What's happened in this phase, in this market over the last decade, is that nobody seems to care how they make the money.

It's not considered, and yet **how you make the money really does matter**.

Not because of the way you make the money, or how you determine, yet the real risk is, and whether you can continue making the money.

Many investors are just dependent on the same group of companies, or the same investors.

And again, there can be nothing wrong with that, as long as they can understand that embedded is significant risk, which should be very conscious among such investors.

## The Index Dependency

It's remarkable that entrepreneurs can be paid to just own the same companies that are in the index.

And I know the careerist of many who would say, that is not a worthy reason for any chief.

And a manager who is able to generate those returns, in a manner that does not depend on what everybody else has enjoyed, is exceptional.

Now, from a pure dollars and cents point of view, it might be better to own a record version of anything you've announced in the last decade.

It's a remarkable run.

And those who could identify this, when they are processed, should be applauded as exceptional investors.

## What Happens If It Changes?

The question always becomes, **what happens if it changes?**

And I don't know when it would change.

If I was certain it would never change, I would not be in the business of equity management, and I would just say, we'll have a new concept management.

But that is a route where that leads to many problems.

So, let's get back to the key.

Understanding how the money is made at Bloomberg.

And it will matter most in terms of whether or not it's sustainable.

## Sustainable Methods

You take no special pride in not being early investors in Google, let's say.

You are completely open-minded.

However, the fact that we've generated all the claims with less than 1% overlap of other active managers and the stock market itself, suggests a signal that what we're doing is something that doesn't depend on this magnificent run of the last decade continuing indefinitely.

It also has occurred across all kinds of market conditions.

From market collapses, to real collapses, to inflation.

When you have a method that survives this and survives in this, it's worth understanding a little bit more about this.

Because it is explainable, and it's something that can persist.

## The Changing Landscape

So again, I have a claim for the index.

It's not a problem.

However, there are reasons why it may not stop when it may stop.

And if you believe that the market will compound it 15% at most years indefinitely, then that's always an investment.

As we all know, fundamentally, that it's a big world. Capital flows in all sorts of directions.

Even now, as I like to, for the very first time, U.S. bonds are manifesting earlier phases.

The U.S. dollar as a reserve currency is still nearly the only game in town, but the day price is suggesting that other central banks around the world are aspiring to diversify.

And I have no particular conclusion from these things.

It's just to say that we are in the midst of some changes, which over the last 20 years did not occur.

It is quite rare, for instance, to see the U.S. dollar bond decline in value at a moment when the stock market is declining again.

It's an experience.

We have not seen it twice within decades. That is also new.

And so the conclusion is simply that **new things happen**.

And the way to put it is things that have happened in the past will happen again.

And one thing that's happened in the past is that markets don't compound at 15%.

And if you believe that they might not, it is worthy to look at ways to invest in companies that do not simply depend and extend continually, indefinitely.