FidelityConnects: Five questions into 2026: Insights from the GAA team

[00:03:07] Pamela Ritchie: Hello, and welcome to Fidelity Connects. I'm Pamela Ritchie. Fidelity's Global Asset Allocation team has released their first white paper of 2026. It's titled Five Questions Into 2026, and it captures the most common and most pressing questions that they're hearing from investors. From renewed optimism around this country, Canada, to how AI is creating opportunity, to whether the 60/40 portfolio still holds up, this paper connects today's big themes to what they mean for markets and for portfolios. Joining us here today to discuss these questions and how they're translating them into portfolio strategy is portfolio manager, David Wolf. Welcome, great to see you this year. 

[00:03:46] David Wolf: Great to see you as well.

[00:03:47] Pamela Ritchie: Happy 2026. It's been a long time since that started.

[00:03:51] David Wolf: Can you say that six weeks into the year?

[00:03:52] Pamela Ritchie: Only because I haven't seen you for some time. We'll go with that, best wishes and all. Inviting everyone to send questions in for David for the next half hour or so. A year ago you had already seen the beginning of the international trade turn. It was an extraordinary year, actually. I think a lot of people wondering, first, how did you see that and second of all, is it too late? Let's start with what you saw at the beginning of last ... was it last year or even earlier?

[00:04:20] David Wolf: Yeah, it was right around this time, should we say. It's obviously been a fascinating, fascinating is one way to put it, 12 months. If you go back, and I remember you and I sitting here and talking about this right around this time a year ago, and what we talked about was the ascendant kind of US exceptionalism. The US market's been outperforming everybody for years and years. They had reached a record high concentration in global indexes, 73% of the global market cap, companies were making a lot more money than anywhere else in the world, and then you had the new administration coming in that, at least ostensibly, was gonna bring even more good stuff like tax cuts, deregulation, reinvigoration of animal spirits. We had to be involved in the US and we subscribed to that view, and I think just about everybody did. It pretty quickly became clear to us that that was completely wrong.

[00:05:21] Pamela Ritchie: Completely wrong? That's a statement.

[00:05:23] David Wolf: Yeah, at least directionally wrong, shall we say, in terms of, as I mentioned, ascendant US exceptionalism. It turned out, and this became clear to us relatively quickly, that it was actually peak US exceptionalism. The reason for that was ... it doesn't have to do with tariffs or payrolls or whatever, it had to do with the administration, obviously, working towards effectively eroding all of the really deep fundamentals in the US that allowed it to be exceptional. That's things like the rule of law, property rights, stable institutions, predictable governance, et cetera.

[00:06:06] Pamela Ritchie: A lot of people don't say this. This is somewhat...

[00:06:09] David Wolf: I hope it doesn't get broadcast to the world.

[00:06:12] Pamela Ritchie: That's what you saw.

[00:06:12] David Wolf: I don't mind saying it to our friends on the line. This became clear, obviously, not all at once but I think it's been proven out. Last February we took action and actually moved quite quickly to say if the US is, shall we say, richly valued whether it be the equity market, bond market, currency, et cetera, and it's going down and not up in terms of this US exceptionalism dynamic, we want to be moving money out of the United States. In the space of, I want to say a couple of months, we sold probably on the order of $15 billion in US securities. That's equity, fixed income and, obviously, the US dollar, and we put it in a lot of other places. We moved into emerging market and EAFE equity. Did the same on the debt side, selling off our US Treasuries all the way to zero, actually, eventually last year, and put that, you know, there's better yields on offer in places like Germany and the UK, even Japanese government bonds are not insultingly low in yield the way they used to be, some emerging market debt, et cetera.

[00:07:28] Pamela Ritchie: What about Canada? Canada also is an area that was not of interest to you for, I mean, years and years at this point. It also had a fantastic year last year but not everyone saw that right at the beginning of the year either.

[00:07:43] David Wolf: Yeah, so there are a couple of things going on there. First, Pamela, as you know maybe better than anyone, we had been underweight Canada for...

[00:07:50] Pamela Ritchie: As long as I've known you, however long that is.

[00:07:52] David Wolf: Twelve years I've been doing this and we've had an underweight and it's varied in size depending on the outlook, et cetera. But we said a couple of things. Number one, that the US was less attractive so we wanted to be more not in the US, of which Canada is, obviously, part. Number two, we have had a pretty large position in gold for a number of years, mostly as a diversifier, but in this environment where people would be more concerned about dollar debasement, we can talk about that a little bit further today, we knew that not only holding physical gold, which we do, but also buying back into Canada had leverage to the gold price more broadly since Canada is a lot more concentrated in gold stocks than elsewhere, and that was a big story behind the TSX outperformance. The third was the Canada story itself which is to say ... you and I have talked over the years about we were kind of on a road to nowhere in terms of the economy, that housing was overdone, household debt was too high, productivity was stagnant, per capita GDP was coming down, it was always going to end up kind of where we are now which is the economy stagnant, housing market going down, et cetera.

[00:09:09] What we said several months ago was at least there's starting to be a path to better. It had to do with policy reorienting towards the kind of thing that Canada's long needed to do, which is invest more infrastructure, break down interprovincial trade barriers, pipelines, seek out trade opportunities with countries other than the US, et cetera. We'll see how much that manifests itself going forward but at least there's a path to better. Given all those things we said, we've been underweight for 12 years, we no longer want to be underweight, so we closed it.

[00:09:46] Pamela Ritchie: It's incredible and, actually, over those, did you say 12 years, that's how long you've been underweight? And I think that's roughly the period of time that you've been in the position that you're in right now. Just tell us what the funds, there's so many funds that you manage, but ultimately what it's worth. I think you started, you mentioned to me just before, in 2023 it was worth $25 billion. What is it worth now?

[00:10:09] David Wolf: It's about $115 billion.

[00:10:11] Pamela Ritchie: $115 billion over a 10, 11 year period. That's pretty good. Congrats, that's very good. Holy smokes.

[00:10:20] David Wolf: It's not bad at all. I should point out--

[00:10:23] Pamela Ritchie: You have a team around you, I get it, but still.

[00:10:25] David Wolf: --we have a big team and I'm just kind of like the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. It's also worth pointing out that we appreciate the flows and the expansion of the AUM and we as portfolio managers see that gratefully as sort of a vote of confidence in what we're doing and a response to the returns we've generated and the risk management, what have you. I'm not sure if everybody is aware but we actually don't get paid on AUM as portfolio managers.

[00:10:58] Pamela Ritchie: Oh, actually, I don't know how you get paid. How do you get paid?

[00:11:00] David Wolf: If the asset base is larger versus smaller, actually doesn't have any direct influence. I mean, we obviously tend to prefer larger than smaller but what we get paid on as portfolio managers is exclusively performance. How the fund is doing versus the benchmark is what matters to me in terms of a PM. I think folks should want it that way  because you don't want a manager that's spending more time going out and soliciting business and growing the asset base instead of focusing on the funds.  We just focus on the funds and I think the results show that that can be fruitful.

[00:11:37] Pamela Ritchie: Fruitful, absolutely, the results certainly show that. And to think that what you're pivoting is such a much larger base into what is now a more positive view of Canada. Let's talk a little bit, I remember in the pandemic you were talking a lot about, you know, there's a huge upheaval of the supply and demand, we were talking about models not being adequate to measure what was going on, there was a repatriation of kind of everything, or at least you saw it coming. I don't know if it was happening at that time. How would you compare some of those, you can call them de-globalized, you can call them more localized, I don't know what you wanna call it, but those trends, they're what we're talking about all the time now. Are they investible? How are you looking at that as an investment trend, if it is one?

[00:12:22] David Wolf: There are so many things caught up in that and we can kind of unpack them a little bit. One of the things to mention, just writ large, geopolitics look really different today than they did during the pandemic. That's going back, I guess, five years or so. You had, again, the US ascendant, so to speak, and, yes, China and then a couple years later  you had Russia invading Ukraine. That has sort of realigned the chessboard, so to speak. Now it very much feels, and we have a political research service out of Boston that is a good source of intelligence for us, and what they've been talking about is the return to this kind of multipolar world where you have the US and then maybe a block in the Americas, you have Europe that seems to have been kind of ... I'm looking for a diplomatic term but the US doesn't seem to be as interested in supporting Europe as it was before, shall we say, so they kind of...

[00:13:25] Pamela Ritchie: Canada does but the US doesn't so the allies are changing a little bit.

[00:13:30] David Wolf: All of the pieces are shifting around. That makes it more challenging for us because we love it when markets are predictable, when we can just focus on economic growth and company earnings and inflation and policy and map that into expected returns in the various building blocks and then move money that way. When you have different, and in many cases unpredictable, policy from the political side that makes things more challenging. Again, one of the decisions we took almost a year ago was to say, we don't know how this is gonna work out but it's probably not good for US markets relative to the rest of the world so let's be less in US markets relative to the rest of world.

[00:14:18] Pamela Ritchie: When you look at it, I mean, the US markets actually have done very well and they're at all-time ties right now, equity markets. Just discuss that a little bit. It may be a different longer term trend but it has actually bounced back from, basically, the tariff tantrum.

[00:14:33] David Wolf: Yeah, and if you've been invested in the US, whether as an American or Canadian, what have you, you've been great for a long time. Even the past year you've been fine. We're up, you know, whatever, over the past year 20%. On a common currency basis, if you're a Canadian investor you earned not that much in the US market, you earned 30% last year in the TSX. We're interested in driving return and managing risk so if we think we're going to get 10% out of the US but 20% out of Japan and 25% out in Mexico and 30% out Canada, obviously, what we want to be doing is moving money out of US, moving it into those other places. We've done that, and we're still there, I should mention, in terms of our current positioning. We're underweight the US market. We're basically neutral Canada. We're overweight EAFE, so Europe and Japan, primarily overweight emerging markets, we're overweight commodities as well.

[00:15:37] Pamela Ritchie: Have you done that via Canada or all over the world?

[00:15:41] David Wolf: Both. We own gold and we have, as I mentioned, for some time. we have other commodity holdings and then we have enough Canada that we know we're getting some commodity push that way. When you look at our very detailed risk reports, which I've never talked about on this show and don't really want to start now, it's pretty clear that when commodities do better our funds will tend to do better.

[00:16:03] Pamela Ritchie: Let's go laser focus in there on the question of inflation. We see central banks around the world bringing down rates. The US has taken longer to get at that but the rest of the world has been doing that for a couple of years at this stage. Where is inflation? It looks like commodities are going to do well, which may cause some inflation in sort of a new realm, and then there's also circling other reasons for inflation, be it attached to tariffs or not, people have different opinions on that. What's your call on inflation? How are you maneuvering through this right now in the rates/inflation story?

[00:16:41] David Wolf: There are a few things to talk about that way. The first, just with respect to our conversation earlier about the world kind of splitting into a different configuration, should we say, and this is a bit of an extension of what we talked about five years ago during COVID of the kind of reshoring and the breaking up of supply chains. All of that makes the world less efficient--

[00:17:04] Pamela Ritchie: And more expensive.

[00:17:05] David Wolf: --and more expensive. That's basically a direct drive into inflation. The swell in commodity prices, I mean, one way of looking at what's happening in the world is you're getting this geopolitical friction which kind of is creating a scramble for resources, so to speak, and you see that in oil, you see that in rare earths, that kind of thing. That's pushing commodity prices up. In that vein, by the way, much like five years ago said this is going to be more inflationary than people think and we launched, you'll remember, the Inflation Focused Fund. That was in April of' 21, well before inflation actually took off, to provide folks with a vehicle to protect against inflation. That fund is actually the number one performing fund in the global neutral balance category in Canada.

[00:17:56] Pamela Ritchie: It's full of TIPS, it's full of the Canadian version.

[00:18:00] David Wolf: It's up almost 10% and it's got commodities and commodity stocks and gold. There's actually some predictive power in that. The fact that that fund is up as much as it has is actually a reason to expect, well, inflation is probably going to bubble up. The third element, and this is worth a half an hour in and of itself, is what's happening with the US and Fed policy and the incoming, potentially incoming, Fed chair, how pressure from the administration fits into the rate path and what that means for inflation.

[00:18:34] Pamela Ritchie: I mean, he probably will wear a heavy crown, it sounds like. In some ways he'll have some very difficult voices to listen to on either side of his shoulder on that one. Let's get your thoughts on that. First of all, what do you know about him? He's up to the job? You were a central banker at one stage, this is a world that you know well. Do you know Kevin Warsh?

[00:18:56] David Wolf: I know him a little bit. I met him a few times while he was at the Fed and I was at the bank. This is going back 16, 17 years. Very, very smart guy, sort of a young, urbane banker type, not unlike my boss at the time, Mark Carney.  There's a lot of folks in that central bank orbit that are not like that so they actually got to know one another reasonably well. Warsh, a couple of things I know about him are number one, he is a long time Republican. Number two, I think he's always aspired to this role.

[00:19:37] Pamela Ritchie: He has, okay, that's interesting.

[00:19:39] David Wolf: Kind of neither of those is really relevant for the outlook. The more relevant stuff is he is on record for many, many years as being a sort of hawk, an inflation hawk, interest rate hawk, fiscal hawk et cetera. The big question in front of markets is how much of that is going to be reflected in his actual policy because being a hawk is not what the administration wants. Trump wants lower rates, being a hawk would mean higher rates. How is that--

[00:20:08] Pamela Ritchie: Because you're concerned about inflation.

[00:20:11] David Wolf: --friction going to play out? You saw, was it a week and a half ago when Warsh was named, that was that huge washout in gold in particular because people thought, well, he's not going to be as pliant as maybe some other potential Fed chairs so the debasement trade doesn't look as attractive. My personal view on this is I have a hard time thinking that the administration would put someone in that position that wasn't at least open to a more dovish approach, so to speak. If you look into Warsh's comments in recent months there is kind of a glimmer of that. I think when we step back and say, okay, what does the United States have to do, kind of putting aside what Trump thinks it has to do, US has gobs and gobs of government debt. There needs to be, needs to be, it is pressing over time for that debt not to become more and more of a burden on the economy and on the federal budget in particular.

[00:21:23] What do you do about that? Well, you put pressure on the central bank, or the central banks volunteers to do it, to lower rates, potentially more so than the economic outlook would warrant. That does a couple of things. Number one, it directly lowers financing costs for the government, at least in the shorter end of the curve. Number two, it sort of allows for, even fosters, inflation because if you think about where rates should be to keep inflation stable, if you have rates lower than that that's courting higher inflation. That actually, as much as people won't like it, and particularly if you're a creditor you don't like, but if you're a debtor like the United States you say, well, that's great, because it means I can pay back...

[00:22:08] Pamela Ritchie: Payments are less.

[00:22:09] David Wolf: Well, I can pay back US dollars to my creditors that are worth a whole lot less than the ones they lent me in the first place, including all these foreign creditors because the US dollar goes down. It actually kind of helps a lot of the US economic challenges to effectively devalue the US dollar. I think the new Fed Chairman probably realizes that. Exactly how it goes, I don't know. Maybe all to say we've been in that trade, as we talked about, for basically a year and I don't think it goes away just because you have a new Fed chairman that isn't obviously inclined that way.

[00:22:50] Pamela Ritchie: When you take a look at this discussion, you're the perfect person to ask this about, where we hear versions of the balance sheet of the Fed and the Treasury might sort of swap to an extent, or there's a version of whatever is held on the Fed's balance sheet in terms of mortgage-backed securities and so on maybe needs to not be held there and maybe is held at the Treasury. I'm just kind of curious about that discussion generally. It sounds very philosophical and it sounds like changing power as well. I'm just kind of curious what you think about that discussion and if it's something we should pay attention to.

[00:23:28] David Wolf: It's definitely something you should pay attention to. It is complicated and somewhat obscure. Warsh is on record saying the balance sheet of the Fed is too big. If you reduce the size of the balance sheet what are you doing? You're selling bonds that the Fed holds back into the market. That's a tightening of financial conditions. One way that it could be done to satisfy everyone, and it's probably what's going to happen, you sell the bonds but you also lower short term rates so you try to offset the tightening of financial conditions with more stimulative monetary policy from an interest rate point of view.

[00:24:06] Pamela Ritchie: And selling them on the market.

[00:24:07] David Wolf: And selling them on the market because the Treasury can't really buy its own debt that way, it doesn't make any sense. What all of this gives you is a steeper curve because shorter rates come down and longer rates go up. Now, that may or may not be palatable [audio cuts out] own more short and own less long. As I mentioned earlier, one of the things that we did, we did this early last year, we got rid of all of our US long Treasury bonds. That had a number of factors but one is the way that this was always going to go was going to be higher real interest rates, higher inflation, and long bonds really don't like that so we want to not own those.

[00:25:02] Pamela Ritchie: That's really, really interesting, first of all, that you did that and that the markets are as such. Can we just take this moment to go into the fixed income markets more broadly here for a second because it just sounds like the amount of issuance that is being discussed and what needs to be issued over the course of three to five years, this is for the AI trade, it's well telegraphed, what is going to sop that up? There's a question mark for demand but at the same time it seems to need to be spent somehow and the debt market seemed to be the place to go for that. Can you just comment a bit, one, is it interesting to you as an investor or is it just interesting to stay away from?

[00:25:40] David Wolf: Both, in a sense. Again, a few things on that. Number one, yes, there's a lot of issuance to come, including government issuance but not only government issuance. A lot of these hyperscalers have started to issue debt to support AI build-out, data centres, et cetera, which is its own thing. Your comment is quite right that there's gonna be a lot of debt issue. It will get bought, the question is at what price it gets bought. It may be that the capacity of the global economy to take on all this debt only happens with interest rates 100, 200, 300 hundred basis points higher than at present. That fits in a little bit to what we've been talking about from a portfolio construction point of view. We talked about this in the paper as well. The whole 60/40 construct, a couple of things have happened.

[00:26:31] Number one, bonds have become more correlated to stocks, and we've talked about that before, so it's less of a hedge. If it's less of a hedge it's not as valuable. If it's not as valuable you should be compensated more for holding it, which means the rates need to be going up. But there's also a structural factor, do you really want to hold that much of this at all if they need to be yielding more to be useful to you? It's one of the motivations we've had with diversifying that part of our portfolio, the sort of 40 more defensive part, into a number of other areas. We've bought...

[00:27:08] Pamela Ritchie: Alts is one. 

[00:27:08] David Wolf: Yeah, alts is one and alts can be almost anything. A couple things we've done is we've diversified just our core fixed income holdings. I mentioned Treasuries but even away from things like Government of Canada bonds and into places ... we have a pretty good sized position in emerging market local currency debt.

[00:27:27] Pamela Ritchie: Which have been fabulous over the course of the last year.

[00:27:29] David Wolf: Which has been fabulous. Actually, I noticed that Goldman Sachs put out a piece, I think it was last week, saying, oh, it's great if you're a Canadian investor to buy emerging market local currency debt because yields are really high and the currency volatility is not that bad on the crosses. We've been there for several years.

[00:27:50] Pamela Ritchie: They put the note out just now but you've been doing this for many years.

[00:27:54] David Wolf: Yeah, and if others wanna do it too, that's great, because it makes our holdings even more valuable.

[00:27:59] Pamela Ritchie: Tell us a little about that. The Canadian dollar to an emerging market, you can choose which country it is, and the debt issued there in terms of a carry trade of sorts, or just the differential, is less than obviously a US dollar going to an emerging market. There's more similarity between Canada and emerging market debt, basically.

[00:28:19] David Wolf:  I think I've said this a number ... a couple of different things because this is all a little bit complicated.

[00:28:25] Pamela Ritchie: Yeah, it's fascinating. This is what you do.

[00:28:27] David Wolf: First of all, emerging market low currency debt, we're buying Brazilian real bonds in real, buying Mexican peso bonds in pesos. The yield on those is very high, and traditionally has been very high. Why is it high? Because it's risky. One of the risks involved if you're a US investor is the Mexican peso could go way up or way down and that volatility is not something you like, particularly as a bond investor. In Canada, though, the Canadian dollar will tend to move with, for example, the Mexican peso when the US dollar is generally going up or generally going down so it means that the volatility of a local currency EM bond is lower if you're a Canadian investor than it is if you are a US investor. The yield pickup, because Canadian yields are so low, is actually higher if you're  Canadian than if you're U.S.

[00:29:24] Pamela Ritchie: Is that material to your funds?

[00:29:26] David Wolf: It's material. We established...

[00:29:28] Pamela Ritchie: The performance?

[00:29:29] David Wolf: Yeah, I mean, EM local currency debt in Canadian dollar terms was up 20% last year. There wasn't anywhere else in the fixed income market that you could have gotten 20%. Our position is not that high in most of our funds just because it is volatile and we don't wanna put all of our chips there. It's made a material difference in terms of performance in the funds. In the kind of balanced, multi-asset strategies that I manage, if you can get out of a small sliver, particularly on the 40 defensive side, an extra 10, 20, 30 basis points of performance, and you can do that a few different times in a few different ways, that aggregates up to some pretty meaningful numbers.

[00:30:11] Pamela Ritchie: There's a few minutes left and I just want to get to a couple of questions that people have been ... it's just fascinating to think how you've been pivoting and allocating assets, which is exactly what you do, in different ways. Some of the questions are on trade, a little bit of comment on the Canadian debt outlook, the Canadian economy. You kind of covered that, and also also inflation in the US which you've also covered. What I will ask you is just this one trade story. I know that you're not interested in tons about trade but I wonder if you can just sort of sketch out how Canada looks in the midst of the whole world renegotiating trade, trying to figure things out. What would you say high level is something that Canadians need to be aware of in terms of their investments?

[00:30:53] David Wolf: It's not great. Obviously, we, for many, many years, have been reliant on the US as by far our biggest international customer and now that's in question, that's tariffs and that's volatility and that's CUSMA and what have you. You see the effects on the manufacturing sector in Canada and what's happened in terms of production, what's happened in terms of employment and the uncertainty that gets generated which means you're not going to expand your plant if you don't know if you have anybody to sell it to. That's all not good. There's clearly a pivot at the federal level to saying, we want to negotiate free trade agreements with Europe, with China, with everybody. The problem is the US still takes 65%, 70% of Canadian exports. That's never going to shrink and then be compensated for by more trade with the UK or with Japan. The numbers don't add up.

[00:31:49] Pamela Ritchie: You can diversify but only so much.

[00:31:51] David Wolf: The one comment I would make, and it actually relates to the Canadian debt question as well, you think about all the headwinds that the Canadian economy has had over the past year or so. This is the trade stuff and that started with the tariffs almost exactly a year ago and you get that pressure that way. You've had all of the mortgage resets. It's you know commonly known that if you're resetting a five-year mortgage and you bought your place in 2020, 2021 at the height of the kind of COVID boom you're now resetting from, call it, 1 1/2, 2% to 4 1/2, 5%, that's a material impact. That's the biggest delta that you're going to have. We've had a reversal in immigration so population growth as of a year or two ago was 3%, now it's negative. These are all hits at a fundamental level to Canadian growth. Not making a comment as to the desirability of higher or lower immigration, just if you have fewer people working that's probably not great for the aggregate amount of ... even with all that the Canadian economy is pretty flat. It's not actually obviously in recession. The housing story which is related to rates, housing in much of the country is going down and it may be going down at an accelerating rate. The fact that Canadian economy isn't in a severe recession, given all those headwinds, is actually pretty impressive to me.

[00:33:16] Pamela Ritchie: That's absolutely fascinating on all of these different things. What would be sort of your final comment for investors taking a look at the extraordinary success you've had in a lot of the funds right now. What would you sort of wrap up with, David, today?

[00:33:29] David Wolf: I would say, I mean, maybe I'll tell a little story, a little story from a couple of years ago. We were down at one of our Fidelity Canada events down south and we had advisors around and a number of them would say to me, why do you own anything outside of the US? The US has the best companies, they have the best earnings, the US dollar is strong, do we need to bother with international diversification? I think the last year has been a case study in why you have that international diversification. That story isn't done yet. We're always gonna have US holdings and it's always gonna be a cornerstone of the portfolio, just given its size and the nature of its companies, but I think what we're seeing is really the argument for not being only in the US and having that diversification.

[00:34:17] Pamela Ritchie: It's a fascinating moment and we're glad you're at the helm. David Wolf, thank you very much for joining us here today.

[00:34:22] David Wolf: Thanks, Pamela.

[00:34:23] Pamela Ritchie: That's David Wolf joining us on Fidelity Connects. Coming up over the next few days, we'll wrap up tomorrow, it's Friday, with Bobby Barnes. He's Fidelity Head of Quantitative Index Solutions, for a discussion on the advantages of Fidelity's quantitative research team, factor investing, dig into the factors ultimately and where he is rating them, and Fidelity ETFs that may be favourable in the marketplace today.

[00:34:46] Monday will be off because provincially it's Family Day. On Tuesday, you'll be joining us again, we'll have a sit-down conversation with Joe Overdivest. He's portfolio manager. We'll dig into the details of the Canada trade, specifically bringing in energy for Joe to answer some of those questions, where he is seeing opportunities across sectors, though, and broadly in the resources sector.

[00:35:10] On Wednesday Étienne Joncas-Bouchard, he is Fidelity Director of ETFs and Alternative Strategy. He joins us for his analysis on the current ETF landscape, which is gangbusters right now. He'll give us the numbers, the flows numbers, for January, and they're good, and give you an update on the Fidelity All-in-One ETFs. All of that is ahead. Thanks for joining us. We will see you in the days to come.