The Science of Investing with Dimensional Fund Advisors

Hello and welcome to the latest edition of our Building Your Wealth Bridge podcast. I'm really excited about this conversation that we have today. I'm well I'm happy to welcome Scott Bosworth who is the head of the speakers bureau at Dimensional Fund Advisors. Good morning Scott.

Good morning Zach. Thanks for having me on.

Yeah thank you for doing this. Really appreciate it. I think you know we were trying to educate our clients a little bit more on what Dimensional is all about. And I think you are the perfect person to do so. So would you mind just I think starting off maybe introducing yourself, you know, what you do at Dimensional and, you know, kind of how you got there.

Yeah. My name is Scott Bosworth. As you said, I'm I head up our speakers bureau. It's a role I actually started in about two years ago. And I've been at Dimensional for almost 30 years. I started as a portfolio manager in our Santa Monica office which back then in 90 1996 that was our only main office in the US. We've since grown quite a bit. We've expanded to Charlotte, North Carolina and our headquarters where I am is in Austin, Texas. So from portfolio management I sort of moved into sales.

At first it was institutional sales like pension funds, endowments, foundations that to that sort of client base. And then around 20 25 years ago, I started working with the wealth side of our business. So that's RIAs, broker dealers, bank trust, that sort of thing. So the move into speakers bureau is something that you know I've always been a fairly you knowve I've always liked speaking at our conferences. As you know, Zach, we have a lot of conferences. We've always done that. We actually to the point where we build our own conference facilities in our main offices.

So, we host a lot of them in our offices, but we also go on the road and do them in, you know, cities all over the country and really all over the world. So, after managing one of our teams for a number of years, I decided to step into this new role that hadn't been created yet to sort of manage our speaker team and do a lot more speaking at our event. So, it's been a lot of fun.

Yeah, that's great. And yeah, I've been fortunate enough to go to those conferences a few times in Chicago and every year there's some great information that we, you know, end up taking to bring back to our clients and yeah, so thank you for all your you're helping with those.

Well, thanks for coming to the conferences, Zach, because without you all, we wouldn't have them.

Yeah, perfect. Well, I think, you know, what I want to start with a little bit is I think a lot of our clients maybe see Dimensional on their, you know, as a line item on their performance reports or on their statements and don't, you know, fully know what Dimensional is. So would you be able to speak to that a little bit of what does?

Yeah, it's a good question. We get it a lot about, you know, I've never heard of Dimensional, but I've heard a lot of other big money managers like, you know, well, we don't have to name their names. I mean, you can, but you know, we know who they are and their household names. Dimensional certainly has more public awareness than it did certainly when I started, but even just say 10 years ago. I mean there's a there's a number of reasons for that. One is that we are fairly an institutional focused firm.

So we focus on selling directly to the institutions whether they be RIAs brokerage firms, banks, insurance companies, pension funds, the end investor while they can buy our products directly through the ETF channel or their 401ks in some cases, we you know we firmly believe that you know to have a really to have to increase your odds of success on the investment front and the wealth front and all that goes into that you know having a professional advisor helping you with that is is really key to that for the vast majority of investors.

One question we get a lot that's related to this is about you know the executives and leadership and people that have been at Dimensional a long time and sort of have evolved into that place where they need a financial adviser. Many of us have financial adviserss and you would argue that you know people like you know the academics we work with the CEOs of the firm they have financial adviserss. They don't need help with building model portfolios. They probably don't even need help with the behavioral side of things, which is where I think most advisers get a lot of a lot of benefit and add a lot of value.

But there's so much more that goes into the adviser relationship around wealth management and goals and planning and taxes. That's just not something that we think most individual investors, even very experienced and very educated and very you know older folks that have seen it all they still can benefit greatly from that. So because we're not you know sort of targeting the individual investors in most cases our name isn't out there. We're not doing TV ads like some of our competitors are. We're not, you know, sort of in the social media sphere quite to the same extent.

Now that said, we are trying to get the word out. I mean, largely we do want people to know who Dimensional is, but the goal there is always to sort of direct them to professional advice and if they find the value in that, then that's probably going to be a win-win, right? It's great for Dimensional because we've get we get better clients. We get clients that have better experiences and of course, you know, we support the advisor community.

Yeah. Perfect. No, I think, I mean, I've only been in this industry for 10 years or so, but it seems like there's been a huge evolution towards more advice versus just, you know, investment management, highest returns. There's so much more that goes into it. Even you know I met with somebody not too long ago who for his whole life you know kind of did everything himself and just wanted us there you know in case something happened to him to make sure it gave him the comfort that his family was going to be okay that it wouldn't be too much stress on his on his family and yeah so there's all different reasons why people want to work with a adviser

Yeah that's very true yeah and I think with I kind of guess I want to backtrack a little bit you just with dimensionals you know the history of index funds how Dimensional was a part of it.

You know, I'll do a plug for the Tuning Out the Noise is a great documentary for that Dimensional worked with. Oh, I'm forgetting the name of the person who produced it.

Daryl Morris, the director.

Yeah.

Who is it was it was great. If anybody wants to learn a little bit more about Dimensional, I think that'd be a great place to start. But you know I think you know going back to the 1920s or so before really indexes were even a thing it seems like institutional asset managers you know didn't really have any way of you know tracking their performance. And that's when indexes came about and I think in the 50s or 60s was when the S&P 500 just the index came about.

And Scott, I'm sure you probably can speak a lot better and more eloquently than I can on this, but I know in the 70s was when Ransom Cook at Wells Fargo hired I think Mlullen to start the team to start index investing. And Dimensional kind of, you know, is connected to that along all along the way.

Yeah. Yeah. It's a cool story and it's told in great detail in the movie that you mentioned, Tune Out the Noise. And that's example to your previous question about the efforts we are making in terms of getting the word out around dimensional. Now it's not a dimensional advertisement but it is a cool documentary about the evolution of financial science and dimensional plays a big part in that. The way I like to describe it is if you go back to the 70s which is when most of this started at Wells Fargo as you mentioned they were compiling a lot of data they were experimenting.

I think the first index approach was actually at Wells Fargo by what who eventually would found dimensional David Booth and you mentioned Mac McQuound's name. You know they were kind of the part of that team of pioneers that sort of started experimenting with this idea of building an investment solution for institutional clients that didn't rely on stock picking. Right? So how can you do that? Well, there's there were indexes available. So maybe trying to recreate those indexes in some way. They compiled a lot of data.

As the story goes, Jack Bogle caught wind of this work at Wells Fargo and M. McQueen and his team said, "Yeah, give him the data. Let him run with it, too." Cuz they weren't concerned with retail investing or direct to consumer investing, whereas that was obviously Vanguard's business. So, I think that fund I don't know the exact date, but that that S&P 500 index fund launched in the 1970s. So it's oftenimes missed in that dimensional was a pioneer in indexing because today and since 1981 when we were founded you know we haven't been an index shop.

We don't we don't actually we take some of the principles that were learned from that pioneering effort. But what we realized is in many segments of the market indexing was very inefficient. And it turns out even in very liquid segments of the market, there is something you're sort of leaving on the table by focusing exclusively on tracking error, which is what an index's job is, versus focusing on total return, which I think, you know, as long as you're willing to sacrifice looking a little bit different from the market, you can have a better you have a higher probability of a having a better investment experience by following a more flexible approach than something rigid like indexing.

Gotcha. Yeah, I think that's really true. I think a lot of people maybe get caught up in the very low expense ratios of some index funds versus what Dimensional is doing or even the active funds. I think maybe diving a little bit more into that would be helpful of you know index or passive versus active and kind of how dimensional fits in maybe kind of the goals of the different approaches and how they're different and how Dimensional thinks about things.

Yeah, I think it's a it's a great question. And it's really at the heart of kind of why we do what we do and how we do what we do and how we position it versus, you know, versus our competitors, whether they be active funds, index funds, or some combination of the two. There is a kind of a I don't have a graphic to share but if I did I would I would maybe sketch it or show a slide but I'll walk through kind of a grid sort of concept and how we think about where dimensional differs and why that's a benefit to investors users of our investment solutions.

So if you think about there's three elements that we think are entirely they encapsulate sort of the investment experience as you think about it from our perspective as an investment manager. There's essentially the market that we're interacting with. Every active manager, every indexer, every money manager in the world has to interact with the market. They have to buy and sell securities over long periods of time. So what is a market? It is a collection of prices. Really, that's really what a market is. It's prices. So we think about prices a little bit differently than our competition does.

If you think about it, I like to use one-word descriptions. An indexer sort of what I would say is largely they ignore price except for that one period. Maybe it's once a year or maybe it's twice a year where then when that when that index reconstitutes. So on that date they care a lot about prices. They care so much about prices. Is they want to get the exact same price for their securities whether they're buying them or selling them as the index gets. They really don't care if it's too high or too low.

They just want to get the same price the index gets because their job is to track that benchmark. So the word I use for indexing with when it comes to the market or prices is this concept they largely ignore prices. An active manager by contrast looks at the market and says the market's got it wrong in certain places. So they're largely disagreeing with prices. They think they've got a better sort of analysis tool or a better gut instinct and they're going to use that instinct to find undervalued securities, things that where prices are too low or avoid things or sell things where prices are too high.

So to me, it's ignoring them or disagreeing with them. Whereas at dimensional, when we think about interacting with the market, we embrace it. Prices have really valuable information about expected returns and that that gets updated every day. It gets updated every second of every day. So prices are constantly changing and yet active managers largely disagree with those prices whereas indexers largely ignore all that information they're getting. The second one is this idea of premiums which you sort of exposed already. This idea that not all stocks have the same expected return.

So what mechanism would inform the differences in expected returns? And to me, that's this premium argument. And of course, those differences come from the prices that the market is setting these stocks at. And remember, there isn't a the market. There isn't some sort of like, you know, omnisient entity out there that we call the market that we're all interacting with. What people have to remember is the market is all of us. We're buying and selling and that's how prices get set. There isn't some cabal or secret star society that's setting prices for us.

So, it's supply and demand and trusting that process with some controls. I mean, we don't blindly trust every single price in the market. We have a massive intelligence and data analysis effort going on at Dimensional constantly to, you know, manage that data, understand it better. And we have exclusions, we have all sorts of rules in place that we're not blindly following every price all the time. But when you think about premiums, again going back to indexes, what I think indexes are sort of susceptible to is this idea of drift because they're only setting their portfolios periodically, maybe once a year or once every 6 months or once a quarter.

Between those periodic rebalances, they could drift away from the premiums they're trying to capture. Maybe it's a small cap index, maybe it's a value index. An active manager, I would say that their approach to premiums is very subjective. One manager may say, well, this XYZ stock is definitely a growth company. I mean, look at the metrics. And some other manager who's a value manager may say, "Yeah, it kind of looks like a growth stock, but we think of it as a value stock because it's relative to some other, you know, instinct or intuition they have." So, you can have very different definitions and very a lot of subjectivity comes into the marketplace when you think about dealing with it in a non-sistatic way.

And then at dimensional the way we think about premiums is just a laser focus on this the idea of what causes differences in expected returns and how can we build robust portfolios that capture those differences without getting away from diversification without get without imposing too high a cost in capturing those. So there's all these trade-offs that we take into account every day. And then the last one is this idea of process or implementation. You might have noticed all three of those start with a P. Prices, premiums, process.

I know we're very clever at Dimensional, Zach, but it this is the implementation piece. This is right where this is where the rubber meets the road. My first job at Dimensional was as a portfolio manager, and this is what we did. It was the implementation of these ideas in buying and selling securities in the most efficient way we could to deliver most of that or as much of that expected return from the markets to our clients as possible. So again when I think about an index it's very rigid.

I've already explained that their methodology is extremely rigid because that's what they're paid to do. They're paid to deliver something very close to the index return. And any deviation from that, even if it's a positive deviation, by the way, would be considered kind of a failure. With active management, it's this urgency, right? I mean, I think we can if you have a good idea, you want to implement that idea before anybody else figures it out. You've discovered something that's undervalued or overvalued, you have some sense of urgency to get into the market and do it as quickly as possible.

At Dimensional, we've got that one word that you've heard a lot if you've been to our conferences, Zach, and that's flexible and patient. Those are two words. I'll start with flexible. We want to be really flexible when we go to the market because if you have urgency or very specific demands, you lose your negotiating power. And if you're if you don't have patience and if you don't have flexibility, you have to take what the market's going to give you. Whereas at Dimensional, we have this I use the metaphor of a sandbox.

You know, we have a sandbox that we play in. So, we can't go just anywhere, but we, you know, with a particular portfolio, we have a particular set of securities that we're looking at that day to buy or sell. And we can be very selective and very patient and we don't have to do everything at once. As a matter of fact, that's the last thing we want to do. So, that is a very big differentiator between how dimensional approaches the market. Those nine words, those, you know, that 3x3 grid is a pretty universal way of thinking about how dimensional stacks up against our competition.

Fantastic. Yeah, thank you for doing that. I think there was one kind of analogy that I remember hearing at one of those dimensional conferences talking about the difference of active versus passive and how dimensional kind of fits in. And I drive 45 minutes or so to work every day. And an index approach to driving maybe is like printing out Map Quest and having that in your car and you know, you have your directions that maybe they're a little stale. Whereas, you know, an active approach would be me kind of saying, you know, I don't agree with those directions.

I can I know if I make this detour to get off of this exit or go down this side street, I'm going to get there faster. And you know, I don't know if maybe there was a car accident on one of those streets or there's road construction or something like that, but I think you know, I'm going to take a risk and, you know, try and outperform whereas Dimensional maybe is, you know, having GPS on in your car the whole time that is constantly recalculating and seeing those road closures, seeing traffic and giving you the best possible way to get to your destination.

And for some reason that always just kind of hit home with me of and that that is how I drive to work with GPS at every day.

Yeah. I think that's a great analogy that a journey is always a good analogy for me. I mean, and Zach, you look pretty young. I'm surprised Map Quest was the thing that you, referenced here. That's kind of old school. That's like that's like you could have said a tripick from AAA. That would have been even better. Yeah.

But, you know, I like that analogy. And I think there's maybe one other element I would add to that which is, you know, we're not even with the GPS on, we're still, you know, we have experience. We've done this route before and sometimes you might know something that the GPS doesn't know. That might be a bad metaphor. What I'm trying to get at is we don't disagree with market prices. That's not what I'm getting at. What I'm getting at is there is a human element that I think is very important that requires some judgment when it comes to you know the right path the less the path of lease resistance and avoiding those massive backups or those massive delays. So sometimes the human element is a is a fairly important addition to that analogy.

Right. Absolutely. And I think just as me when I think about those different, you know, index versus active, I think, you know, as Scott said, the objective of a index fund is to track the benchmark. You know, whichever benchmark there is, there's hundreds, if not thousands of different indexes all around the world. And their goal is to track it exactly. You know, using the S&P 500 as an example, that's the probably the most popular index. They do their reconstitution. If there's a quarterly that they announce different additions into their fund and they announce it maybe a week in advance and it seems like leading up to that reconstitution date, there's all sorts of different trading and those index funds have to buy it at buy the new stocks that are going to be included maybe at not the best time.

Maybe they're, you know, go up in price because there's more volume because everybody knows they're going to be included in the index soon. And I think that's something that dimensional as Scott as you were saying like the flexibility of, you know, we don't have to own it on that specific day. We have, you know, a lot of flexibility into when we make that purchase and maybe allows Dimensional to buy things at better prices. Well, yeah, you're kind of getting into a little bit of the weeds on trading rules, but one of the trading rules to your point is if a stock is a stock that's one of those stocks that's going to be added to an index or removed from an index and it's coming up and you know, as you said, the index rules are fairly easy to replicate.

So, people can obviously frontr run those additions or subtractions. Sometimes they're not additions and subtractions, though. Sometimes it's a stock moving from one index in, you know, into another index, whether it's, you know, the S&P 500. Maybe that stock is being added from the S&P 600, a small cap, or the S&P 400, which I think is a midcap index. I'm not an expert in the index reconstitution rules. What I do know, however, is they change periodically and sometimes they change their rules, right? They'll generally speaking from what I understand in the industry indexes like to reconstitute as little as possible because every time they reconstitute that's a cost that the indexers have to bear.

So you know it's like they wouldn't want to reconstitute every day. They could in theory just reconstitute their portfolios every day. That would eliminate the drift part that's a problem with indexing but it wouldn't eliminate all of the problems with indexing. You still have a very rigid process. You're still largely executing market on close orders whether you're buying or selling. So those are still issues that would that would remain although I don't expect indexes to ever adopt a daily reconstitution because that would the there one of their goals as an index provider is you want to entice people to track your index versus somebody else's index and by doing so you want to have rules that make it a little bit easier for the money managers to follow.

So there is a little bit of a of a you know feedback loop there between the index managers and the index providers. But that is another important element to think about. When you're an index manager, you're actually outsourcing your portfolio management in terms of what you're buying and selling, when you're buying and selling them, how much you're buying and selling. You're outsourcing all that decision to a third party that isn't a money manager largely. They're a index provider. That's their that's their primary role. So those are all great points. I love your analogy on the journey too. But yeah that was my two cents on the reconstitution bit.

Perfect. And I know I mentioned the index goal is to track the market whereas an active manager their goal is to beat the market and dimensional is trying to beat the market. They're just going at it in a little bit of a different way. And I think I kind of skipped over a part of, you know, with the origination of Dimensional and the ties with University of Chicago, which in my mind in terms of business schools and they are probably the best school when it comes to investment research. Could you speak to that a little bit and then maybe we'll touch on the premiums and wrap it up.

Yeah, sure. Yeah. Well, as people might know, I mean, and I think the University of Chicago has a prominent role in the beginning of that movie, but it's where David Booth went to business school and where he met Gene Fama, who was I think essentially the first person he reached out to when the idea to found dimensional you know, kind of popped into his head. So, Gene and David were, you know, both at the at the Booth School. It wasn't called the Booth School then. That came much later.

But you know then they went down the hallway in the University of Chicago and you know enlisted Myron Scholes and Merin Miller and others to join the board of directors for this yet to be established mutual fund company. So they kind of got their ducks in a row early. But you know when you think about you know the University of Chicago is a think tank in some ways and so great ideas Nobel prizewinning ideas were coming out of that school and remain and continued to come out of that school for years after dimensional was founded.

So there was an academic underpinning that was specific to this pursuit of you know sort of how markets work and how can you manage money the most effective way that was at that time in 1981 a very revolutionary approach to money management. It was not active stock picking but also not indexing which by its even then in 1981 was in its infancy but it was this idea of capturing the returns in a in a market in a broad way but having this flexible approach. It turns out that flexible approach and you know that with the combination of you know focusing on stocks with higher expected returns based on the academic research you know that is a way to outperform markets.

That is a way in our in our view a more robust way to outperform markets. It's systematic. It has evidence to back it up. But like any risk premium it doesn't show up all the time. You know, because if it showed up all the time, it wouldn't be called a risk premium. It would be called a mistake or an arbitrage opportunity. And those things don't last very long. When they when they arise in the markets, managers go in there, hedge funds, active managers, and they squeeze that stuff out very quickly. It's very difficult to find those kinds of anomalies today given how much money is being managed in the markets.

Yeah. U no thanks for diving in. I think the origination and the amount of academic genius I guess we'll call it that are kind of powering dimensional from the start is some of the best parts of it. That's it's very impressive and just in studying all this stuff in school hearing the different names of you know Scholes and Eugene Pharma and Ken French and David Booth and it's very impressive and it seems like dimensional is constantly you know a good amount of time and money gets put into research of you know what more can we do to improve upon this process which I think is something that us as advisers love to hear.

I there's a cool quote I'll share on this subject before we move on to the next one. But I think Gene I think it was Gene Fama who said years ago he said you know you know in the impleers the money managers they've been using my research for years. Dimensional is the only one that actually asked me what I thought about it. Which I thought was an interesting sort of you know sort of it's an insight into his psyche. It's an insight into the relationship that he and David had early on, which you know, David wasn't just going to take this academic research and run off to a, you know, to his headquarters and, you know, do it in a in a vacuum.

You he wanted their input and that was that ended up being extremely valuable. I mean, Gene Fama and Ken French are still involved with the firm today. And that's been, you know, 45ish years that we've been that we've had that relationship with those academics, some of them, the ones that have been there the longest, right?

That's fantastic. And I think lastly, you know, I feel like when I talk about dimensional, I always bring up more of a systematic investment manager that, you know, tilts portfolios to areas of markets with proven, you know, higher expected returns over long periods of time. And I think you kind of hit on that that you know things come in and out of favor over times and when you know maybe the premiums are in favor they really show up and maybe there's periods where you know they're not there but you know we want to make sure we're taking a longterm time horizon.

Would you mind just hitting on some of those premiums I guess in regards to the stock premiums more so than the bond ones? I'm just

Okay. Sure. Yeah. I mean, you know, I'll keep it I'll try to keep it fairly simple, but there are, you know, the three premiums that we focus on really. There's four because the equity premium, meaning stocks versus, you know, a risk-free asset. I mean, that that in and of itself is a premium that doesn't show up all the time, right? I think the in the US at least and probably similar in other countries, but the odds of having a negative experience on that premium, so that premium being negative is about one in four.

Meaning, you know, on an annual basis, the equity premium may be negative on average one out of every four years, which is probably a more frequent more higher frequency than most investors might assume. Maybe not, but you know, I think that's worth pointing out. But then within stocks, you've got the size premium, you've got the value premium, and you have what we call the profitability premium. And those the premiums are all related by one common thread, which is price. And David Booth had a great quote.

Again, I think he said this years ago. He said, "It's always been about the price." And the way he would say it is he said, "If you have two stocks, all else equal, buy the one with the lower price. If you have two stocks with the same, you know, the same price relative to their net asset value or net book value, buy the one with the lower price. If you have two stocks with the same cash flow, buy the one with the lower price. Now, you may have noticed it, you may not, but that that quote addresses each of the three premiums in a over I would say oversimplified way, but a way that's I think can resonate with folks.

So, you know, all else equal, a small stock is going to have a higher expected return than a large stock. Doesn't mean it's always going to have a higher return after the fact. It's just in expectation. It has to be that way because if those two stocks had the same expected return, no one would buy the riskier one. No one would buy the smaller one. Why buy a grocery store with one outlet when you could buy a grocery store with a thousand outlets? You know, the one with more outlets has a better diversification.

It's bigger. It has more assets to fall back on if times get tough, you know. So, that that's just kind of that I think makes intuitive sense. The idea of a value stock having a higher expected return than the growth stock, that makes intuitive sense to most people as well. The profitability one gets a little bit trickier because people think of, well, higher profitability, that's a good thing, not a negative thing. So, why would that have more risk? But I think what is oftenimes forgot or lost is that it's a relative measure.

So, if you just looked at all stocks and didn't have any relative measure and just said just buy the stocks with the most with the highest profitability without any kind of controls on that, you would end up with a portfolio that was predominantly large cap versus small and predominantly growth versus value, which is kind of the opposite of what you'd want if you're trying to outperform markets using sources of expected returns. So, we look at profitability within a segment of the market. So profitability within small value stocks, profitability within, you know, midcap growth stocks.

So it's all relative to where they sit in the market. That's a simplified way of looking at it. But profitability really gets to if two stocks have the same expected cash flow, but one of them is trading at a lower price than the other one. That's the market telling us something about the riskiness of that cash flow. And there should be some compensation involved with owning that stock versus owning a stock with a higher price and the same cash flow. And that's kind of what the risk premium is is trying to capture.

Sure. That's great. Yeah. Thank you for saying and I think one way that I kind of think about it's not it's not we're putting all of our eggs in one basket. It's more of just hilts. And I think also at one of those conferences, I heard an analogy of, you know, if you're playing baseball and you're on defense against a left-handed hitter who always pulls the ball to right field, you're not going to put all nine of your defenders in right field. You're going to maybe tilt the center fielder a little bit closer, maybe shift a little bit more to right side, but, you know, if he somehow hits the ball to left field, you're not going to be completely offsiz.

Which is kind of how I think about the tilts of the different premiums. That that's a really good analogy. And actually, Zach, I've not heard that one before, so I don't think I was at that. I must have missed that conference. That was that that that's a really good way of thinking about it if you understand baseball, right, and the shifts. That's a really good way to think about it. And I and it brings up something that I failed to mention earlier, which is it can get lost in all this conversation around the premiums that we don't really view these as like, oh, small stocks are better than large stocks or that you want to somehow avoid stocks with lower expected returns.

We want to buy with some limitations. We want to buy all the stocks in a market. It's how you tilt as your to your point, how much expected return over the market return are you trying to capture? And that will dictate how you build that portfolio. The analogy I often give when you think about our role at Dimensional versus your role as the adviser is we build these car parts and we think we build the best car parts in the industry and then you're the one that has to build the car for each of your clients because not every client has the same needs, the same goals, the same risk tolerance.

So we're sort of the mechanic, if you will, and you're sort of the manufacturer. And then to take that analogy a step further, you then get in the car with your client and help them drive it because the behavioral part, trust me, the behavioral part is a really big part of the value the value ad of a of a of a good adviser.

Yeah, I had not I had not heard that one, but I think that's a great analogy and a great way to end this. And Scott, thank you so much for your time. I think our clients will get a lot out of this. And thank you for everything that you and everybody at Dimensional does for our firm and for our clients. Been a great partner and look forward to working with you all for many years to come. But thank you.

Yeah. Thanks, Zach. Thanks for having me on. I appreciate it. It was a lot of fun.

Yeah, it was great. All right. Thanks, Scott. Take care.

This transcript was generated from the episode audio and may contain errors.