 Now, if the momentum anomaly and the value anomaly, those to me seem like the two biggest anomalies in pricing theory, does Eugene Fama admit you are correct? No. If you have an academic record on this, you have a track record, right, statistically and the success of your firm, we'll try and... He's just trying to get me in trouble. I will tell you, I'm in public here, I'm with someone I admire greatly, this is going to be on the internet, I'm still more scared of Gene. So, with that said, one of the scariest moments, let me take you back, was telling him I wanted to write a dissertation on price momentum, and I swear to God, I mumbled the second part and I find it works really well. Because it failing is a perfect Chicago Gene Fama, Fish and Markets dissertation. Look what these crazy people on Wall Street do. They make all these indicators and they're throwing away their money. To his credit, he immediately said, if it's in the data, write the paper. Now, we don't agree fully on it. We don't agree on two things, and for all I know, he changed his mind yesterday, but as of yesterday, I don't think we agree on this. Value investing, remember, I think works for a mix of both behavioral and perhaps some risk reasons. I think they're hard to identify, but I'm more than willing to say that's a big... That might be a big part of it. I think Gene would say it's mostly a raw risk. I don't think he's very positive on the behavioral explanation. Momentum, Gene's a risk guy. He's an efficient markets guy. I think Gene is still cynical about it. I know his latest paper, he and Ken French, if not the best among the best papers in finance. I read everyone to this day. It doesn't mean I agree with every word. They started out with a so-called three-factor model about 20 years ago. What drives return on an individual stock? The markets return and your sensitivity to that. Values return and how much of a value stock you are, not size's return. How small firm effect it's called and how small you are. They've added to that over time. They've added an investment effect of firms that, for instance, reduce their share account, tend to do better and there are theories as to why. And a profitability factor. All else equal, more profitable firms seem to outperform less profitable firms. And again, that's a very strong effect that holds up. I wrote a piece on our blog saying something, our factor model goes to six. And for those of you who are curious, it was a reference to Spinal Tap where our amps go to 11. I take the other side from them. I love these guys. We agree on nine out of 10 things. I don't see how momentum is not their sixth factor. It adds a tremendous amount of return versus their model. The numbers I gave you that you can add versus, say, the Russell 1,125 kind of basis points understates the power greatly because momentum's also, in geek speak, negatively correlated with value. In English, a good year for momentum is often a bad year for value and vice versa. That's easy to create if you just do the opposite with your left hand as your right hand. It's not easy to create two strategies that both go up on average. That's difficult. And that shows up statistically in a model. It becomes even stronger. So I don't understand why. I think they should have it as a sixth factor. If you can get Gene to leave Chicago, which is far more difficult than anything else we're talking about, he can tell you why it's not a sixth factor, but it should be.