of the resources that are required at the City of Lexington. Does that answer your question? I believe so, and I have a follow-up, if I may. It seems like there is probably a lot of moving parts with this style of investment. Perhaps, how long would the, if we did go to this, how long would the Board have between decisions to actually come to a decision? Like, if we're trying to move money around or open an account or have this correspondence, is the Board even going to have time on a month-to-month basis to be informed and make a decision as a whole for these decisions that we're going to have to make in this type of asset class? I think the process, the procedure, is you've got a monthly report that takes place where the Board is advised where money is being moved to accommodate rebalancing and making money available for distributions. So, I don't think that the timing required would be no different than what's currently the procedure. Just perhaps more frequent? No, as far as I know, when you get a monthly report from the City in terms of making money, the financials, if I'm not mistaken, that's a monthly report that you get, right? Isn't that what Chad provides on a monthly basis? I think getting it off the ground would probably be the heavy lift. I would assume that we would have people in that space similar to some of our other entities that, you know, like a Bailey Gifford or like a manager. Are there people in that space similar to that that we would need to select? Or how does that work? Similar with respect to, you know, where you have contact folks that are available at the investment management organizations as well as interaction with your custodian. If we made the decision to go with private credit, we would need to rebalance all of the other funds. Get whatever out of wherever we're taking it from and get it into private credit. Getting it set up would probably take a while. Well, and also, we would have to change our investment policy in regards to either credit or any of the other ones that we were looking at. We would have to change our investment policy to be able to allow it, yes. That's correct. Well, and I did ask Chad to join us today because he does a lot of the day-to-day and all of that. Not a lot. He does the vast majority of the communication along with Susan and Tanya. So, do you have anything you want to add, Chad? You're welcome. Come join us. Come join the table. I'm not saying a word. Well, that's not helpful. My decision this meeting to be open is based on the gain that you get for the effort. But, yeah, but it's not my decision. I'm all about fixing. That's I would be interested in seeing some things over here. Personally. Yeah. I mean, because if we're concerned it's your contribution rate, that's going to help that. But, you know. What? I think US equities. Well, just. The last one. Over 10 years, you know. It's either the same or less in almost every column of this chart. I would be kind of interested in seeing some other perhaps some other options about maybe getting something with a little bit more risk but a little bit more payout. Because we are concerned about the city's contribution rate going up and up. If we can't, you know. It seems like that's the best way to come up with a way to make it go down. I think to contradict that is that, I mean, we're somewhat volatile. I don't know if you watch the news, but it's a somewhat volatile time. If you can get fixed income at such a clip right now, something we haven't seen in a decade, that makes sense. I mean, this is institutional investing. We're not trying to get rich overnight. So, we just have to make sure the solvency of this fund's there. You know, we can do things on the city's part to deal with that. Like we talked about the smoothing or whatever. I'm not as worried about that. But I think for us, it's all about solvency of money. You know what I mean? I'm not completely a prepper, but I'm probably one step away. You know, like, getting this fixed income seems like the right thing to do. I think what's in question is just whether or not we want to do private credit. I think there's enough nose shaking heads in here that we probably don't want to lean that way. I mean, I even like the U.S. bias. I don't know what makes that more, and I guess that'll be my question. You're probably going to get to that as we're working from left to right in our columns here. Okay. So, I'll digress. Well, and again, I'd ask John to weigh in on this, but our approach is in terms of being more aggressive. Ultimately, our interest is to meet your actuarial assumption, right? And kind of like, how can you meet that goal with the least amount of volatility or risk associated with it? And again, so that's why our integration is on expected returns around that 7% bogey. And certainly, we did include a mix. 6 was a little more aggressive from your current mix. And again, what you see there is, while it goes up to an expected return of 7.22, the thing that is apparent that you're reducing your fixed income from 23% to 18%. And 7% of that 18% is high yield, which is, again, a higher risk asset class than your investment grade fixed income. So, the benefit we see is increasing the fixed income that is a luxury. For the past two decades, the return on fixed income has really been paltry. And we're in an environment now where you've got the potential to earn 5% on a fixed income with a very low volatility. So, we think that's our thought for behind increasing the fixed income allocation. And I'll take a pause there and ask John if he's got anything to add to that. I put it very in terms of, hey, we focus on 3 plus 5% for fixed income. Or if you look at the one that was alluded to in the last comment, one immediately to the right of that, it's basically the same as the plus 5% fixed income. It just takes your current, you start your current target. And all it's doing is it's taking 4% away from international equity and putting that in fixed income, SEC. So, it's pretty simple to implement. It'd be straightforward. The only part is a reduction in international equity. I think I thought I heard the question, why is the expected return a little bit better for that U.S. bias mix in the core fixed income? And that's because of the way it was funded. It's only increasing fixed income 4% instead of 5%. And so, that's why the return looks a little bit better. But you can see, for all intents and purposes, right from a modeling perspective, those portfolios are, yeah, I'm just being honest, they're pretty much identical, right? So, there's no strong preference either way there. But, yeah, if you move to that U.S. bias, instead of having about 64% of your equity exposure being in the U.S., it's kind of pushing that more toward about 70%. So, again, not a huge tilt, but again, kind of reflecting your recognition that, you know, that if you guys think that the U.S. is likely to now form a national over time, right, that making that incremental tweak, you know, would pay off over time. But, again, it's not a huge value difference we're talking about here. So, are we, as a group, agreeing to not look at private credit? Hang on, we're gonna have a vote here. What do you think? I'm thinking no. You say yes on private credit? Tommy says yes, and we have three no's. Let's hear mine a little bit more. I mean, I'm somewhere in the next two ballots. What are your thoughts, Tommy? Well, I think, you know, we need to go into more fixed income with the return that we got now, you know. And it may not be, it may not last very long, but let's ride it while we can, you know, because, you know, it's just safer. For fixed income, but for the private credit piece? That's what we're talking about. It's not, we all agree with the fixed income, I think. What I've read about it, it wasn't that, I got on and researched and everything, but it was, I didn't see where it was gonna hurt us at all. You know, it's just more diversification. And, in fact, my personal finances, I've really diversified and I'm really making, you know, a lot of money right now. So, I like diversification. Because when one part of it's up, another part's down, and you keep getting that balance. That's my reasoning. So, in the next two columns, and again, the Sharpe ratio factors in the return with the level of risk that's there. What, it seems kind of wild that, I mean, it changes. It's nominal change between the next two. Whether we use the U.S. buys with 4% fixed income or just go with the flat 5. I don't know what our thoughts are there. If anybody in the room has anything, or if they need to elaborate, the Johns need to elaborate any more. Anybody? I don't have a strong inclination anyway. I don't know about that. I like the U.S. buys a little bit more. I mean, there's a slightly higher return. There are standard deviations. It's barely off. What, a basis point off or so. And the ratio stays almost identical. I think you can flip a point between the two. Is there a reason why we would take one of those over the other, either John? You know, I think it's kind of what John Perrone kind of laid out is that, you know, if you were to look at the global index, you would see the 64% U.S., 36% non. If you go with the U.S. buys, again, it's at the margin. So instead of going 64%, you're going 68% in U.S. And the reason why you would do that is that, you know, there's more confidence in the U.S. versus non. U.S. in terms of likelihood to outperform. We'll say that when the run, I guess, in the last 25 years that the U.S. has had has, you know, valuations in terms of, like, the price of those equities are at a high level. And that's why we saw, you know, at the end of the day, we've seen non. U.S. do extremely well. So the idea here is, like, okay, what stocks are cheaper? Non. U.S. versus U.S. are cheaper. And that's the attraction there. But what you've seen in the U.S. stocks is that it's been driven by let's call it the Magnuson 7 information technology has been a driver of the U.S. markets. If you continue to think that, hey, they're going to have a leadership and they're going to continue to exhibit the exceptionalism that they've had, then you would tilt slightly in favor of the U.S. And that's kind of, that's where, you know, it's a little more expensive than non. U.S. stocks. And the idea here is, in either case, you've got adequate diversification. One has just got a little bit more leaning towards favoring U.S. over non. U.S. I mean, if you put a gun to my head, dude, I was a full panderer, I would keep the mix with its current 5% for fixed income personally. But, I mean, that's kind of, again, that's kind of got valuations. The fact of my head, when I state that, and comment, big Tommy's talking about diversification, right? This year, your international equities are up 14% and S&P's up three and change. So we're seeing some diversification play out. But, again, it's, you need a, I think somebody told me, you need like a magnifying glass to see the difference in characteristics between the two. So, we're not going to die in that little while, anyway. That's a good point. And, yeah, John, we don't necessarily need to decide this today, too. I think that what I've heard is we're going to excise private credit, right? So that's taken a lot of kind of the variability out of this, right? So now we're kind of honing in. And we can always decide on U.S. bias versus core. Downstream, is that fair? Or do we need to decide today, John? You know, I guess our thought is that we are looking to kind of whittle this down to, you know, three alternatives and then John Perrone is going to take the liability information and you're going to kind of see, you know, best case scenarios, worst case scenarios. And I guess our thought was that we would bring those three and make a determination on, you know, which one should be, would be your preference. And I guess it's a question, this is kind of like the heavy lifting to kind of whittle the choices down to a small number. And our thought was that we would, you know, take it to the board and give you an opportunity, you know, you'd see it advance and have your opinion of what you think the most appropriate mix is. And again, if we're in agreement that we're going to eliminate private credit, that knocks out two. If we are in agreement that we're going to increase the fixed income, not decrease it, then that eliminates the mix number six. So that kind of puts us where we, and now it's a question of, okay, would you like to see two or three alternatives, right? Yeah, you're correct. Yeah, number one would be eliminated by not meeting the actuarial return, right? Right. And John, from Molly's perspective, I'm actually, I'm going to retain those kind of bookends, the plus 10% fixed and the minus 5% core fixed. Not because, again, they're going to be adopted, but again, a lot of things we're going to be providing are projections of funding ratio, projections of potential contribution policy in these different scenarios. So it's good to kind of span a wide range just so you can see some of those tradeoffs. Again, recognizing in practice, you're not going to choose them, but it's good to have. So I think I'm probably going to end up using probably five mixes, John. Again, maybe two or three will be viable in terms of, you know, like the plus 5% core fixed income, the 4% core fixed income, right? Those are probably where we're going to settle. Okay. Let's see. Okay. I think we have no feed to carry on here, John. Okay, right. So we are going to include mix two, three, and four. And we're going to have the goal posts would be one and six, but practically speaking, it's two, three, or four. Oh, I'm sorry. If we're going to eliminate private credit, then two is eliminated, right? Three, four, and target. Three, four, and target. Okay. Sounds good, guys. And I like the emphasis on goal three and four, increasing the fixed income. I think that's a good working mix. Is there anything that we're missing that you might have heard about? This is a comment I made last time. And we want to certainly, here's an opportunity that you may have read something or heard something in a conference or kicking around of an asset class that you are curious whether it should be included or not included in the Y that we can answer for you? No. I do think on the whole, though, the group, it seems like we're all interested in continuing to hear about these as they come forward. Private credit may not have been the right time for that, but we're certainly I'm kind of getting the vibe that we're interested in. The diversification continued kind of look at that. Maybe it wasn't quite worth it right now, but that doesn't necessarily deter us in the future. We certainly support the idea of education. So we can periodically come back with things that might be topical and kind of share that information, whether it's private equity or whether it's other particular strategies. So happy to do that. All right. So with that, let's turn our attention to the international structure. So this is on page 10. And as we look at the current structure that we have, we've identified two managers that we think where the portfolio could be streamlined and they would be eligible for replacement. So again, certainly one option is status quo. Alternative one is to replace Bailey Gifford and Cap Guardian. Bailey Gifford is a non-U.S. all-cap growth manager that has disappointed and certainly has struggled in terms of extreme holding on to even the winners longer than we would like in a lot of cases. And Cap Guardian is the emerging markets manager. So as we look at the current structure, what seems to us is that the AQUI x U.S. that's all country world index x United States, what that is is again it is a, gives you developed markets as well as emerging markets and kind of gives the manager the opportunity to toggle between, hey, if they think that there's a greater opportunity in emerging markets than the benchmark, then they can overweight that. As opposed to making that allocation to Cap Guardian where you're making it from a strategic standpoint, it's by using an AQUI x U.S. manager gives them the discretion to actually make that. And they tend to maintain an allocation reasonably close to the index allocation of the AQUI x U.S. So it's an efficient way to do it. And I guess our thought would be that that would include replacing Bailey and Cap Guardian with a, again, we would take you for existing exposure and we like Acadian a lot currently. They're a developed markets only manager. We could expand their mandate to AQUI x United States. They have been successful in both those strategies. So that's something we would be comfortable with. And then the idea there would be we would eliminate Bailey, Gifford, and Cap Guardian and add a, Acadian is more of a core from a style perspective, would be to add a growth and a value complement to that. So that is one of the options that we laid out. That's option alternative two. Alternative one is just to keep the current structure where Acadian would be developed markets only. We would replace Bailey, Gifford, and Cap Guardian so that you would have a dedicated emerging markets manager. So that's alternative one is kind of like maintaining the status quo structure but replacing two managers. Alternative two would be to, again, add two style managers to Acadian and expanding Acadian's mandate. And number three is going to be the same one as number two except adding a 20% index sleeve to the structure. So I do that from a high level. Let me begin if we turn to page 11. And here we're showing the equity style that we're looking at and then the benchmarks. And the idea here is like, okay, at Callen we fully support active management on the non-US front. And why do we arrive at that thesis is that when we look at...we've looked at over 20 years historical data and we see that if you look at the table you'll see global UXUS growth managers, value managers, broad mandates, and just developed markets and emerging. And you see that when you look at the average gross excess return over the benchmark, all of these actively managed strategies have delivered a premium over the index. So we've included the 20% index as alternative. Three, for those that are interested in indexing, that it would be a portion not the lion's share, but again, at Callen we kind of support the active management approach for non-US equity investing. Okay? So John, do you want to walk through slide 13 of the supporting materials or do you why don't we do that and then we can discuss whether or not we want to go through an analysis of the managers. Okay, that sounds good. So if we go to page 13, what you see is some analysis on the current structure. On the upper left table. Right now, again, you've got two developed market managers. You've got Gideon and Bailey. CapGuardian is your emerging manager. And as we know, if you look over, let's say the past five years, for example, performance has been a little bit challenged. And the reason it's been challenged is actually a couple of factors. We know that Bailey, in particular, has delivered relatively poor performance. CapGuardian hasn't been strong either. But they both, if you look at their underlying styles, they both have a growth style. And you can see that when you look, see the charts on the right, upper right side of the page, right? What you see here is a plot of the vertical axis, the manager's capitalization exposure, whether they invest large, small, mid. And then, more importantly, on that horizontal axis, we're looking at are they value-y or growth-y in terms of how they invest? And you can see Bailey Gifford. Bailey Gifford is a very aggressive growth manager. And if we look at the past five years in the international space, it's been a tough period for the growth manager. So to Bailey, it's kind of dragged the portfolio down in two ways. A, the stocks they've picked haven't done well. But B, because they have this growth bias, that's compromised the portfolio returns as well. And using CapGuardian as well has a growth bias, but to a lesser extent. And what that means is, when you kind of roll these three managers up in your current portfolio, and you can see that dot, you see the dark blue LEX current. Like right now, the portfolio has a growth in there, which again, in more recent times, has compromised performance. And what we're suggesting here, putting these mixers together, is, hey, let's have a situation where we're taking these style bets off the table. Let's design portfolios such that they're style neutral, they're going to collectively look like your overall benchmark, so that your success or failure, in terms of beating that benchmark, comes down to are these managers picking good stocks or not? Not to have this kind of incidental bet on value growth. So that's kind of the logic behind how we put stuff together. So again, the excess return, as we know, I'm not saying they do, has been relatively poor. You know, primarily driven by Bailey, but CapGuardian hasn't helped that much. The tracking error, it's important to spend a moment on tracking error. Okay, so tracking error, remember we were just talking about risk at the asset allocation level in terms of standard deviation, of what kind of variability you get in a portfolio over time. So tracking error is the exact same concept, but it's applied at the benchmark level. So what tracking error is saying is, how much variability is there in terms of the performance of your overall structure in terms of those three managers collectively? Because we want the structure to work well, right? And so right now, there's a high amount of variability in terms of performance relative to your overall asset class benchmark, which is getting actually at 2x. And that is driven by two things. A, you've got this growth bias that's introducing some noise into the portfolio. And to be honest, Bailey Gifford, a very concentrated, aggressive man with a high track rate, that's bringing a lot, a lot of noise to the portfolio. And to be honest, as you all know, it's been bad noise recently, right? Because the performance is still poor. That's kind of behind, in all these portfolios, we're recommending placing Bailey, that we think as we're kind of cleaning things up as we will, we think it makes sense to replace Capguardian as well. And migrate to a framework where all three of the managers, as John said, have this kind of broad benchmark or AQUI-XUS across both developed and international markets. And so that we structure the portfolio such that there's no longer kind of a growth or value bias. Let me pause there. That's kind of the philosophy, right? We can kind of dig into the actual mix. The actual mix is we're using is Octave 17. but as John said, maybe he paused. I don't know if there's time for, we want to have kind of a specific discussion on any individual managers, which we have kind of one page or so on the next three slides as we move away from page 13. So let me pause there. I'm all for getting rid of him. So I'm not. I didn't even say that. I got rid of him a long time ago. 10 years. 10 years of poor traffic. Yeah. First couple of years before the pandemic, they did really well, but that's just, yeah, it's really been. They've been struggling ever since. People are great, but yeah. They couldn't come out. What about, what about? Capital. Capital. I mean, you know, they're not, they're not performing. Either. They're not as bad as Bailey Gephardt. No, no, Bailey. I mean, if you look at page 17, where the mixes are. Yes. I mean, you've got, it depends on what you want to do. Do you want to give some more stuff to Acadian, which is the mix two, and then replace Bailey and Capgarden? Or do you like the 20% in that new index manager? And you can see that, you know, let's just, let's go down, look at the mix two and three on 17, since it, and you can see that, again, going back to the discussion, the tracking error, right? The tracking errors is the variability of the structure of performance relative to expansion. Okay. And so to the extent you added index from the portfolio, then imagine you had a portfolio that's 100% index, right? The tracking error of that would be zero, right? Because you would have, you'd just invest all your money in, say, the ACWI, X, U, S, I, and my index. There'd be no tracking error, but the flip side is there's no alpha. And as John said, you know, if you look for kind of a hunting ground for alpha, we think that international ACWI is an affordable place to do it. Yeah. Spread, yeah. There's two managers, two or three managers have done relatively poorly, but that's not, we don't want to throw the baby out in the bathwater and say, hey, let's be all index, just because we've had, you know, less than stellar experience with a couple of managers, right? So, again, the difference between mix two and mix three is that given the index, you have index there, the tracking error is going to be reduced. That's also been kind of viewed, the upside and the downside. So here, you can see in the modeling, you can see how the excess return for this portfolio is actually a little bit less, right? Because index is returning zero. And so when periods of reactive managers are positive, that index is going to reduce the overall amount of excess return the portfolio is getting. But then kind of the flip side, when the managers do poorly, when indexing on the margin, we didn't calculate the fees here, but on the margin, the index reduced the fees, right? Because the fees for indexing are pretty close to zero these days. But, yeah, so. I guess if you put a gun to my head, I guess I kind of like mix two, but John and I were discussing before the call, you know, that I kind of like mix two personally, but you can see a case for all three of these, right? That's what I would present to you. John, this may be a dumb question, but I feel like the past five years have been a little wonky. If you went back for 10 years, would this look different? Yeah. It would look, yeah, no, that's a good question. We could, like, for example, we look at page 15 for Bailey Gifford, right? I mean, they've still been down kind of 2% for the past 10 years. Yeah, look at that. I meant the portfolio characteristics for the excess return, the tracking error, and the Z-scores. Like, if you looked at those mixes over a 10-year period, would that look terribly different? I don't think it would. The tracking error should be pretty similar. The excess return, it might not be quite as robust, but still, if we're comparing it vis-a-vis current, we would argue that those all three are better portfolios. Okay. Yeah, I just, I know COVID and those immediate years post-COVID have been a little bouncy, so I wasn't sure if that was impacting which mix you would recommend if we just looked at a five-year look back as opposed to a little bit longer. What I would underscore is the idea that we want to create mixes such that the overall style, the styles that value growth, we want that to be neutral, right? Because when you get into these market environments, like a 2020 or whatever, you can get periods where one of these styles materially outperforms the other, right? So, by structuring the portfolio in this fashion, if you will, we're going to take that noise off the table. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you, John. Yeah, and I would say that if you look at it over the last 10 years, the growth bias is certainly, growth has outperformed value over the last five years and the last 10 years. Right, so in terms of the structural bias that we've seen in recent history, we would say growth bias is really not the issue. It's been security selection within that growth bias. But to take that out of play, we think that over the long-term style, neutrality certainly has merits. And we've seen the leadership changes with even the recent, this year we saw the difference between a first quarter with value-led growth, what a significant impact it can have. So, our thought there is that, hey, let's, the 0.4 z-square, which means that that growth bias is not egregious, but it's, if we can clean it up and get it tighter to core, which would be closer to zero, we see that mix two, which you write it more of a core portfolio now, and it gives you a core manager that will incorporate emerging markets into their analysis so that that decision to overweight or underweight is within the manager's discretion. We think that's a good idea. And certainly, Acadian has proved itself very capable of that. When we arrived at mix two, we're looking at Acadian right now as 49% of the portfolio. It's actually a reduction to put them at 40%. And I guess our feeling is we continue to have a lot of confidence. So, if it were 45, and we would be fine with that as well. But we thought that in terms of round numbers, 10% more in core, and then your value and growth compliments made sense to us. So. Yeah. Because again, we're always thinking diversification here. And say we really like Acadian, which is true. And so that's reflecting the fact that we're giving a little bit more allocation to these two new managers. But again, we don't want to have anything, any structure be unduly driven by a single manager. So, we're trying to get diversification. And that's also why we had a lot of discussion about what's the right number of managers as well. And so we think the three managers that you have, right? The three manager structure, given your guys' size, we think makes sense. It's just that by restructuring it, we think we can deliver a smoother experience for you guys in terms of right now, there's this huge track here, which is giving periods of big under, big over performance. Obviously, more under performance recently. But we think that it actually, John kind of pushed me as well. He asked kind of three lots of questions, you know? Well, John, when you look at your clients in domestic equity, your international equity, what kind of active risk do they run at? You know, and it obviously varies. We just didn't sit back and then blow stuff. But we seem to see our clients settling at about a 2% active risk across that structure. Because again, we think that international equity is a good place to look for output, right? So you want to have active risk there, but you don't necessarily want to have so much active risk in the portfolio that when you get it down patched, you know you get material under performance. So again, there's kind of no right answer there, right? The same question is, hey, John, what level of standard deviation or risk should I be running my asset allocation at? That's kind of the first half of the case. There's no right answer there, but you've got to look at the trade-offs and make an assessment in our mind. You think, say, something like Mix 2 that's running at a 2 and change this level of track here feels a good place to be. Come here, right up above here. I think I can just look around the room without having to say a whole lot. I think the Mix 2 seems to be the flavor of the day regarding this. What about you, Tommy? I agree with it, but Arcadia just done so good. I agree, yeah. I'm not sure I want to take that much money from them. I'd rather keep like 45. Can we do that? I mean, there was a mention there, saying go ahead and 5% there. Now, where would that 5%, where do we pull that just from various spots below? How do we do that? Well, they're 49, so we'd take 4 from them. Yeah, we would do 45, and then the other two would be 27 and a half. Right, yep, that works. Everybody likes that idea. Yeah, that's great. That's our consensus in the room, then. Sure, that sounds good. And to your point, to the extent, just at 30,000 feet, right? Yep. To the extent that you guys decide to migrate to a portfolio that has more home buys, more US, right? The overall dollars of assets that are in this space are gonna go down. They'll probably go down as well because to the extent we increase the fixed income outpacing what we discussed upstream, that money's gotta come from international equity, to some extent as well. So, I take your last point in terms of giving those guys less hit in terms of actual dollars and managing, like migrating from 40 to 45 makes sense. That works for us. Yep, all right, good, good. Two decisions in one day. Look at us go. Stick up for me, or is this the one? Well, I'm one in one. There you go. You were with us on the other one. I was with you, it's just that after looking at it, I'm actually having one of my investors look me into it for me to maybe put some money in. You put some money in like this? Let us know how that goes. Yeah. Yeah. Let us know how that goes. It's like a little fairy in the mine. Let us know how that goes. Well, we should have followed Tommy, you know. It's okay, I look at what we do and then I go, go ahead and invest me like that. I see how we do and then I go like that. Well, but it worked for me, which is not much, but I think going the trap, because Tommy, it's kind of achieving your goal of diversification, but I think you're gonna get a better return overall. Yeah. I think it's been a trap, seriously. Oh, yeah, there's no doubt about that. I mean, I've been wanting to get, I've been on John for quite a while about this, so. Which one? Yeah, we definitely need to. Rayleigh. Yeah. Rayleigh, for sure, but the other one. Yeah, Capital is just not, I mean, you know, they're just not performing. Arcadian has been pretty much of a rock, you know, as far as I'm concerned. So where do we go from here, John? So the one decision I think that we need to come to today is when, with respect to the asset liability study, John Broome is gonna take the liability information, he's gonna incorporate that, and then I think in the, as far as the international structure, I think we have what we need here, and I don't think that it's gonna be, we can begin looking at replacement managers, so we'll kind of set the wheels in motion there. I guess what I'd like to do is, and of course, this structure's gotta be approved by the board, as well as the asset liability study, but John Broome, what do you think about just taking the information that we have today, adding the liability information, and maybe having one shorter meeting with this group to say, okay, here's the book that's gonna be presented to the board, and maybe do a straw man poll in terms of what would be the recommendation with respect to the asset allocation, so that when we present it to the board, the recommendation would be, instead of, here are three mix, let's decide, we have, this is the recommendation of the committee, and talk about that particular selection. I think that less moving parts for the full board is my thought, so. Are we all good with that? I'll leave it. Yeah, that sounds good to me. Okay, so you're wanting to present this in the August board meeting, is my guess. So how long, so when do you wanna schedule, when will John be able to get the final, what, with all the, the final book thing? Yeah, that's a proposal. We're still getting down to our best data, but on the liability side, what I want to do is, yeah, no, let me just give you a direct answer first. Okay. Yeah. So just, what, what if we, we have a call, say, like, say the 23rd of July, something like that, or something, kind of four weeks from now, because we're gonna run, we run these analyses, too, through our internal committees to get any advice, as well, so that's scheduled for the 18th of July, so we could maybe be, like, the 23rd after those guys can vet it, as well. I'm just throwing a date out there. I will be on the beach. Okay, but I will defer to the group. Technically, I'm an in-service, which I'm not supposed to miss. I probably could, but not supposed to. Okay, so the 28th? John Brown, can you work with the 28th? Oh, 100%, yeah, yeah, that'd be perfect. Will that work for everybody, or not? One second, let me pull it up here. Okay, and just, we're talking about, you're all four weeks, August the 13th, if I'm right? That is correct. Working back, okay, just working back, which is my head, so yeah, that's two weeks and change before that meeting, and it should be pretty buttoned up by then, so I think the 28th would be just fine. And that works fine for me, yeah. It's a short one. I'm not about this, but I can team, so. Teams in, okay. What time is good for you? Since your team's in now. Do we want to do 10, 10.30 again? Okay, so that's 10.30 Eastern, right? Yes. I'll have to postpone that. Appreciate you spending an extra half hour, John. It's gonna be so hot, nothing's gonna be biting. Oh yeah, it is. That's when they really bite. You just gotta know where to go. John Jackson, are you gonna send us a meeting invite or for the? I will. Okay, so the 28th, how long do you think that meeting will last? I would think 30 minutes, because we have one topic, and it's to look at those mixes, and have a conversation. I would say 30, 40 minutes. Yeah, I think, and I think the only part in the roads left is whether we want to get behind kind of the U.S. bias mix or kind of the market gap mix, right, because I think we're all, at least I heard we're all on board in terms of increasing the fixed income by four to 5%, so it should be pretty quick. Okay, can you email that out to us as soon as possible, whenever he has it ready, that way I can send it to the board members, they can review it. Prior to the meeting. Of course, yep, sure. Yeah. That way you're not stuck. I'm in, I'm in tech, I'm just, I got my, it's done already. It stacks up. Yes. Yes. All right, sounds good. So we will meet again on July 28th at 10.30. Sounds good. We'll see you all in August too. Take care. Perfect, thank you. Thanks all. All right, bye-bye. Okay, I think we have, we have two. Well, and surely I can tell you all right now. I feel so good. Yeah. It's okay. We have four problems. Turn the light on. I mean, we can have that discussion tomorrow. We might all be on the same page. Well, I hope. Bright lights. We made the corrections to the fit for duty. You all wanna look at it? Yeah, sure. Yes. And then we have one more. We only have a couple of copies, so please let you all share. Yeah, we took out the date. I'm fit for duty. Don't be. Don't be. I'm fit for duty. I'm a man wearing shorts. All we did is we took out the date row. Kind of like what we discussed. We took out the date column and then on the last page added the physician's name. You have to share. Tommy, can you? There's not very many pictures on here. Eh, no. So yeah, we made minimal changes, but we did take the date off. And then the last part, we have the signature to be printed. So everything else is pretty much the same. Okay, all right. So those are the changes that were requested. And that's what we did. And where was the other date that you took off? Well, it was a whole page that went down the whole page on all of those. Did you add physicians to the signature part, too? Or has that always been there? The signature portion has always been there. Oh, the signature has been. Yeah, so we added the print. Physicians. Well, we did put physicians, but. Because I like that. Instead of just signature and a name, whose name is, you know. It gives a little. Am I signing it for myself? It gives a little direction to who's supposed to be signing it. Even if it's an honest mistake. Yes, yes, yes, yes, that was added. Okay, I like that. All right, so that's what we will use going forward. You want to present it to the board, or, I mean, they're minimal changes. It's not very substantial. Everybody here thinks it's okay? Yeah, I think we're good. Okay. Second item is, we were discussing where we've had, recently we've had several people that have pulled their disability applications. We've been discussing in the office, and that possibly charging, or having these people reimburse the pension board for those doctor's appointments, that they've already been seeing that. With respect to who it is, and the privacy of the matter as public here, what kind of reasons do you see that they're pulling? Like, why are they? Like, one minute I feel like I'm disabled, the next minute I'm not. Well, we've heard not felt great about it, or seeking other employment, that they would maybe otherwise not be able to do on a disability, which then leads us to believe that they will come back at a later date. And we've had somebody that did cancel, and then two years later came back and applied, and was great, but we're seeing it more and more. I mean, back then it used to be one-offs, not very often. We're seeing more of them here lately in the last couple of years, and I don't think it's fair for the pension board to have paid. You know, sometimes we can cancel, which is fine. You know, if we know ahead of time we can cancel appointments, and we won't be charged. But then on the other hand, If they've gone through the process. They've gone through the process, and they've already gotten two doctor's reports, and we've already paid those. For no reason. And in my opinion, they're materially disabled. Well, and is the board liable, now that we have that information? Right. Are we, what do we do with it? Do we just not tell the employer that would use that to potentially disqualify them from this other job? Or is that just, because there's no confidentiality within the board, but how far does that go? Where is our, obviously our obligation starts with us, but now that we are aware of this person's lack, or. I mean, normally they don't go to both doctors. We normally, if somebody does cancel, they may have already seen one, but not the second one. So we can always cancel the second one, but we've already paid for the first. So. Yeah, that's a lot of money. It is. Yeah. It seems pretty disingenuous from the part of the applicant, not knowing the details. You said you were disabled, but now you're saying you're not, potentially so that you can do a job that you otherwise would have been disqualified for. And then to do that job for a amount of time and come back and then say, again, well, actually, it turns out I am disabled. Yeah. That seems pretty disingenuous. And leaves a bad taste in my mouth. You mean we may need to have disability reform. That seems like a novel idea. It's. Do you want to be on the show? I don't know. I want to be on the one that wrecks disabilities. That's the one I want to be on. I can't run, because that's what I want to be on. I don't know if. Well, that might not happen. It's ridiculous. It's going to be tough to legislate morality into people, I think, and we can reform all we want. At the end of the day, people are going to be people. But on a case-by-case basis, when we have medical facts from multiple doctors or a doctor or whatever, that seems a little different. It does. At the very least, they should reimburse, I think, personally, they should reimburse the board for the doctor's appointment that we sent them to at their request that now they don't need. And then if we have a material fact, maybe we should have a discussion on what we should do with that information. Well, I'm not sure that it is within our power to disclose that to a future employer. I'm not sure that it is. I think we would get sued for loss of income in the future. You know, that employer could. And half the time, we don't know who those employers are. But I'll tell you what we could do. I'm just thinking. Personally, and I don't know all the ins and outs, and I'm just, frankly, spitballing a little bit. If we receive these reports, we should do what we would do with any other person who we received those reports from. According to these medical doctors, they're disabled. I don't know logistically how that works or if that's even something we want to get into. So in your opinion, automatically assume they're disabled? Like, take it to the board regardless that they are with us? We've sent them to two medical doctors that said that they were, or whatever the situation is, you know? So by not allowing them to pull? I don't know. Can we do that? I mean, we're getting into some legal, some civil legal areas that we're kind of getting out of our depth here. We just need to get, I just want a conversation started in regards to either can we write it in our rules and regs that if they do cancel or pull their application, can't, it states in there that they have to reimburse us for the cost of any medical appointments that they have gone to. I think that's reasonable and logical. We wouldn't have sent them otherwise. Reimbursing for tremendous time and trouble. Yeah, absolutely, for us going through all of that. So, yeah, I mean. I'd just be happy with getting the money back. Yeah, I mean, you know. No. I mean, well, I mean, for the first step. Once we get two, I'm just like that. Like, I think it's long, and again, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't claim to be one, but I think maybe it's worth a talk to them to say, can we have them sign something saying that once they go to two doctors, that that gets sent to the board regardless, you know? I mean, we can change. I mean, that's the problem we've got. Right, exactly, and so here's my thing. That's the application. We put it on the application. If they can't pull it, and then us have two of them pull it and then come back here 10 years from now after they decided to go, I mean, use the fire department, after they decided, oh, I'm gonna get this sweet gig at Georgetown or something, right, as the training officer, and go there and work for 10 years, and then come back on our disability, I've already thought that's crazy anyway. Like, I don't know how you can come back 10 years later on a disability from the fire department. I agree. You know, here's the issue. Once they understand that they, you know, they're out on service, they gotta go back to their last rate of pay, which is, you know, so they're gonna actually lose money or should. They'll lose their COLAs. Right. What? Excuse me. Rock says what COLA? Yeah, their adjustments. How's that? You like that word better? No. Okay, different word. I'm talking about the percentage. I know. However, it turns into, you know, federal state taxes, so a lot of times they equal out, and then they get the additional disability benefits. So it's still working for them. Yeah, they're trying to play the system so they don't pay taxes. Yes. End of story. So, okay, so just to convince this, I can talk to Dave, ask him what his thoughts are about us charging or having them reimburse us for the appointments that they have been seeing. Yes. As long as we can cancel the other ones. And then on a twofold, that if we do get both reports back and they decide to withdraw, can we continue to bring that before the board? Right. And not let them withdraw it. So real quick, if, let's say right now, for the sake of how things are going, if, have you had one that's been to two doctors and we've recently withdrawn? Yes. It happened at last appointment. Okay, and that's when I recall something, but I couldn't remember where we were. All right, so let's say they go to both doctors. I don't care what the outcome was, if we do or don't know that, but if it was gonna be, or would have been a no, and we have those medical reports, then what precludes them from going back again in three years, hoping to get a different doctor? Well, and what happens if we don't have another doctor to send them to, because now we have these other reports they've already been to? That's gonna be the problem for this individual. And then what do we do? That's gonna be an issue with this individual if it comes back to us again. We're out of the market. Well, if it's a flat no. Well, I'm just hypothetically, I don't know what. Sure, but what if it's not? I mean, all they can do is appeal. What if there's a yes and a no, and now we're out of doctors to give them three years down the road? What if they're both yes? Who knows? Sure. And they were disabled, and they were supposed to be granted without sending to do other doctors? The whole time, right. It's a mess. It is a mess, yeah. And again, at the end of the day, you can't legislate morality to people, but I feel like there's something that we should at least, we should at least ask the question, is there something that we can do, and if we're not gonna do anything, does that open us up to liability? Or does doing something open us up to liability? One time, I'm sure you can. There just won't be repercussions. I talk to people every day that have said that. I was just there. He was there earlier today. So, I think that's my main concerns. So, I'll talk to Dave and see what his thoughts are in regards to a couple of those scenarios, and see where we, what is. Let's see what this can of worms, how many are gonna start going out? Well, I don't think the first one will open up a can of worms. No, I don't think. But I think we need to rewrite it in our application process, that, that, that, that. And then, honestly, if they've already gone to two doctors, I think it should be in our application that it's too late. It's too late. I do think, yeah. In a sense, it's too late. Because now we have a material fact to their case. Well, I mean, basically, you know, wouldn't they be, when they do the application, isn't this kind of a contract? They sign it, and yeah. Yeah. It's supposed to be. And it's kind of notarized and everything, you know? It is notarized. And all that, I mean, you know, it's technically a contract. So I think, you know, it may not be as bad as we think it is. I guess on the flip side, it's no different than a service retirement. They're signing all the paperwork, and then they decide they don't want to retire. Right, right. It's essentially the same thing. And so that's the biggest, I don't know what to think of. I can't make them retire. But that's the biggest unknown, is that they are able to withdraw their application. But to me, once you have multiple doctors saying, that's the difference. If you want to go to a doctor and then change your mind or whatever, that's kind of when you, or before you put in the application, then you don't actually make it to a doctor. That's one thing. But now that we have confirmation, like we would on anybody else, that they are in fact disabled. Yeah, where do we stand there? Where do we stand? Are we opening ourselves up to something if we don't do something? Say that comes out later, and this other agency comes to us and says, well, you knew he was disabled. Why didn't you tell us? Let's not forget that the three highest powers of both organizations sit on the bullpen, and both chiefs. Well, it could be any organization. It could be Bowling Green, KSP, I mean, any organization. Well, that, but I'm saying even here, like you're setting yourself up for liability to know that this person is claiming to be disabled. It says they're disabled. Sure, sure. And that at some point a doctor, two doctors have said they're disabled. That the city has paid for and knew about, and we didn't say anything. And that's, is that going to happen? Unlikely, but who knows? What's one area of crossing HIPAA, though, that you're disclosing information about? They sign a release to us, but how far does that go? Because now, if it's a material fact of their case, we know about it. We are liable, I think, to some degree. Does it matter? I don't know. I'm not an attorney. But to me, it does matter. Can we keep them from coming back if they pull out? Can we keep them from coming back and applying at a later date? I don't know. I don't know. I would think that, is there a time frame that after they retire? No, no. I can come back and- Right, I didn't think so. Yeah. I just have to prove I was disabled back then. Right. Which, how are you gonna know? 16 years ago. How are you supposed to know? Well, obviously, you all would vote for it because it'd be mental. But we don't vote yet on- Wait for the doctors. Yeah, wait for the doctors to get to it. We don't need to vote on that. We don't need to vote on that. I guess we'll get Dave Arbogast to weigh in and then- Yeah, that'll get us a start. Well, and there's a couple of things that we can already just put into the application. Susan, do you have anything else for this committee? I think that's it, isn't it? All right. I think we can be adjourned now. Anybody else? Do we want to adjourn or do we want to talk real quick? Do we have any initial inclinations? I know you're trying to get out of here because you're on shift. Yeah. Hope you're all right. It's okay to sit and chat. I can pay by the hour. Inclinations to- Yeah, me too. I got too many of them. Stop getting paid by. Between three, four and- Page six. Three, four. Page six. Any initial, like, gut, real strong target? I'm a huge fan of the fixed income, so I like where we've shifted money that direction. I can just tell you. So you like three or four? He likes four. I prefer four, actually, yeah. You like four? But I like the U.S. buys thing, I believe. However, I could be easily swayed between the two. I think they're pretty much the same. I'm all for diversification, but I don't see the benefit of reducing our expected rate of return for more diversification when we just went through a very severe crash and then a significant rebound that we seem to weather well. And to me, we should want to keep our expected return at least as is. I would be open to trying to increase it with a little bit more risk, but that's just me personally. And I'm not, you know, to me, we just went through a very severe shift and it seemed to do okay from where I sit, so. I certainly wouldn't want to drop our expected return. So you like the last two? I like two. Either leave it or that or go to the last one. Just because we're talking about options to change doesn't mean that we have to change. I don't disagree with that. So if what we're doing, it seems to be working, I'm all for being better. But if what we're doing seems to be working, why not keep it? I think anybody, and I'm not, this is not an attack on you, but I think that it would seem bizarre if we took any out of fixed income. Like you're just not gonna see this opportunity come. I mean, I don't know how many CDs you own right now, but I have them and I didn't have those in the last however long. It just makes sense. You can say that we've rebounded, I'm gonna tell you. From a guy who gets to see this one little snippet of it, you're gonna see people losing their houses at the time. Very soon, very soon. It's not getting fixed and it's extremely volatile. And if we can guarantee our money, so to speak, more so, I think that's it. We're not looking to get rich overnight. It is different than how me, you, Tommy over here, the investor guru, it's different than how we invest money because it's institutional investing. So for that sense, slow and steady wins the race. Solvency is the key. It's not about making a ton of money. And I know Aaron doesn't wanna hear that, right? Because obviously the city ends up on the hook for more money. However, I think there's ways we structure that to soften that blow because it hasn't been fair. From what we saw from 2013 until now, we're either great miscalculations or lies or somewhere in between. But that's no mystery, we've talked about it. You feed that horse to death. I have a suggestion. Go ahead. Can we, and I'm assuming we could, instead of having to do asset liability studies every five years, can we not give ourselves a target range? And then as the markets fluctuate, that we ask them, Callen, to move, such as putting more into fixed now. And then once things are getting better, then you throw more into U.S. equities. I mean, can we not have like a range that would give us a little bit more flexibility? Like right now, we stay higher and maybe fixed, and then. Functionally, we do operate at a range. Just to be clear. We do. We're not ever actually here. Yeah. We're somewhere in. But it doesn't vary over like, what, 3% or so. Yeah, it's a small variance. It is a small variance. Maybe we can do a 5% variance. But that's more of a passive range. And you're talking about more of an active, hey, instead of shooting for 40 and actually being a 39, we're gonna say, we're gonna change that from 40 to 41 this year and see where we're at next year. It's kind of what you're talking about. Yeah, that's where they manage it instead of us managing it. Right. I think, to your point, that's kind of what we pay Callen for. Yeah. It seems like. Yeah. Tommy, what are your thoughts? I kind of like to stay at least at our target right now. I agree, fixed income is doing real well right now. Treasuries and everything is up. And, I mean, you can get 4% or 5% interest on banks almost now, you know. But, you know, it's worked very well so far. We've beaten our target. And with what's going on in the world today, I know, you know, there's some unknown there. What the hell is gonna happen here? You know, cause there's a lot of volatility out there. In the market, you don't take but a hiccup to cause a, you know, a major down. And right now, the market is soaring as of yesterday. I don't know what it is today. Is it? Across a billion dollars. Billion, five million. Okay. Woo! All we gotta do is beat a billion, but is a billion 13, I think, was our all-time high? Was a billion 13 or a billion 11? Just for once, I'd like that billion to be there June 30th. It won't be there, just cause that's how that works. Cause you want it. Cause I want it! Well, I mean, you know, it just, with all the political crap that's going on right now, it's a little scary. We're a little bouncy now. Yep. I mean, you know, that's a concern. And I'm not, I agree with you right now. If fixed is really good. Sure. But there's just a lot of unknown right now. And this target has gone through for years and it went through some bad times and it worked. So that's my thoughts. I think fixed is really good for the past. You know, it's not returning one or 2% that we're used to. So it's really good for what it is, but it's not the 7% that we need. And so, you know, what they're showing us, modeling us, is how can you minimize your risk while still hitting your return? And hitting our return is good. But what I would like to do is do better than hit it. And I don't know that, you know, the US bias, I'm a little hesitant. I know that the Magnificent Seven have been great. I'm a little hesitant to keep putting all the eggs in that basket. Mm-hmm. You know, I don't want to be any less patriotic than anybody else, but that puts a lot of pressure on just a few companies that have really driven that train. And fixed income is good. And I personally think that that's a good thing. But for this investment strategy, we don't need it to be 4% and 5%. We need seven. Or seven and a half. Or seven and a half, you know, whatever. So I don't necessarily feel a whole lot of pressure to move off of where we are target-wise. I don't, I do think when we get back into the international, we need to make the changes. I do think they're a drag. You know, I do think they'll help our overall. That should be. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's. They've been a drag. They've been a drag. But I don't know that it is significant enough in either direction to really have to feel the need to make a change. So that's just kind of where I am. That being said, I'm okay with three and four. If that's, you know, if he comes back and the scenarios are there and you all feel really strongly that, you know, we're really feeling this more movement towards fixed income, we're really feeling these, you know, this U.S. bias, I'm okay. None of these are bad scenarios. They're just a tiny, tiny tweak. So, you know. And again, these are projections. This is a projection for five years. I think if we probably went back and pulled this, we'd have missed the mark a little bit on this too. So this is just where we kind of hope we're going to be. Which is why we set it at seven. I mean, it's a, that in of itself is the smooth of it all. Right? I mean, it's going to be one, it's going to be eight, it's going to be 12, it's going to be four. You know, like we average seven. Yeah. So I am perfectly. We hope it's 22. That would be awesome. We can hope all we want to. There's an old saying that goes after the camera is off. Hey, we've actually hit it, but you know. We've had some really good ones. But I would be perfectly fine if we didn't change a thing. I'm also fine with, you know, moving a little bit either direction. Except for things that they're telling us are not going to hit our expected return. So. But I think we're in a pretty good place. Okay. So we'll just wait and see what they say. But it's just my thoughts, and I'm sorry to have kept this long. Oh, it's fine. Now we're adjourned. Motion to adjourn.