 If you were pressed, today in the world, the US, the global economy, if you were to pick, what is most likely to be a bubble? Are you willing to give us your opinion? Yes, and it's incredibly boring. There's nothing I feel is very, very likely to be a bubble. But there's always a winner or loser. If I had to pick one, and it's still going to be a different kind of cop-out, it's a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds. And let me take you through it. Versus history, on the measures I like, one of the most famous ones, we look at a bunch of different measures, is Bob Schiller's cyclically adjusted PE. It's priced divided by a long-term rolling average of earnings for the S&P 500. You like low prices. You don't like high prices. That number is more expensive in roughly 90% of 100-some odd years plus years of history. That is a terrible forecaster for the next month or next year. Do not do anything. That is not just illegal. It's a human disclaimer. But over the next 10 years, nothing's perfect even over 10 years, but it's statistically powerful. When things are expensive, you've made less money. When things are cheap, you've made more money. Bonds are the same idea. Another measure for bonds is very analogous to a PE for stocks, is the yield on a government bond minus economists' forecast of inflation. People call that a real yield. It's what you should care about. The nominal yield doesn't really matter. It's what you consume. That is worse, lower. This is a yield, not a price, so lower is bad. But that is worse than roughly 90% of history. The portfolio of half stocks and half bonds, if you take those two measures, scale them and combine them, is the worst ever. How is it the worst ever when the two are 90th percentile? Well, I think you all have probably figured it out. They're not usually 90th percentile bad at the same time. It's a bit of a puzzle why they are, but they are. Having said that, Tyler, I'm still going to be a coward. We get to about the worst ever. We've hit this level before for the portfolio. I used to think 100th percentile was pretty impressive in my career. You never go past the 100th percentile. You're a math guy. You know how it works. But I will tell you, not all 100th percentiles are equal. If you are the 100th percentile today, but you're 150% of the prior 100th percentile excluding the last couple of years, that means you've shot off to the moon. In the technology bubble, the Schiller Cape is probably 50% higher than it had ever been if you excluded the period right around that. Japanese stocks in 89, 90 got to levels like that. It might call it an inverse bubble. I think U.S. stocks in the early 80s maybe got to a similar extended well past anything we've ever seen on the downside in the very early 80s. I was willing to call those bubbles and did real time. I wrote that piece you're talking about because we spent a lot of time, still a subject of measure, but my measure for using the word bubble, remember I'm a Gene Fama student. He hates the word bubble too. Bubble is an inefficient market phenomenon. I will use it, but I hope I have a higher standard than many. Many in our field have, I think, dumbed the word bubble down to mean something we think is kind of expensive. That's not a bubble. A bubble to me is something still subjective because your answer might not be the same as mine, but it's something that I have tried my best to come up with future assumptions of growth be it for a stock, inflation if it's a bond, and current price. And I can't come up with assumptions that would lead any rational investor, subjective again, to want to own this. When we did that for stocks anywhere late 99, 2000, we assumed very aggressive future returns. We took Wall Street's long-term forecast, which were nuts. They had never been achieved before. Current prices and we came up with if that happens we make less than bonds. We were willing to use the word bubble now. Right now this 100th percentile U.S. stocks and bonds. So you invest half your money in stocks, half your money in bonds. Historically you've made about 5% over inflation. We think it's priced now at this level to make about 2.5% over inflation. Rather than 5. Rather than 5. Is that a bubble? I can't prove to you that that's a bubble. That's an expensive market versus history. So most likely when you take a whole bunch of expensive things and they get very expensive when you put them together, you are right, you always can pick a most. But if you ask me the follow-up question, do you think it's a bubble? I will say no. I think it's an expensive market. But a bubble is something where you say this cannot last. And I would not say that.