 Let me ask you a question about risk, because this key concept comes up again and again in finance. The strategy may appear to have a high return, but risk adjusted, what are you really getting? Now, when I read the very latest papers on risk, let me tell you what I see. I see talk of the third moment of probability distributions, the fifth moment, words like co-skewness, terms like the U-shaped pricing kernel, and talk of the volatility of volatility. And I'm just waiting for a paper on the volatility of the volatility of volatility. When I read all this as an outsider, I conclude we don't know anything about risk. These are Potolomeic epicycles. And within a pretty broad range of asset classes, is it possible risk doesn't really explain anything about asset prices? True or false, what do you say? The epicycles held up for a long time. They even got the little tiny movements right? It's not bad. OK, of everything you said, a fair amount of those risk models, I think, are utter nonsense. Co-skewness, which sounds like one of the geekier things, Tyler said, very hard to identify, very hard to prove, very hard to isolate in the data. But co-skewness at least makes sense to me as a real risk factor. What that means is not only do very bad things happen more often than you would imagine, but they happen while other very bad things, largely the market crashing, for instance. If something has occasional giant losses, but those are at very good times, and makes money on average very reliably, that might stink occasionally, but it's something you can live with. If something is extremely bad at the same time, everything else in your life is extremely bad. Shotgun in can opener time, right? Yeah, exactly. I use this example in a very different way. Someone says, what if we get something five times as bad? How do you invest if we get something five times as bad? It's the global financial crisis. And I say ammunition in canned goods. And I don't think there's a better answer for that. But that is the exact kind of measure of risk that should work. Does it hurt you? This is a terrible English sentence, and I apologize in advance. Does it hurt you when it hurts to be hurt? Is the English language version of risk in any good quantity, no matter how geeky you make it, should get back to that. If it's a good measure of risk, it doesn't just hurt occasionally. It hurts you when it hurts to be hurt.