FidelityConnects: Markets, the ETF landscape and product innovation

[00:03:42] Pamela Ritchie: Hello, and welcome to Fidelity Connects. I'm Pamela Ritchie. As we enter a week of significant releases on inflation data and serious geopolitical brinkmanship it's time to take a look at what will shepherd investors through the bumps via ETFs. ETFs in Canada have been hitting record highs in recent months across the whole Canadian industry, as well as at Fidelity in particular. Investors are more and more interested in a vehicle that allows for broad diversification, core positioning, as well as the wherewithal to add particular strategies for easily enhancing risk or just as easily decreasing exposure to risk. Joining us here today is Fidelity's Vice President of Product, Andrew Clee. Today's show is in English with live French audio interpretation for anyone who would like to join us in either official language. Warm welcome to you, Andrew. Great to see you. Happy Monday.

[00:04:33] Andrew Clee: Thank you for having me.

[00:04:34] Pamela Ritchie: Delighted to have you here. Everyone who's joining us, please send questions in for Andrew Clee over the next little while. Head of Product, let's get into the discussion of ETFs. Take us through the numbers for the last couple of months, some of them have blown the barn doors off.

[00:04:50] Andrew Clee: Previous record on a calendar year basis was about $76 billion. We did that last year. To put that in context we're at 65 through the end of July in 2025. So huge gangbuster numbers. July posted close to 10 billion in net sales and so June had a record month slightly below that.

[00:05:07] Pamela Ritchie: June was seven-ish and that was massive.

[00:05:09] Andrew Clee: For a June record, July record, we're on pace for a year-to-date record. I think what was really interesting is the shift that we've seen on a calendar year basis. I've worked in the industry since about 2008, the financial crisis, terrible time to join the industry.

[00:05:25] Pamela Ritchie: Indeed. You must have learned a lot.

[00:05:26] Andrew Clee: It was also the start of U.S. exceptionalism. I've been following this industry forever. If you kind of went back from 2000, 2008, Canadian equity was the place to be. It was the best performing developed market in the super commodity cycle. Since about 2009 U.S. equity dominated ETF flows. This year we actually had a challenger in international equity. It posted very, very strong numbers at the beginning of the year. The tariff war, the uncertainty around administration policy in the States, money started moving away from the U.S. in favour of Canada and international. We actually saw that flip in July. July there was no single international equity ETF in the top 20 for flows.

[00:06:09] Pamela Ritchie: That's massive, actually, because it's been a massive trend through the first half.

[00:06:13] Andrew Clee: It's also one of the best performing asset classes in the equity space on a year-to-date basis. We actually saw money flip back towards the U.S. in July, which I would say is a notable shift when we actually contrast, let's call it the first six months of the year and then the seventh month. That's no surprise, we've also seen U.S. equity markets accelerate on a relative trade to the international over that time.

[00:06:35] Pamela Ritchie: We'll talk about the U.S. reasons for that in a second, do you think that the international trade has run out of steam, or it's just gone too far?

[00:06:41] Andrew Clee: I don't. If you look at forward earnings, so P/E multiples, let's call it international trading 15 1/2 times, U.S. was trading 22 1/2 times but if we rewind to, let's call it April when I would say things started to slow down, the U.S. got as cheap as about 18 1/2. The risk there was to the upside, I think, and we would have gotten a lot of clients that said, hey, the multiples have come down a lot, and we saw that reaccelerate very, very quickly. The Mag Seven took off again, we got back to that 22 1/2 handle. I think it peaked around 22.8, 23 times. International still is trading seven points cheaper so I think the question we have to ask ourselves is how far can we push that mean version on relative valuation because the U.S. has always been more expensive than Europe or Asia just because you pay a premium for high quality companies. One would argue that there's higher quality companies in the States than the broader market. There's, obviously, single company views that have very strong companies within that region but on a broad basis there is always that premium on the U.S. market. So how tight can that mean reversion trade get, I think, is the question people are asking themselves. If it can get to 5 times then maybe you start seeing some flows out of the international space but I think the geopolitical argument that you touched on earlier was also a driver of repatriation back to domestic markets earlier in the year.

[00:08:08] Pamela Ritchie: Another big piece of it is what we think is a depreciating U. S. dollar. The question is whether that has legs, I don't know, but for many other reasons  just taking your money out of assets that are in a depreciating currency was one piece of the story. Why don't we just pick up on that? What do you see for the U.S. collar? It will be tied to the Fed, no doubt.

[00:08:28] Andrew Clee: If you try to look through history of what Trump is trying to accomplish, let's call it Industrial Revolution 2.0, so bringing manufacturing back to America. If you actually look at the first Industrial Revolution there was three key ingredients that led to it. The first was a weak U.S. dollar, that allowed foreign companies to invest in American manufacturing. There was weak energy prices, that allowed investment within the U.S. economy for the first Industrial Revolution. The third one that's not on this administration's agenda is immigration. A lot of those factories were filled through immigration, through workers that built those manufacturing jobs. Now let's fast forward to what we would say, okay, what's the Industrial Revolution 2.0? American wages won't allow you to fill those factories just on a relative basis to emerging markets and the cost of human capital. I think the focus here is going to be industrial revolution through automation. You hear a lot about building plants that have highly specialized tech. The ingredients that the administration would need to bring that manufacturing onshore successfully would be a weak dollar. So I do think there is an agenda to weaken the dollar and you've seen it play out on a year-to-date basis since the administration has taken place on their new agenda, and then weak energy prices. You're seeing states approved fracking that have previously banned them. If those two ingredients come into a place I think the question is, what is the cost of automation? Then you see companies like Apple that have announced $100 billion investment in the States, you've seen Japan announce huge investment in the States  so it kind of brings this whole tariff negotiation is also a negotiation of how much will you invest in America.

[00:10:12] Pamela Ritchie: To create an innovative factory in the U.S. to sell your own things.

[00:10:16] Andrew Clee:  Even if you hear David Wolf, David Tulk or any of our asset allocation team, there is concern around the U.S. dollar strength and I think it also is part of the agenda in order to bring that manufacturing onshore because you do need that to promote foreign investment in the U.S. economy.

[00:10:32] Pamela Ritchie: Let's talk a little bit about the tariff revenues, where it's being used in the U.S., to what extent it will do what it's trying to do on sort of the fiscal side of things, get debt down, ultimately. Is it working?

[00:10:44] Andrew Clee: I think it's too early to tell because they're running a fairly large deficit, or plan to run a fairly large deficit. I'd say paying down the debt is too early in their agenda to see how that plays off. That being said, tariffs are technically a tax so the question is who's going to pay? Are the companies going to pay it out of margins, decrease profitability, stock market wouldn't really like that. Is the consumer going to be pay, that's going to reinvest itself in inflation. The consumer is ultimately going to being paying the pass down from the the company who's doing it so tomorrow is going to a pretty important day.

[00:11:17] Pamela Ritchie: There's a CPI report tomorrow, so we're recording this on the day before we have that signal. But even without it there are inflationary pressures.

[00:11:25] Andrew Clee: There is, yeah. The reality is tariffs have a larger impact on goods than they do services. When you actually look at the component of inflation, you call it sticky inflation, core inflation, non-sticky inflation, there's a lot of names, but the way that I view the world is sticky inflation is the type of inflation that we can never get back. Wage growth would be an example of sticky inflation. It's very hard to cut someone's wage. In Canada, it's next to impossible. It's slightly easier given employment law in the states. Whereas goods, you saw all of the companies, Apple fills three planes full of iPhones to beat tariffs. Hermès loads up a bunch of planes with the Birkin handbags, fires them over to the U.S. Ford takes a bunch engines from Ontario.

[00:12:16] Pamela Ritchie: The copper story too.

[00:12:16] Andrew Clee: Exactly. Everyone rushed to build inventory ahead of tariffs. What you need to remember there is that's working capital on behalf of the company so it's actually not efficient to sit on inventory unless you can sell through inventory. The counter argument would be, okay, if I sit on a bunch of goods and the consumer gets weak, what is the company's reaction going to be to free up the working capital of inventory is put things on sale. That's the counterargument. I think tomorrow's CPI, the estimate, is if you look at core, so ex food and energy, they're looking for a 3.0% year-over-year for the July. If you get into the low to mid 3s I think that's going to send some alarm bells off. The target is 2 to 3%. If it comes in sub 3 they're going to say there's no inflation and they're going to declare victory. I think tomorrow is going to be a fairly important day to take a look at that inflation number.

[00:13:13] Pamela Ritchie: So it will and is going to play into what the Fed is thinking about. Some thoughts on the changing nature of the Fed. We know at this point the discussion has been for a post-Powell Fed. He's really, he's in charge for some time. They seem to have signalled that they won't let him go early. All that said, there are some new players on the chessboard at this point. What do you think of some of these new players?

[00:13:38] Andrew Clee: Powell's term expires in May 2026 but he has the option ... he's technically on the board through, I think, 2028.

[00:13:46] Pamela Ritchie: To vote.

[00:13:46] Andrew Clee: Yeah. He can remain governor should he tend to decide to extend his term. We had Adriana Kugler who stepped down early, she was supposed to come down in Jan. of '26. She resigned early and Stephen Miran came in, he was just appointed about four days ago by the administration. I think what's notable about him is in 2024 he wrote, he was a member of a fellowship at the Manhattan Institute, so a think tank that writes on economic, he wrote a paper on a tariff-centric approach to reducing the deficit. Right off the bat you know he's supportive.

[00:14:24] Pamela Ritchie: This is four years ago you said?

[00:14:25] Andrew Clee: 2024 he wrote it. So right off the bat he is supportive of the tariff agenda. He's also publicly called to reduce interest rates and say the president has a very strong track record of it. We now have a voting member, or soon to be voting member, that we know is going to come in dovish, or expect to come in dovish based on previous comments. I think the big question is whether Senate can approve him ahead of the September deadline.

[00:14:52] Pamela Ritchie: What are the dates? So they all come back in September.

[00:14:55] Andrew Clee: I think the Senate's coming back September 23rd, they're going to reconvene. The next Fed vote is on September 17th.

[00:15:01] Pamela Ritchie: So it sounds like no, he won't be there for that.

[00:15:03] Andrew Clee: Unless they call something early, and I'm not going to speculate on that, but the market today is pricing in an 85% chance of a September cut [indecipherable].

[00:15:12] Pamela Ritchie: Even before he was appointed there was a very high likelihood [inaudible].

[00:15:15] Andrew Clee: That's right. I think this is also going to introduce some uncertainty because if you actually look at where he came from, so he came from the Council of Economic Advisory for the administration so he's currently sitting in the White House as an advisor to Trump, but the way that Yellen and Bernanke actually entered the federal government is from the same council, from the Federal Reserve. You have to be a sitting member to be elected chair. We had Bernanke and Yellen come out of that council. They were appointed to the Fed and they were ultimately the Fed chair after that appointment. I do think it's going to create some friction because the market may speculate that he's the upcoming chair so you could have a shadow effect, a shadow chair, where the market listens to his commentary more so than Fed Chair Powell. You're going to have competing views in public speaking, so which one is the market going to listen to, I think that's the uncertainty that we don't know how it's going to play out just given the recentness of this appointment.

[00:16:20] Pamela Ritchie: We were talking about shadow feds and the possibility of it, really since the inauguration, maybe before that, I can't remember, but it's been for months now. Are you concerned about this? You are someone who watches the macro picture as carefully as you watch much more micro things. What is the significance?

[00:16:39] Andrew Clee: I think it could create volatility. If you have very dissenting views between the current chair and what may be the future chair, I don't know which way the market will listen. I think that's what we have to watch play out in the coming months.

[00:16:55] Pamela Ritchie: I mean, it seems logical that if they know that someone else is coming in-.

[00:17:01] Andrew Clee: That they would lean to the shadow.

[00:17:02] Pamela Ritchie: --that they would lean to that. Again, it's hard to know.

[00:17:05] Andrew Clee: This came faster than we expected. We weren't expecting this turmoil until January, that was the day that Adriana was actually supposed to end her term. It kind of fast forwarded, let's call it, by six months. That gap between the May end of term for Powell versus the new appointment that was supposed to happen in January of '26, that left a relatively short time window for whether Powell would extend or if we would have a new chair in May. It'll be really interesting to see with this much time between the end of his term versus what we would expect it to be, 3 or 4 months, now looking more like 10 months.

[00:17:42] Pamela Ritchie: I guess the other thing you have to ask is what does it mean to have interest rates coming lower too soon when inflation is ... I mean it's a stagflationary environment, what does that do to the dollar? Does the lower interest rate allowing a little bit of inflation, let's just guess this is the scenario, allow for that U.S. dollar to go lower, is that the path?

[00:18:04] Andrew Clee: It does but the thing is is that the Fed has a dual mandate, which is employment as well as inflation. The Bank of Canada only has an inflation mandate. The U.S. economy is actually fairly strong. The 3% GDP print we just saw would suggest that they don't need to lower interest rates because, hey, that's kind of the long run average that we've been seeing out of developed economies. One would suggest that, hey, at 3% economic growth you probably have an appropriate interest rate policy that the bogey will be inflation. Should they lower rates, that's actually inflationary as well. Are they going to pour fuel on the fire? I think we have to see the inflation print tomorrow and make a call.

[00:18:47] Pamela Ritchie: So there's that. Tell us how an approach to what is offered in terms of Fidelity products that are ETFs can help sort of get you through here. There's been some interesting themes within the inflows, within those actually massive numbers that you pointed out. What are some of them? What do investors want to make sure they have exposure to or not?

[00:19:07] Andrew Clee: I think it's appropriate to be diversified. The reason I say this, we have a Fidelity portfolio consulting team called Fidelity Portfolio Solutions, they've met with hundreds of advisors and what we see is a massive overweight to U.S. growth.

[00:19:23] Pamela Ritchie: And just rush back in there?

[00:19:25] Andrew Clee: No, I'm just saying that I think over the last 10 years it's done so well that it's grown disproportionately relative to international or Canadian equity within advisor books. I think the U.S. economy is something that you do need to own but I think also just the run it's had relative to the rest of the world would have taken it from a 25% weight to a 35% weight. Also, value really only worked in 2022 and somewhat to a degree in 2023. We're seeing a big bias towards U.S. growth and not style diversification across investment style or geography. I do believe that buying global equity is probably the best place right now because it allows the PM to make the call on relative valuation or geopolitics or macro on U.S. relative to international and you don't necessarily have to make that call yourself.

[00:20:18] The reason I say that is when you meet with a number of our PMs the argument will be the U.S. tech sector is the best in the world. There is no Nvidia in Europe, there is no Facebook in Europe or Meta in Europe.

[00:20:29] Pamela Ritchie: What about China?

[00:20:30] Andrew Clee: They do exist there. You have Alibaba, you have Tencent. But at the same time, buying a grocer in Europe versus buying the U.S., you can actually have very similar company characteristics and pick up the European grocer at a much cheaper valuation. I think the global equity space is probably what we have an opportunity right now in the advice community to say, I don't want to bail on U.S. but I do want to pick up the relative valuation argument in the international. You can leave that to a portfolio manager to find those unhidden gems.

[00:21:15] Pamela Ritchie: What do you suggest for a counterweight for something that is less correlated? It used to be bonds but is it still?

[00:21:22] Andrew Clee: No, it's really interesting. Jurrien has a big piece about the new 60/40 and he added close to 20% alternatives in it. You've seen our asset allocation team, FMPs, add liquid alternatives to the lineup. The PIPs have the Fidelity Brookfield Fund, that's private real estate. I think there is a growing argument that you need to be looking to alternatives within the 60/40.

[00:21:48] Pamela Ritchie: To make sure that you have something...

[00:21:51] Andrew Clee: I will say that if inflation rebares its head bonds won't offer that same correlation that we expect. I did do a lot of work on this following the 60/40 2022 meltdown.

[00:22:03] Pamela Ritchie: Where everything went down together.

[00:22:08] Andrew Clee: I don't know what the argument is. Inflation is part of the reason that it came back but also there could be a number of things. Duration's been massively extended because of offerings in zero rate. It's business 101. When interest rates are low issue debt as long as you can. You may not have those hundred year bonds when interest rates at 4%, 5%. They did come out when interest rate were at zero.

[00:22:35] Pamela Ritchie: And it was a long period of time that interests rates were, basically, zero.

[00:22:36] Andrew Clee: Arguably, too long. But I do like the idea of liquid alternatives. Take, for example, someone like Dave Way, Fidelity Long/Short Alternative. When you have this type of volatility in market a long-only PM has to make a decision, is the stock cheap enough that I want to buy it today or is it going to get cheaper? When you run a long/short book you actually have the option to say, I like the stock at this price, I may not have the full conviction, and you can enter what's called a pair trade, so you buy the long stock and you actually hedge it with two similar stocks that are short, and then when you get further clarity around the tariff environment, the geopolitical environment, the company outlook, whatever that may be, whatever the thesis is, you can start taking off that pair. It allows earlier entry into stocks that you like with a hedge opportunity and then you can remove that hedge as clarity increases. Commodities have played an important role in 2025, gold's  been fantastic. Bitcoin's been fantastic

[00:23:32] Pamela Ritchie: Not all commodities, though. A lot of them, I mean, the energy story has been a bit wonky, the actual spot price.

[00:23:36] Andrew Clee: Yeah, and gold got really wonky last week when there was talks about tariffs on Swiss gold. If you actually looked at the December futures contract last week it traded at a hundred dollar premium to the spot gold price. That's when you really quickly realize the impact that uncertainty and tariffs can have on the price of an asset. The administration quickly went to clarify that, we're back to normal now. I think there's an argument for commodities, certain commodities,  liquid alternatives and privates as we go forward.

[00:24:08] Pamela Ritchie: And crypto. You are the person who we always ask about crypto. I mean, years ago Ethereum, everything, the landscape for crypto has been far more defined in the United States. We've seen a great amount of interest recently, where does it belong right now?

[00:24:28] Andrew Clee: We take an interesting approach. It is in our All-in-One ETFs and mutual funds. We took a risk-based approach. The reason for that is it's an incredibly volatile asset. The volatility has been decreasing over time. One thing I would say about asset classes in general is as they become more mature and larger market cap the volatility tends to decline. That's just widespread adoption, use in more cases across portfolios. The way that we integrated it was how much exposure can you take to Bitcoin without changing the risk profile of that investor? What the objective would be — there was actually a survey done by the OSC in 2019 that showed how many Canadians owned ... I think at the time it was close to 15% of Canadians owned Bitcoin. If you actually looked at it 30 to 50% expected to own it in the future.

[00:25:22] Pamela Ritchie: And how did they own it at that time?

[00:25:25] Andrew Clee: The physical spot, so on exchanges, cold wallets. It also has a diversifying benefit. If you kind of look at the correlation over the last three years it's about 20 to 25% correlated to equities, depending on which market you're looking at, NASDAQ being the highest correlation, S&P currently sitting around 20%, the TSX sitting around 20% over the three-year term.

[00:25:49] Pamela Ritchie: This is the pro-risk piece of it.

[00:25:51] Andrew Clee: Yeah, or the diversifying benefit. Statistically significant correlation would be greater than 70%. That means they move in tandem. When one goes up they move up together. It also has a zero correlation to the bonds. We do see short periods where it becomes highly correlated to risk assets. We see periods where it's not correlated at all. When you take into account that diversification benefit, how much can we put into a portfolio without turning a balanced investor into a growth investor? For the 60/40, that landed at around 2%. For a growth investor that's like an 80/20 stocks to bonds, that number was closer to 3%. What we've been able to achieve since we've included it within our All-in-One portfolios is we actually run a nearly identical volatility profile to our peers that don't own Bitcoin. That's the diversification benefit but it has been a significant contributor of returns because you've seen the price appreciation. Just over the weekend we went from, let's call it 113, 114, back up to 120K today, and that's because the Trump administration has asked to look at including crypto and 401ks alongside private equity and other alternatives. I think what you're seeing is a push to include alternatives within the traditional 60/40.

[00:27:08] Pamela Ritchie: Which you're already doing. 

[00:27:11] Andrew Clee: Yes.

[00:27:11] Pamela Ritchie: This has already been available for some time at this stage. And the allocation there is roughly 5%?

[00:27:16] Andrew Clee: In the alts program, yes, that's right.

[00:27:20] Pamela Ritchie: That's really interesting. What do you notice about the flow story for the crypto story, for the products that you offer? What is the flow story there?

[00:27:28] Andrew Clee: July was the highest month in two years in ETF flows.

[00:27:32] Pamela Ritchie: For ETF, the crypto ETFs?

[00:27:36] Andrew Clee: That's right. July posted about 225 million in industry flows in Canada, the number would have been magnitudes of that in the States. There was a significant renewal of interest in investing in crypto ETFs both north and south of the border to the tune of flows we haven't seen on a monthly basis in two years. It's also correlated with the price appreciation. It's quite interesting to see. You also have the administration making announcements like 401ks. If you were to open 401ks to crypto ETF s that's a significant wave of capital that...

[00:28:06] Pamela Ritchie: Is that an if or when?

[00:28:08] Andrew Clee: I think that they're pushing this agenda in the administration. I can't really give a call for certainty but I think this is a pro-crypto administration that is looking to make in corporations. You would have also seen Harvard Endowment made an investment in crypto, a Bitcoin ETF specifically. We are seeing what we would call a traditional pension style, endowment style investment start to incorporate this asset class. It's tough to know, it is over a longer term been a diversifying asset. We've obviously seen the price appreciation but the world of traditional finance modelling, if you were to actually run an efficient frontier and leave it unconstrained and look at the history of Bitcoin it would say short every other asset class in the world and put in the entirety with leverage into Bitcoin.

[00:28:55] Pamela Ritchie: Seriously?

[00:28:55] Andrew Clee: Yeah. From a risk-adjusted return. Obviously, that's not reality. You have constraints, you have maximum allowance on leverage, you have concentration reasons why you would never do it but that's what the analysis would have suggested if you were to leave it unconstrained.

[00:29:10] Pamela Ritchie: We've talked about sort of the macro story, massive inflows for the ETF story and all the different products that are offered here. What do you want investors to know right now? They're investing through some fog, some of it is lifted, there's probably still more to go. What's sort of your message for investors at this point, probably within the ETF story.

[00:29:32] Andrew Clee: I think there's a lot of currency neutral options that are underutilized in the Canadian market. It's very difficult to hedge directly in client accounts. We've had a number of clients that may have picked their own stocks on U.S. equity that have actually sold down positions of those individual securities and buyer currency neutral ETFs. I think this is also important because as a Canadian investor, historically, you've wanted to leave your U.S. dollar unhedged because in times of turmoil the U.S. dollar is the safe haven asset. It always provides a shock absorption in down markets for Canadian investors. Being a portfolio manager in the U.S. with a strong dollar was much harder than being a portfolio manager in Canada because we could take that downside protection. Typically, what we would have seen is in a declining market an unhedged equity sleeve would be better for a Canadian than it would be an American because we would get the price appreciation. I think that exposure and that argument might have changed to a degree.

[00:30:34] That being said, the Canadian economy is probably, well, undoubtedly the most exposed to U.S. tariffs relative to Europe or Asian markets just given our relationship and proximity to the U.S. It's going to be difficult to navigate for the central bank. We've always done a very, very good job of weakening our currency in terms of economic trouble in Canada but we've never had that backdrop where the U.S. is also weakening their currency. I think currency neutral portfolios play a more important role now than they have in the last 15 years, and I think style diversification is going to be really important. The reason I say that is the U.S. has been a very volatile market this year with ups and downs. It's starting to catch up to the rest of the developed world in terms of total year performance but the volatility is significantly higher. Momentum is leading the pack on an alpha basis so it's the best performing investment style year-to-date but that's also heavily concentrated in Mag Seven.  I do think it's time to start looking to global equity mandates that have the flexibility to underweight, overweight U.S. We talked about it before, I think the U.S. is an economy you need to have exposure to. Making that call to go directly to international versus U.S., I think it's slightly easier in an active mandate that has a global mandate that can diversify across geography.

[00:31:49] Pamela Ritchie: Let's have a quick discussion of one particular ETF that's been gangbusters, Global Innovators, which Mark Schmehl manages this and it's now an ETF, has been for some time. Just give us a sense of how it's done recently.

[00:32:02] Andrew Clee: It's the second best-selling active ETF in the country on a year-to-date basis and the best-selling as an institutional flow. If you actually look in retail I would argue it's one of the best-selling ETFs. It surpassed $1.1 billion in assets so it's one of largest active ETFs in the country. Mark's done incredibly well since we launched it. If you actually looked at how he performed into the April lows, he outperformed the downside, reaccelerated back into the momentum trade. He's done an exceptional job. I think that's a perfect example of a manager that can say, I want to be in the U.S. now, or I don't want to, if you actually look at the holdings he would have been declining through April as the U.S. was on its way down and then reaccelerating back into it on the way back up. That's an example of flexibility that I think we need to afford ourselves in today's environment.

[00:32:52] Pamela Ritchie: Andrew Clee, such a pleasure to speak with you. Thank you for sharing all of your knowledge with us here today, or as much as maybe we could fit into 30 minutes.

[00:32:59] Andrew Clee: Thank you for having me.

[00:32:59] Pamela Ritchie: All the best. Taht's Andrew Clee joining us today. Coming up tomorrow  we're going to be taking a tour around the globe into the global equities playbook, this is with portfolio manager, Patrice Quirion. He shares what emerging opportunities he's keeping a close eye on and what advisors can do to stay the course during some of these uncertain times in the markets.

[00:33:17] On Wednesday we'll bring you the best practices when it comes to cybersecurity tools. Imran Ahmad, he is senior partner at Norton Rose Fullbright Canada. He's also co-head of information governance, privacy and cybersecurity. He'll be back on the show to share what clients can do to implement strategies related to cyber threats.

[00:33:38] On Thursday this week, Audrey Kim and Francois Jack, investment analysts for ETF capital markets, they'll be here to share the latest ETF trends, some of the things we've spoken to today, no doubt, insights and developments into Canada plus helping ETF trading practices. That'll be with live French interpretation that day. Just to let you know, a new episode of The Upside Plus with Michelle Munro and Étienne Joncas-Boucahrd, that'll be out also on Thursday of this week. It features an in-depth conversation about the evolution of ETFs. Thank you for joining us. Glad you could join us here to kick off the week. I'm Pamela Ritchie.