Lump sum or DCA, the latest on Ozempic & a baby Berkshire?

Bryce: [00:00:25] Welcome back to Equity Mates Investing, a podcast where we explore what's possible in the world of investing. If you've just joined us for the first time, a huge welcome. We have a massive episode to get through today. My name is Bryce and today we're checking in on where the one to drug Ozempic is up to. Ren's got a stock pitch, the baby Berkshire, and a community question on whether to invest all at once or the dollar cost to average to chat through it. As always, I'm joined by my equity buddy, Ren. How are you? 

Alec: [00:00:58] I'm very good, Bryce. I'm excited for this episode. A lot to cover, so let's get to it. I didn't really have anything else to say. 

Bryce: [00:01:06] Yeah. Let's start with the one to drug ozempic cause a lot of headlines. Last year, I felt like we were talking about it almost every second episode. And the companies that were obviously creating the drug Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Yeah. I started the year with bold predictions that they'd both join the $1 trillion club. Market cap club. And in fact, I think I pushed it up to 1.5. 

Alec: [00:01:31] You said Eli Lilly would be 1.5 trillion. We'll have a look at how that going. But for people who who are unfamiliar, these are these, weight-loss drugs, JLP One drugs that, the crazy thing is, they work like, people actually lose significant amounts of weight on these drugs, and they were originally created for diabetics or people who are at risk of diabetes, but they are, proving pretty incredible for people to lose weight. Generally, there are studies around decreased risk of cardiovascular disease, kidney disease. Yeah, there's even stories of people like being less addicted to alcohol and drugs because of these drugs. Because of these drugs. Yeah. Yeah. That's a confusing sentence, but you know what I'm saying? So after just a massive 2023 hearing about these drugs having shortages around the world, it feels like we just haven't heard about them this year. 

Bryce: [00:02:29] Yeah. They're just plugging away.

Alec: [00:02:31] Yeah. So what's going on? 

Bryce: [00:02:33] Well let's have a look at the two companies first. Novo Nordisk. They were the first to come out with this drug. I'm pretty sure they'll like the leader later in the spice and, and, market cap just shot up to to essentially that was the most valuable company in Europe. They're up 27% year to date with a $446 billion market cap. And Eli Lilly, their major competitor, is up 30% year to date with a $732 billion market cap. So I'm still going strong. It's still going strong. 

Alec: [00:03:04] A fair way away from your bold predictions. They would both have to more than double from here. 

Bryce: [00:03:11] Yeah. Yeah I should have stuck to the 1 trillion. Yeah. But it's because they started the year so well. I feel like they've cooled off a bit.

Alec: [00:03:19] Yeah. You were suffering recency bias. 

Bryce: [00:03:21] However, however far all we need is the Nvidia effect for these guys to come out with a crazy earnings report. And we're back. That's going to happen. 

Alec: [00:03:33] Yeah. The biggest constraint to that is actually just production capacity because we're still dealing with worldwide shortages. So we will get to that. Novo Nordisk is pretty pure play these drugs at the moment like they're they're 130 year old Danish pharmaceutical company that they were set up to create diabetes drugs. Eli Lilly is a bit more of a diversified pharmaceutical player. It's a giant in space preparing for this episode. So they've acquired, like, a number of targeted cancer treatment companies. And so they're trying to push strongly into that area. But they also have an Alzheimer's drug, which doesn't cure anything, but it apparently is reported to slow down the effects of Alzheimer's that they're trying to get through FDA approval at the moment. 

Bryce: [00:04:17] Fingers in a few. 

Alec: [00:04:18] They've got fingers in a few interesting pies. Which is why they're so much more valuable. But, yeah, we're here to talk about these wonder weight loss drugs. We haven't heard a lot about them this year, but that doesn't mean a lot hasn't been happening.

Bryce: [00:04:32] No, Novo Nordisk have just completed phase one trials of a drug. Get this. That may be twice as effective as Ozempic drug is called, Amycretin. Well, I'm going to say I'm not sure I'm going to get pulled up on that. 

Alec: [00:04:50] Amycretin. 

Bryce: [00:04:50] It is taken as a pill rather than being injected. Now, I think that's been one of the big barriers to a Ozempic is just the awkwardness and the brutality of having to inject this thing. 

Alec: [00:05:01] Once a week injection.

Bryce: [00:05:02] Once a week injection. So this is a pill. And in phase one trials, people lost 13% of their body weight in three months. So to compare that to the trials of Ozempic and Wegovy, that was around 6% in 13 three months. So more than double, the effectiveness. Unsurprisingly, the announcement saw the result, saw the shares up, 8%.

Alec: [00:05:25] Now this is a phase one trial. So then there are phase two and phase three. So. There's still some, water to flow under that bridge, but pretty.

Bryce: [00:05:33] 8% body weight. 

Alec: [00:05:34] Amazing. 

Bryce: [00:05:34] That is crazy. Sustainable and unsure, but I mean. You can see people jumping on this end with a pill as well. They've also, released the results of a clinical trial, which is yet to be published in the scientific journal on kidney disease related events in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease. They claim ozempic can reduce kidney and cardiovascular related mortality by 24%. 

Alec: [00:06:00] Yeah, yeah, it's pretty amazing. 

Bryce: [00:06:02] Pretty amazing. 

Alec: [00:06:02] Yeah. Now, if we turn to Eli Lilly. If we turn to Eli Lilly. So in the first four weeks of Zepbound, their version of the drug being on the market, they sold $176 million worth of it. So pretty popular. And then they also have trials of the pill version of the drug. I'm trying to pronounce this one. Orfoglipron. 

Bryce: [00:06:30] They need a consumer friendly name.

Alec: [00:06:31] Yeah. I think this is, like, all pharmaceuticals. All have these crazy names. There would be some. There would have to be some psychological research behind, like a consumer friendly name not being as trusted. And like these names giving the perception of, like, a scientific credibility or something. Anyway, that's a whole other conversation. A full on in early trials, saw an average weight loss of 15% after 36 weeks. So not quite Novo Nordisk, 13% in three months or 12 weeks. That 15% in 36 weeks. Still pretty crazy. 

Bryce: [00:07:06] It is crazy. The major issue that both companies are facing there Ren is they're struggling to keep up with demand. There is a global manufacturing shortage. We know that Novo Nordisk paid, and I think we spoke about this earlier in the year, but they paid 11 billion to buy three fill finish plants to use for manufacturing. 

Alec: [00:07:27] I don't think we spoke about this is the beginning of the year. 

Bryce: [00:07:29] I spoke about in my bold prediction, they went out and purchased like an injection plant, to keep up with, to keep up with demand. That was part of my thesis, right? 

Alec: [00:07:41] You know, I only have in the last month, which is just a reminder of how light of bold predictions came in the. Yeah. Yeah. 

Bryce: [00:07:48] Sorry. Yeah. It wasn't three months ago. It was in late Feb. Yeah. 

Alec: [00:07:53] So, yeah, they've spent 11 billion to buy these three, fill finished plants to help them keep up with demand. They're also spending 6 billion to expand their production site, in Denmark, where semaglutide, which is the active ingredient in their drugs, would go in Ozempic. On the other hand, Eli Lilly is also spending billions of dollars. They have announced a 5.5 billion investment to expand manufacturing capacity across four sites globally. And they're trying to outsource some of the production. They've struck agreements with the US government-backed manufacturer National Resilience and an Italian producer, BSP pharmaceuticals, for the filling and finishing of their injectors. Both companies are just desperately trying to do everything they can to keep up. 

Bryce: [00:08:43] It feels like at the moment it's just a race for market share. Who, who can who can capture the most in the market. And there are a bunch of other companies now trying to get into the space. We've got Amgen, which has a once per month injectable called Maritide. The results for that, a 15% weight loss after 85 days, or the equivalent of 12 weeks. Viking Therapeutics, they have a weight loss drug, which is 14%, weight loss in the trials that they've done. And then Zealand Pharma 15% in 46 weeks. So it feels like they can all get a bit of sort of similar results.

Alec: [00:09:20] Yeah. 

Bryce: [00:09:20] It's just who's going to who's going to lead the way here and capture that market. 

Alec: [00:09:24] Yeah. So like a couple of key takeaways. First of all, the race is still on and it's still an incredibly hot space. The second takeaway is I think this is going to become pretty commoditized. So right now if you're in the States you're paying about $1,000 a month, for Ozempic, just because it's not on health plans and, there's a shortage. So supply and demand story. It feels likely that supply will eventually catch up to demand and that more and more manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies are going to come into this space. They all seem to be getting similar results. So you'd expect this to be pretty commoditized. It does then make you think about what the economics of this drug is going to be in three, seven, ten years. You probably aren't going to be saying the margin profile that you see for Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly today would be my thesis. 

Bryce: [00:10:23] I still reckon there's a way to run until that happens. So, I wouldn't be betting on that by the end of this year. It's widely accessible. 

Alec: [00:10:31] Did I say this last three, five, seven years. 

Bryce: [00:10:35] Yeah I'm just putting yeah I agree I think that's what I'm there's still a way to run are on these companies. 3 to 5 three five. Yeah. 

Alec: [00:10:42] Well you need them to get to the trillion. I would be taking the other side of that bet. 

Bryce: [00:10:49] Yeah. It's a bold prediction. Yeah.

Alec: [00:10:51] Yeah yeah yeah. but it's pretty incredible. Weight loss is going to be as easy as a pill, which is going to have so many societal consequences outside of the financial and health side. Yeah. And that's a story that we're going to

Bryce: [00:11:07] Yeah. Somewhat negative I would say as well, maybe there could be some. 

Alec: [00:11:12] Maybe. I would say the positives are going to outweigh the negatives. Just in terms of the financial strain on the health system and people's quality of life. 

Bryce: [00:11:21] I just hope that the health system administers this to the right people. 

Alec: [00:11:26] Who are the right people, who are the deserving people?

Bryce: [00:11:29] As in people who are not, but someone who is already a healthy weight and just wants to be. Really necessarily skinny. 

Alec: [00:11:39] Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Bryce: [00:11:40] Like give it to the people who are having an impact on the health systems and whatnot.

Alec: [00:11:47] I just say give it to everybody. 

Bryce: [00:11:48] No. Anyway, we'll.

Alec: [00:11:51] Put it in the drinking water. 

Bryce: [00:11:53] No way. Will leave it there. And, let's move on to the next segment. Yeah. All Ren, And we've got a stock pitch for us. You've called it the baby Berkshire. Let's rock it. 

Alec: [00:12:02] Yeah. So let me start with a question. What has been the engine of Berkshire's success? 

Bryce: [00:12:09] Two. Warren Buffett. Maybe, three. Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger. That's one. And insurance. 

Alec: [00:12:15] Insurance. And why has insurance been such a driver of success? 

Bryce: [00:12:21] Because you get a huge amount of float in a huge pool of cash that you can pick up and invest. And use that to continually build your pool of assets. 

Alec: [00:12:31] Yeah. Now, for people who don't know the term float, it's basically you pay insurance premiums regularly, but then you claim on insurance down the line. And that time between when people pay their insurance premiums and when their insurance company pays out on the claim, that float the insurance company has traditionally they invest in like ultra safe, like fixed income assets. And, you know, they get a few percentage points on that money. Warren Buffett really changed the game by saying, I'm going to invest in equities, and then I'm going to buy whole companies with this float. And that has been the power of Berkshire. That gave Buffett the money that he needed to invest in such large quantities and create what he created. 

Bryce: [00:13:16] And it came about really from his purchase of Geico, a large insurance company. Yeah. 

Alec: [00:13:23] Yeah. Well, and the range did. Yeah. There's a lot of insurance there. There is another company copying this Berkshire playbook, copying it so much that it literally holds a meeting in Omaha the day after Berkshire Hathaway's AGM, even though this company is based in Richmond, Virginia.

Bryce: [00:13:43] We went to it. 

Alec: [00:13:44] Yes we did and we did. Yes. This company is Markel Group, the New York Stock Exchange ticker is MKL. So it's got a $20 billion market cap. Its shares listed at $8.30 3 in 1986. Today's shares are about $1,500. Up 50% in the past five years, up 23% in the past year. So you're not getting, like, crazy tech, annual growth rate, but it's been a pretty incredible, multi-decade story. Markel has been an insurer since the 1930s. IPO’d in 1986, it started investing its float in public equities. And then in 2005, it started investing in majority ownership of Non-insurance businesses. Is this story starting to sound familiar? 

Bryce: [00:14:37] Very familiar. 

Alec: [00:14:38] Yes. So the company, it's split into three groups. Insurance. They specialise in complex and difficult forms of insurance as well as reinsurance. Starting to sound familiar? Investments. Invest in public market equities and ventures, which is its ownership of operating businesses. So this is like this is just like a rinse and repeat of the Berkshire playbook. Here are some of the companies they've acquired over the past two decades. Panel Specialists, a manufacturer of panels, wall systems, casework furniture and countertops. Elkhart Dredge Enterprises manufactures dredging equipment. Sol Byrne, a manufacturer of food processing equipment and cost of farms. The largest producer of ornamental plants in the world. You're thinking of Costa in Australia? 

Bryce: [00:15:30] No, I've heard of Costa Fund.

Alec: [00:15:31] Have you? 

Bryce: [00:15:33] Yeah. Yeah. I feel like it's because at some point I was looking at ornamental plants.

Alec: [00:15:36] Yeah. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So the reason I draw out those four examples is because in a similar way to how Berkshire runs, they're not trying to buy hot companies or, you know, moving to industries that are sort of fast growing. They buy stable cash flow, boring businesses. And those are four examples of them. So why is this compelling as a company, over the past 20 years, the compound annual growth rate for revenue, 11% a year, invested assets per common share. So as a shareholder, how much is invested, I guess, and that you have an ownership stake that has grown at 8% a year over 20 years, and net income or profit has grown at 15% a year over 20 years. So it's just it's not crazy numbers, not sexy numbers, but just double digit repeatable numbers. So if they're trying to be the next Berkshire, what separates them? About 807 billion in market cap. 

Bryce: [00:16:38] So when I just buy Markel.

Alec: [00:16:40] It's not big enough. I know Markel is $20 billion crazy, but actually has. So this is what else separates them. $160 billion in cash. Yeah. You know, they could buy Markel for $20 billion and it wouldn't make a dent. 

Bryce: [00:16:53] Spare change? 

Alec: [00:16:54] Yeah, yeah. And it's too small for them. So market cap separates them. The cash pile separates them also. Warren Buffett, Charlie Munger. And that's really where the rubber hits the road. The question is if Markel is trying to be a baby Berkshire. Did they have a baby Buffet? 

Bryce: [00:17:13] The meeting that we went to was more than a meeting. It was like a mini they were trying to do a mini. Yeah, mini. The exact. And so just to paint a picture on the experience, we went there, you know, the who's who of the investing world is the rubbing shoulders having croissants and sort of morning tea. And then there's all these rooms where there's the chief investment officer, and the CEO is doing a very similar sort of sit at the front in a panel and presto, and then let all the shareholders ask a question. Now, it was probably a 20th of the size of the Berkshire one. But you know, they're trying to replicate that. I actually can't remember who the guy was.No, they don't have a who knows? These numbers are pretty compelling. 

Alec: [00:17:59] Yeah. Yeah, yeah. It's like the stories. 

Bryce: [00:18:01] They're the stories. They're the stock performance 23 in the past year that's actually underperformed Berkshire. They're up 35% in the past year. $8 to 1800. And since 1996. It's a compelling story. 

Alec: [00:18:14] Now I don't own the stock, but it's certainly on my watch list. And it feels like something that you could put in a bottom drawer and just let it compound slowly. 

Bryce: [00:18:23] Well, here's the question, though. If you were to take one or the other. 

Alec: [00:18:26] Berkshire or Markel. 

Bryce: [00:18:27] Yeah.

Alec: [00:18:29] Oh, you'd probably say Berkshire. But at some point the law of large numbers will catch up with them. And the question is post Buffett what does it look like. But you'd probably still say Berkshire. 

Bryce: [00:18:44] I would be saying Berkshire. Yeah. But what are they going to do with this cash? 

Alec: [00:18:48] Well, I mean the great thing about investing is you don't have to choose. 

Bryce: [00:18:52] That's true.

Alec: [00:18:52] If you just wanted to buy insurance companies that were investing their float more aggressively and trying to compound year after year, you can buy both. There's probably other ones out there. But I thought this was really interesting. The more I looked into this company, the more I was like, oh, I know this playbook that they're trying to run. And so I thought it was worth chatting about it on the show. I'll include their latest shareholder letter in the show notes. So if people want to, read a bit more about it. And one final interesting tidbit to leave this with. I was having a look at who that board is. Morgan Hazels on their board.

Bryce: [00:19:28] For context, Morgan Housel is the author of which Ren made completely rich friends a couple of weeks ago. I did get an email from Charles, a community member recently saying he completely agreed with your position. 

Alec: [00:19:43] Oh really. That's great.

Bryce: [00:19:43] So there was a lot of fluff in there. So thank you for the comment, Charles. But, yeah. Morgan Housel, we also have, spoken about one of his better books. 

Alec: [00:19:51] Yeah. Morgan household is the author of one of our favourite investing and one of our least favourite investing books. But, you know, he's a sensible, rational, long term thinker. Look, it made the company more attractive saying him on the board. Just for me personally, despite his second book. So, yeah, I think this is an interesting one and one for people to do their own research on, because who knows, maybe there is a baby Buffet. 

Bryce: [00:20:20] Maybe there is a baby buffet emerging that we don't know about. Time will tell. It's on the watch list here in Equity Mates. But we're going to take a quick break. And on the other side, we're going to settle the debate that is happening in our Facebook community right now, which is should you invest all at once or is it better to dollar cost average? We'll be right back. Welcome back to Equity Mates. It is time for.. So this question has come in from Kirby on, on our Facebook discussion group. Let's give it a listen. 

Kirby: [00:20:56] Hey, Bryce and Ren, I like looking forward to your feedback on this one. So my partner and I have come into a lump sum of money, approximately 15 K, and we're both comfortable with what we want to do with that, which has put it into the stock market, into a diversified ETF. So something like that covers the US top 500. We're on the same page in that respect. The question that we're struggling to answer is whether we put that all in in one lump sum or whether we dollars cost that and over a period of time. So if we put $1,000 in for the next 15 months fragment cycle, whether we put the whole lot in in one go. So that's kind of the challenge that we're facing at the moment is how we put that into the market. And I guess wanting to understand the potential risks of that and also the potential losses or, you know, some of the realisation of the gains that we might not receive if we don't put all and sooner rather than later. Looking forward to your feedback. I love the podcast. Thank you. 

Bryce: [00:21:55] Great question Kirby. This is one that you know obviously causes a lot of debate. So firstly come join us in the Equity Mates discussion group. If you haven't, let's start with some definitions. Dollar cost averaging. This is where you're investing your cash, as Kirby alluded to in equal instalments over a period of time. In his example, it's that 15,000, you know, taking it a thousand every month for 15 months. On the other side of that is the lump sum, which is just taking that for 15,000 and going, bang, let's just chuck it all in the S&P 500 today. So that's what we're dealing with. The question then is what is going to give you a better financial return over the same period of time. 

Alec: [00:22:37] Yeah. So there's probably an important word there which is better financial return. Because the answer is if you look at it from a purely financial point of view.

Bryce: [00:22:48] Very clear. 

Alec: [00:22:49] Lump sum.

Bryce: [00:22:50] Lump sum. 

Alec: [00:22:51] And we will get into some of the studies as to why that is the case. And we will source our notes and we'll include the studies in the show notes as well. So you can do your own research on it. But yeah, the answer is, from a purely financial point of view, a pretty clear lump sum, where it does get a little bit more personal is how when, when like you overlay it with your psychology and I guess like the behavioural finance side of it because, some people prefer dollar cost averaging because it takes some of the emotion.

Bryce: [00:23:28] Yeah, yeah. Do you want to tackle the emotional part of the financial part first?

Alec: [00:23:32] You're more sensitive. So why don't you tackle the emotional side and then I'll do the hard numbers.

Bryce: [00:23:37] Think for me just from like, I know that lump sum is a better option for me. I go with the dollar cost average point of view because I don't have to think about it. 

Alec: [00:23:45] But you don't have a lump sum like we don't look like most people in most situations have to be dollar cost averages because they get a salary. And I take some of that salary and I invest it. So dollar cost averaging is like a necessity of how money comes into our lives. But if you had a lump sum, like if you got a windfall, if you won the lottery, would you go lump sum or would you still like 

Bryce: [00:24:06] Have a lump sum that I could put all in now, but I at dollar cost average out of that into the market. If that makes sense. Like what I'm putting in from my salary is contributing to a pool that is sitting on the side, sitting in my brokerage account. Does that make sense? It's not huge. It's not just 15 grand. 

Alec: [00:24:27] Swimming in pools of money over here. 

Bryce: [00:24:31] Yeah, so there is like I could, I could put. 

Alec: [00:24:34] Why don't you? 

Bryce: [00:24:34] I've done it before and I get to a point where if I'm talking, let's take Kirby's example of 15 grand and I throw it all in and it goes up 10%, I'm feeling great. But then if the market starts to fall and I've got that full 15 grand sitting there, falling, falling. Should I do something? Should I sell out a little bit? People then do that. I'll sell half, keep half. 

Alec: [00:24:54] So we've written two books and we've been in podcasts for seven years. 

Bryce: [00:24:59] Yeah, I know, but I'm just saying from an emotional standpoint, this is what people battle with.

Alec: [00:25:03] If anyone was going to be confident enough with long term investing. 

Bryce: [00:25:07] No, no. Well yeah. But I like the process of dollar cost averaging. 

Alec: [00:25:12] Yeah okay. Fair enough. Well I mean that is a classic that I think covers the cyclical psychology side of it, because even people that have been doing this for years still struggle with the emotional side of it. Yeah. And I don't I don't think that changes, especially as you invest more and you start investing more like bigger amounts as you pay more and you have a bigger balance. The emotions are only going to be heightened. 

Bryce: [00:25:35] So that's the emotional side, something to consider. But if you're looking at it purely if you can handle the emotion and you can and you just say what is going to give me the best result. There are unequivocal studies that show its lump sum. 

Alec: [00:25:47] Yeah. All right. Let's do this as a speed round. Put three minutes on the clock. Maybe five minutes on the clock, three three minutes on the clock and let me go through it. The first study comes from Nick Mazolli. He looked at a 24 month dollar cost averaging, compared to a lump sum with the S&P 500 since 1997, over any 24 month period. Dollar cost averaging underperforms in 80.6% of starting month and underperforms by 10% on average. The only times when dollar cost averaging beats lump sum is when market crashes and dollar cost averaging invest through the falling market and out the other side. He also looked at that across different asset classes, from gold to Bitcoin to different portfolios around the world. The same story plays out. Second study from Morgan Stanley. And in an analysis of more than 1000 overlapping historical seven year periods, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management's global investment office found that lump sum investing generated slightly higher annualised returns than dollar cost averaging in more than 55% of cases. So not every case, but in a majority of cases. A third study from Vanguard, they looked at the MSCI World Index from 1976 to 2002, and they found that lump sum investing tends to outperform dollar cost averaging. And the key takeaway is that the longer the dollar cost averaging time horizon, the greater the opportunity cost incurred and the greater lump sum performance advantage over dollar cost averaging. So you know, if you do dollar cost averaging over years rather than months, that outperformance widens. I've got another study from Morningstar, but I think I've run out of time, so I'll. 

Bryce: [00:27:26] Just give you two minutes and 38.

Alec: [00:27:28] Oh, shit. 

Bryce: [00:27:29] So keep going. 

Alec: [00:27:29] Hold on. I need to actually get. I didn't put notes. 

Bryce: [00:27:32] I just wanted to pull out something that I said. 

Alec: [00:27:35] Okay. All right, but you're taking my time.

Bryce: [00:27:37] That's okay. That's what they said. But for some risk averse investors, the dollar cost average approach might be more suited because it reduces the risk of drawdown, a drawdown, or even abandoning their investment plan altogether because of the fear of large losses. 

Alec: [00:27:51] And then finally, a study from Morningstar. When you look at the average ten year investment time frame, nine out of ten times an investor who dribbled money into the market, their words would have ended up with less money than if you simply put all their money in the markets at the beginning. Full stop. 

Bryce: [00:28:08] We should caveat it. We're not saying DCA is a shitty investment strategy as well. Like you're still going to get. 

Alec: [00:28:14] No, DCA is great. And most people in most situations have to DCA. And there's huge advantages to DCA. But it's just if you get a lump sum in general, the studies point out that you better just invest it to go for it.

Bryce: [00:28:31] Yeah. Think about where you're going to put it as well. Maybe not all in one stock. Split it across a couple. 

Alec: [00:28:37] Definitely not all in one stock. Don't put a lump sum in one stock. Full stop. 

Bryce: [00:28:42] Full stop. All right. great question Kirby. As we said, this is heating up in the Equity Mates Facebook discussion group. So we'll make sure we link this episode there. And all of the research in the show notes. If you're interested in doing a deep dive yourself, if you want to submit a question, head to equitymates.com/contacts. You'll find all the resources to, to leave a question for us or for the experts on the show. But that does, bring us to the end of our episode. If you haven't grabbed tickets to our live events, make sure you do. They may be already sold out. Because that is only a matter of days away. But Ren, always great to chat about stocks. We'll pick it up in the next episode. 

Alec: [00:29:20] Sounds good.