“Activist investing is about being an active owner in the companies you invest in, more than just a buyer of shares and you are prepared to try and do things that improve the outcomes. “
Gabriel Radzyminski is the founder and managing director of Sandon Capital, an Australian firm that specializes in activist investing.
Being an activist investor is about being more than just simply an owner of shares. This means being active in a company’s performance and outcomes. Australian firms can have a reputation for being forgiving of underperformance in part because of the country’s smaller population and even smaller financial community. This has brought about a need for a greater emphasis to be placed on activist investing that holds company’s performance to stricter account. “Inertia is one of the biggest challenges we face as an activist investor. The status quo is what we confront.”
Australia has financial laws and regulations conducive to a healthy investing ecosystem. This presents an opportunity for the growth of activist investing in Australia.
LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE
SPEAKER
Gabriel Radzyminski
Managing Director
Sandon Capital
MODERATOR
Anthony Scaramucci
Founder & Managing Partner
SkyBridge
EPISODE TRANSCRIPT
Rachel Pether: (00:07)
Everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is Rachel Pether, and I'm a senior advisor to SkyBridge capital based in Abu Dhabi, as well as being the MC for salt, a thought leadership forum and networking platform that encompasses business technology and politics. Salt talks as a series of digital events that we launched during the work from home period. And just as we do at our physical salt events, we aim to provide our audience a window into the mind of subject matter experts. Today, we'll be focusing on activist investing and I'm very excited to be speaking to Gabriel Redmond ski, the founder, and managing director of Sandra and capital and Australian firms specializing in activist. Investing Gabriel has been involved in the financial services sector for more than 20 years, and he has significant investment experience across a range of asset classes. He serves as the executive director of mercantile investment company. And as a non-executive director of future generation investment company, he has a BA in honors and a masters of commerce from the university of new south Wales. Gabriel, welcome to Salta.
Gabriel Radzyminski: (01:20)
Thank you, Rachel. Good to be here.
Rachel Pether: (01:23)
No, I profusely summarized your biography there. So maybe we could start by telling me a bit about yourself and your background.
Gabriel Radzyminski: (01:32)
Uh, okay. That's a good place to start. So I founded San and capital, uh, nearly 12 years ago. Um, before that I'd worked, uh, for quite some time in a, a larger organization with, uh, private wealth management and funds management. And I ran the funds management business there. Um, that sort of was what led me to start sanding capital and particularly, uh, uh, down the path of activist investing. Um, there were a few investments that we'd made, uh, over time and, uh, you know, as much as I'd like to forget about the bad ones, not everything always went to plan. And what I found was that when we looked through, I developed the habit of always going through a post-mortem to work out, you know, what went well, what didn't go well, where we, right, where were we wrong? Or did we simply encounter bad luck?
Gabriel Radzyminski: (02:17)
And what we found was that there were some investments where had things been done differently. We may have experienced very different outcomes. And for me, that was the beginning of the evolution into being an activist investor. Um, I also very quickly found that, uh, working in a firm with other objectives simply didn't work, uh, with activism. Um, I was very quickly tapped on the shoulder and told, but you know, that's not what we do here. Um, we don't want to upset, uh, relationships we might have. Um, and that was the impetus for getting out and starting saving camp. Um, and so we've been at it ever since. And
Rachel Pether: (02:54)
So I'd love to dive a bit deeper into sort of this pushback that you had in your previous company and maybe how that relates to some of the cultural idiosyncrasies in Australia, but maybe we just take a step back and for the benefit of those in the audience that don't know much about activist investing, how do you, how do you describe it?
Gabriel Radzyminski: (03:15)
Look, I think activist investing, uh, you know, has certain connotations. I think the way I would describe it at its core, it's about being an active owner of the companies that you invest in. Um, it's about trying to be more than just a buyer of shares, a buyer of interests ticking up and down on a screen on any given day. Um, and being an active owner means that you are interested in what the company is doing, of course, but that you're also prepared to do and try and do things to improve the outcomes, to improve the, the, the experience of being an owner of those companies. Um, it's about being more than just an owner of a piece of paper owning part of the business. Obviously it's a proportional ownership because we're invested in listed, uh, entities. Um, but we do believe it's fundamentally about being an active owner, uh, you know, labels need to be applied. And the label that is applied to those active owners is typically that of activist investor.
Rachel Pether: (04:16)
And so when you look at the us market, for example, there are quite a few large well-established activist investments firms who have got Elliot. I can capital a downloads third point, but you're one of the only activist investing firms in Australia. Why do you think it's not so well known or practiced in the region?
Gabriel Radzyminski: (04:38)
Look, I think there's a couple of aspects to it. There is some culturally there's some cultural issues and there's also an evolutionary, uh, aspect, um, touch on the evolutionary aspect first. Uh, you know, we did some work a little, a couple of years back, um, with Jeff Graham, who's a U S hedge fund manager, best known for writing the book dear chairman, which was an anthology of what Jeff, uh, considered to be the, the, the best activist, uh, letters, uh, in us history. Um, and what we found was that activism evolved in America, largely started with Ben Graham and evolved over the years into what it is we know today, um, went through the, the, you know, the, the path of the corporate writers, um, and then evolved into what we know today in Australia. We're probably 20, 30 years behind the U S in that evolutionary process.
Gabriel Radzyminski: (05:33)
Part of it is about understanding what you can achieve being an active owner, being an activist. Um, but then we've also got the cultural aspects. Um, I don't know for those who don't really know Australia, it's a great place to live. It's a great place to work. Um, but sometimes that can be, uh, at odds with what you expect from the companies you invest in. Um, there's a great, uh, Australian idiom, uh, that's, uh, often used, I don't know if it's even used in a crocodile Dundee movie, but, uh, she'll be right. Uh, which is to say, you know, don't worry, things will get better. And I think that can be one of the problems in pushing to get the best of your companies pushing for the best outcomes. Um, investors here, I find tend to be, uh, quite forgiving. Um, the worst they'll often do is simply sell out of the shares. Um, they'll give them up because it's all too hard and move on to something else. Um, we think that, you know, being an owner has responsibilities, um, and we do look to try and maximize and get the best outcomes for ourselves, of course, but also for other shareholders. So there is that cultural aspect where we have a quite relaxed, uh, attitude to, uh, uh, ownership and the, uh, particularly the issues of underperformance.
Rachel Pether: (06:47)
And so then taking all these factors into account, how are you viewed in the ecosystem? You know, I'm, I'm someone from who's from New Zealand originally. So I appreciate it. It's, you know, one or two degrees of separation with almost anyone in the entire country, specifically when you're looking at, say the investment landscape. So how are you viewed in this regard?
Gabriel Radzyminski: (07:10)
I think you've hit on one of the key problems here. Rachel is we're a small country, you know, we've got 27, 20 8 million people, the business community, the investment community are an even smaller microcosm. And it means that most people and you quoted some figures, most people here in those fields know each other within three, quite possibly two degrees of separation. And so you've got the human issues, you know, the, the people issues about confront confrontation about taking companies to task. And I think that's part of the aspect is that when everyone knows each other or when everyone knows someone who knows someone, there's a reluctance to really ever truly sanction, uh, accompany football performance, um, I think one of the things to, uh, always think about is, you know, directors aren't necessarily setting out to do badly. Um, they're not setting out to do bad by shareholders and investors, but often it happens. And part of it is simply that they're human. Um, I think the, for the system to work well for the, the, the market, the ecosystem to work best, you need effective boards who oversee management effectively, but you also need effective shareholders to oversee boards and management as well. And
Rachel Pether: (08:24)
I think that's a great point, which ties back to where perhaps Australia is in this evolution. I was listening to a great podcast of was Peter teal, unlocking impact. He was talking about the education system, which, which is slightly different, but he was saying that many people don't take action because they don't even realize there's another alternative. So there's a sort of inertia and just staying with the status quo
Gabriel Radzyminski: (08:50)
And look, you're, you're sort of taking my buzzwords out of the presentation, but inertia is one of the biggest challenges that we face as an activist. The status quo is what we confront, um, you know, died for a moment. Think that Australia is a terrible country with lots of, uh, uh, you know, where the majority of corporations are underperforming and delivering, uh, poor shareholder outcomes. It's not true. The vast majority are functioning well. Um, otherwise we'd be a country going backwards. Um, but where they don't work, often, people are simply, you know, like deer deer in the headlights. They'd rather do nothing either because they don't know what to do. Or they're scared that if they suggest an alternative and it doesn't work, they might be held accountable. We agree. You know, if you, if you suggest an alternative, you should be held accountable, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
Gabriel Radzyminski: (09:44)
I think it's also worth touching on the fact that for most institutional investors, they simply don't have the bandwidth to devote the amount of time necessary to engage actively with the companies they invest in. Um, you know, most investors I'm generalizing grossly here, but, you know, they might have 50 to 150 positions in a portfolio. We tend to have very concentrated portfolios. For example, at the moment in most of our portfolios, our top five holdings represent nearly 50% or more of each of the funds we manage. So we're very heavily invested in the companies that we buy into and the companies into which we engage. We do deep research where we're really all in, as opposed to just sitting back and sort of indifferent to what the actual outcome might be.
Rachel Pether: (10:35)
And when you look at these top five companies that make up, uh, around half of the portfolio, are they do they tend to be in a certain sector or area of the economy? No,
Gabriel Radzyminski: (10:46)
Look where we're broad. And, uh, and you know, we brought in our focus, um, we'll invest, or we are able to invest in anything. We won't invest in just anything, but we're broad. So, you know, we're, we're a value investor at our core. So obviously it has to have for us some value characteristics. We do need to feel that we're buying something for, you know, pennies on the dollar, or at least a, a reasonable discount to what we believe the intrinsic value of the company might be. But we also then need to see that there is a way that we might be able to influence the status quo, that we might be able to overcome the inertia of today to get a better outcome tomorrow.
Rachel Pether: (11:29)
And it does pay, pay me to say this as a new Zealander, but yes, there are definitely a lot of great things about Australia. And I know that when you look at the sort of focus areas for your investments, you typically look at the common law areas. So say Australia, New Zealand and the UK, maybe you could talk me through why you focus on these specific, is it sort of regulatory related or what, what are the reasons for that?
Gabriel Radzyminski: (11:58)
Look, there's, there's a number of reasons. Um, what I've come to conclude over the years is that activism is a very parochial endeavor. Um, a lot of your, a lot of your edge, a lot of the skills that you develop, come from understanding the local laws and customs, as well as the local laws and regulations. Um, one of the small ironies, uh, or not so small ironies of Australia and activism is that despite the fact that not many people do it, and it's not widely understood down here, we've actually got some of the most conducive, legal and regulatory frameworks for shareholder rights anywhere in the world. Um, so maybe it's a case that because we have those rights, we don't need to, uh, challenge them too often, but we do have, you know, for example, we don't have, uh, poison pills. Um, we don't have staggered boards.
Gabriel Radzyminski: (12:49)
Shareholders can, you know, with the requisite majority or the requisite, uh, uh, percentage holdings in the company's shareholders can easily call general meetings, nominate directors put forward resolutions to remove directors and put forward other resolutions. So we've actually got a good framework within which to operate. Um, it is largely influenced by the UK legal system, as you said, the common law system, um, as are the regulatory aspects. Um, you know, for example, in control transactions way governed here by takeovers panel, um, which tries to get controlled disputes out of the court system. Um, so it means that activism here can be conducted quite cost-effectively, um, in all the years that we've been doing it. So we've been running this fund, the strategy for, uh, more than 11 years now, we've never actually had to go to court. Um, and we've only really come close to going to court once. Um, and in the end we didn't have to, because, you know, things worked out that, you know, we'd pushed far enough that there was no need to, but, uh, I think that's a contrast that we like is that ultimately, uh, activism here is something that is ultimately determined in the court of shareholder opinion. So if we can persuade enough shareholders of the merits of what we're proposing, the boards will ultimately bend to the will of those shareholders. No,
Rachel Pether: (14:17)
I guess an activism going through a illegal battle is always really the means of last resort. Isn't it? It's not something that they sit out,
Gabriel Radzyminski: (14:28)
Sorry, sorry to interrupt. Um, absolutely. And also, I think in Australia, in particular, if you have to resort to legal action, it means that you really haven't been able to persuade enough investors to back your particular course of action.
Rachel Pether: (14:44)
Yeah. And those are the guys you don't want to see on the school run.
Gabriel Radzyminski: (14:48)
Absolutely. Oh, look, that's, you know, that's I long ago gave up on, um, it was pointed out to me once that, uh, you certainly don't pick this kind of investing to make friends.
Rachel Pether: (14:59)
No, you do it to create good returns and long-term better companies.
Gabriel Radzyminski: (15:03)
We've got very, very happy investors.
Rachel Pether: (15:07)
And so just a few look at the macro economic picture for activist and investing now and given sort of Australia's expansion has slowed down record breaking expansion has slowed down in the last few years, are using this create more or less opportunities for you, or is it a bit of a neutral outcome? Um,
Gabriel Radzyminski: (15:28)
Look, I think overall it's a moderately positive. Um, I think it's worth noting that, uh, you know, Australia had a, you know, an unprecedented really long, uh, economic expansion. Um, it was only really stopped by uh COVID. Um, and since, uh, since the, the, the depths of the crisis, certainly here in Australia, um, we've picked up the economy has done particularly, uh, uh, well obviously some sectors have done poorly, particularly tourism and travel. Um, but overall it seems that economic activity has picked up. We seem to have, you know, being an island nation, um, we seem to have dodged the worst of COVID. Um, and frankly at the beach, you know, in, in the depths of last year, sort of February, March, April, and intimate, um, you know, early on the government, the prime minister had, uh, encouraged everyone to play for team Australia. Uh, we took that to heart in that we decided that the focus for us was on our company's survival.
Gabriel Radzyminski: (16:27)
So we went through a process of assessing the companies in our portfolio and whether they were likely to survive, what were the scenarios that they might face, and if they needed more capital, would we put more in, fortunately we, you know, we're, we're very, uh, w we were fortunate that we didn't really have much trouble in our portfolio. We're very heavily exposed to the industrial economy. Um, but we also decided that we would just keep our heads down for a few months and not really criticize anyone. Um, we were very, we're more supportive than we've ever been of all of our companies by spy sort of August, September when we realized that the, um, COVID crisis was rapidly, uh, being overcome in Australia. That's when we ramped up again. And so there was a couple of engagements that we re reactivated re-engaged with, uh, towards the end of last year that came to fruition. Um, they were largely in private, but we worked, you know, we pushed really hard because we felt that there were a lot of companies that were going to use COVID as excuses for poor results. Not all of them were justified in doing so.
Rachel Pether: (17:33)
Right. Yeah. Easy thing to point to, if maybe your results have fallen short of expectations, and the question for you, Gabriel, I know that some of the activist investor firms have been sort of caught up somehow, and let's say the Reddit crowd and the Robin hood traders, does that retail market, is that so prevalent in Australia? And has that sort of trading from sort of mass retail investors had much of an impact on the market? Well,
Gabriel Radzyminski: (18:04)
Not, not in the same way. Um, you know, the, I'm not an expert in that area, but I, you know, obviously I've read about what was happening in the U S with, uh, GameStop, all the, all the re the Robin hood, uh, investing. Um, it doesn't seem to be as prevalent here. Um, you know, there's, there's stock promotion that goes on here. Um, we don't have, for example, as I understand it, there was a fascinating interplay in game stock between, you know, the physical market, the day traders, but, you know, private investors and the options market, you know, our options market here is nowhere near as liquid or deep as the market in the U S so I don't know that we have the same circumstances. Um, I'd also, uh, uh, uh, highlight the fact that, for example, for us, um, we're not, w you know, we do short, we are a little bit short, but it's, for us more on the periphery. It's a hedging exercise. We do have a few alpha shorts from time to time. But for example, at the moment, we've just got a, you know, a small, short exposure, uh, to an index, which hedges out one of our, uh, closed end fund, uh, exposures. Um, so look, it, it's not really something that we see in, uh, in our neck of the woods. And
Rachel Pether: (19:18)
I would love to sort of ask it, or go into a little bit more further detail on how you see the outlook for the Australia market, but I'll be interested in that book that you referenced, dear chairman, the letters from activist investors, what were some of the examples of the letters in that book? Like, was it a cherry picking of some of the most, I guess, uh, persuasive sort of letters or, yeah, Jeff
Gabriel Radzyminski: (19:47)
Looked at the whole space, uh, in the U S and he pulled together a series of what he considered to be some of the, you know, the landmark letters. I mean, it starts off with, uh, Ben Graham and I think finishes off, uh, with, and I've actually just got the book in front of me. I'm not doing a plug for Jeff, but, um, I think the last one is either Dan Loeb. Yeah. So he covers them all. I mean, he's got bill Ackman, uh, you know, Carl Icahn, uh, Ross Perot. Um, so it gives, it gives a progression of activists, newsletter of activist letters over, uh, you know, effectively the last 90 years or so.
Rachel Pether: (20:27)
Hmm. But that sounds, it sounds very interesting. It sounds like it would be, and again, not a plug for the specific book, but it sounds like that would be quite an interesting read for people. Right.
Gabriel Radzyminski: (20:37)
Get anyone who's interested in this kind of investing, uh, should read it. Um, I think anyone who's interested in activist investing, uh, should probably go back if you want to the Genesis and I'd rate that as being, uh, uh, uh, a good way of getting to that Genesis of activist investing is to read, um, Ben Grames, uh, letters that he wrote for Forbes magazine in 1932. So he wrote a series of three articles, um, which basically asks the, you know, sort of highlights the issue of ownership management returns. Um, you know, it's well worth reading those, uh, those Forbes articles they're nearly 90 years old, but they're frankly still current today. I was just
Rachel Pether: (21:25)
About to say, it's so impressive that something that was written almost a century ago can still be used as a learning reference point in today's markets, given how quickly markets change.
Gabriel Radzyminski: (21:37)
We would say that good ideas are good ideas. Exactly.
Rachel Pether: (21:41)
And so just coming back to Australia for a moment, given the points that you've made about where you are in the evolution and the macro economic environment, where do you see activist investing heading in Australia in the medium to long-term
Gabriel Radzyminski: (21:58)
Look, I think it will continue to evolve. Um, you know, at the moment, for example, there is so taking a step back on our regulatory framework, uh, a number of years ago, they introduced some laws on executive remuneration, um, where companies can get, uh, you know, have to put a nonbinding vote to the shareholders at every annual meeting. Um, and if you get a number of strikes against you, uh, it can cause a spill motion. Um, that's, that's emboldened a lot of institutional investors to feel as though they can be activists by voting against remuneration reports. Now it's a great tool, but remunerations on any one aspect of what the activist investor looks at, um, for us, we're more focused on w we don't underestimate the impact of remuneration, but frankly, in terms of value destruction, there is far more value destroyed through errors of omission and commission in strategy and execution.
Gabriel Radzyminski: (22:56)
Then there will ever be paid in exist in excessive executive remuneration. Um, so we can see the landscape evolving. We know from discussions we have with, uh, large investors and allocators that they know there is that opportunity. They know that there are problems that need solving. They simply haven't quite gotten around to working out how to do it. And we can't simply say that Australia will evolve in the same way the us has, will evolve in our own way and we'll develop our own, you know, activist ecosystem. Um, but I think ultimately it will continue to, uh, uh, in, in improve and increase. I think, uh, someone asked us once how we could ensure that there was a persistence of opportunities for our, uh, investment approach. And my response was simply not to be a glib was to say, as long as people are running companies, there'll be opportunities for people like us.
Rachel Pether: (23:51)
Yup. Absolutely. And back to your remuneration point, you could also argue and pardon the slang paper, that's getting monkeys. So if you do want to have a company stared on a good strategy, you often do need to pay for someone or people to, to lead that charge.
Gabriel Radzyminski: (24:09)
Yeah, I think I agree. I think it's also, uh, important, you know, again, as a value investor, we think deeply about the value of things and the remuneration discussion is more often than not thought of simply in absolute dollar terms and not value for money. Um, that's how we look at it. We think it's a, it's, it, it is a complex and nuanced, uh, debate and discussion that is far too often reduce to me envy, you know, you're paid more than me and I don't think that's fair. You can't invest on that basis. Um, there are some people who are paid large amounts of money and have performed well and where we would say there is value for money as an owner. In those, in that management team, there are other companies where they're not paid particularly well. Um, the value is poor and, you know, we think that the, the, the owners are getting very poor value for money there. So it's not just about absolute dollar terms or, uh, uh, you know what, yeah, it's a nuanced conversation. Um,
Rachel Pether: (25:18)
And you know, you raised a great point there about the, the envy aspect of it. When I think of activist investing, there's so many interesting aspects of behavioral finance and personal biases that come into this as well. Right. You must be very good at, well, I guess, acknowledging these biases and then actually working proactively to not-for-profit.
Gabriel Radzyminski: (25:42)
Yeah. And I think one of the things that we've learned over the years that is a huge advantage, and it is actually really important when you, you know, when you want to be an activist investor, when you do it is you've actually got to have a huge, a huge capacity for empathy. Now, I don't mean that you feel sorry for everyone, and you want to give them a hug, but empathy. And then the, the, the, the, the most basic sense of the term, which is to understand where the other person is coming from, you know, we try and understand what is motivating our counterpart, uh, in a discussion, what might be motivating an entire management team or a board, you know, individual directors. Uh, we try and think about what their motives might be for going down one path versus another. Um, and I think that's really a powerful tool that you can use, you know, to ultimately to the shareholders' benefit is bringing that empathy, to understand what people, you know, why a company is doing a particular falling in particular course, you know, rare is it that the company is doing something because they're just bad people.
Gabriel Radzyminski: (26:50)
There's usually some reason behind it. Um, and we try and understand that because when we understand it, it helps us to counter it. It helps us to persuade. Um, the other thing that we do is the bulk of our efforts are typically focused on other shareholders. So when we engage with a company, we always start by attempting a private bilateral discussion with the board and management. That'll usually involve, you know, sending a letter, outlining our thesis, or outlining our concerns. What we'll then do is continue those discussions for as long as we think we're making progress. But if we get to the point where we believe we're actually hitting a wall where we're not making, uh, where we're not overcoming the inertia, where we're not persuading, we then pivot and begin discussions with other shareholders. So we go to the court of shareholder opinion, and we spend a lot of time trying to persuade other shareholders that what we're proposing is in their interests.
Gabriel Radzyminski: (27:51)
So when I sit across the table from, you know, portfolio manager of a much larger fund than ours, he's not sitting down because he likes me. He's not sitting down because he, you know, he wants to hear what I want, they're sitting down because they want to hear what we're suggesting and how it might be to their benefit. Um, and we always try and frame our proposals in terms of how it is to other people's benefit. And we're not doing it out of the goodness of our heart. I mean, we're investing for our investor's benefit, but if I simply say to someone, look, I want you to support me on this, because we're going to make money on this. You can imagine what the response is. Whereas if I can, if I can get the same outcome for our investors, by framing it in something that is to your benefit, we're both going to be much happier.
Rachel Pether: (28:41)
Absolutely. And I, what you're saying now, you must have read or listened to the art of negotiation
Speaker 4: (28:50)
Is that it's very good.
Rachel Pether: (28:54)
It's Russian by the former, uh, former FBI director, but he touches on all these, all these points about how, if you really want a successful outcome, you need to understand, truly understand the motivations of the person you're negotiating with. So it sounds like you've, you've got that mindset when you approach the activist investing.
Gabriel Radzyminski: (29:18)
Yeah. And I think the other one, and, uh, this, this, uh, struck me a number of years ago. So obviously we use Bloomberg at work. Um, and when you fire up your Bloomberg terminal, anyone who's got one would know what I'm talking about, there's you, there's the message of the day. Now my cynical view is that they give you that little saying of the day to distract you just long enough to not get frustrated at long, it takes for Bloomberg to fire up.
Speaker 4: (29:44)
Um, and
Gabriel Radzyminski: (29:45)
I don't remember who it was, who said it, because to me it was more important what was written as opposed to who said it, but there was a saying a few years back, which you said, there's nothing you cannot achieve. If you're willing to let others take credit. I heard that in the morning and I thought that that's what rubbish. And I still remember throughout that day, it borrowed it's way deeper and deeper into my mind. And suddenly by the end of the day, I sort of understood what it meant. And that's the other thing. There's things that we do where we might be trying to orchestrate something, but we don't need credit for it. There are people who pick up on our ideas and who claim them as their own, because they think it's a good idea. We're flattered. We don't mind. So again, for us, what matters is the returns we deliver to our investors, not whether we get credit for something, uh, in public. Um, and again, that to me comes down to that empathy where we don't need that sort of public validation, uh, on everything we do. I mean, it's nice to get to plaudits, but at the end of the day, what matters to us are the returns that we deliver to our investors and what we do to get those
Rachel Pether: (31:00)
Well, that's a great quote. God bless the Bloomberg terminal for taking so long to firing. And so just to close, you know, you've obviously been in this area for a number of years now, you made the decision to leave your firm and set up an activist, investing firm. Have you ever regretted it? And what would you be doing if this wasn't the space you were in?
Gabriel Radzyminski: (31:26)
Um, I'm like Cortez, uh, when he landed in the new world and burn the ships, um, you know, I'm all in on this. I mean, uh, it took me a long time to sort of find what I wanted, what I enjoyed, what I happened to be good at. Um, you know, we've been at it for nearly 12 years now. Uh, the fund has delivered good returns. Um, I'm fortunate in that. I'm literally doing my dream job. I could not think of doing anything else. Um, you know, I'm passionate about it. Uh, I enjoy it. I get up every morning enjoying, uh, that, you know, what's ahead for me on any given day. Um, so no, I, I don't know what else I'd be doing. Um, I probably don't live the most balanced life. Uh, there is. Um, but that's fine because I enjoy what I do. It's say it's a hobby, a passion. Um, yeah, I'm very fortunate.
Rachel Pether: (32:21)
That's great. And I guess it is one of the downsides of loving your job is that you're happy to do it at all hours of the day, but
Speaker 4: (32:29)
I just really,
Gabriel Radzyminski: (32:31)
It involves a lot of reading, which is, uh, something that's, uh, uh, can be easily done at all hours of the day.
Rachel Pether: (32:38)
Correct. Well, anyway, Gabriel, thank you so much for joining us today. It's been such a pleasure learning. We'll look at your story and I just hope that next time we have a conversation, that's actually in person. I thank you, Rachel, and appreciate the time.