Sam, don’t be upset by some of the negative comments. I thought it was a great interview. I appreciated your no-nonsense style.

Sam, thank you for adding the charts to the transcript. I hope you come back often.

Very similar to the Analysis done at Zacks.com. I have not watched the whole interview, but the historical success ratio along with back testing are critical factors to get his thesis validated.

Excellent.

From what I gather the whole model is based on analyst ratings and revisions, and the analysts are mostly sheep, so makes the model worthless.

I hate this guys interview style. He talks way too much yet ends up saying absolutely nothing at the same time.

Excellent interview Ed and Sam. Sam gives a very thoughtful description of his process. I really enjoyed it. My only critique is more general. In an environment of passive allocation, central bank perceived omnipotence and algos chasing tweets his whole process seems academic. Effectively about 15 central bankers around the world determine all asset levels. When AAPL adds more in market cap than the total value of about 5 companies (of about 6000 public companies worldwide) in six months on falling sales and earnings, factor modeling still seems really cool...But I wonder to myself what the point is...I suppose fiduciaries at endowments, etc. need to stick to a process. I understand that. But I question whether the process even remotely maps onto the world we live in...

Alright let's get into it. This interview seems to focus around Mr. Burns MAER modeling in the beginning and about half way through switches to why he is seeing his model recommend defensive and growth along with underweight in value. There is a ton of information in this interview and some of it is very dense and complex financial commentary that a seasoned investor would probably understand. I however struggled a bit and had to go back a few times to re-listen and re-read. While Mr. Burns doesn't really get into the heavy specifics of how his model works, it seems he uses it with his clients as double checking system or overall guidance system; not an exact "Do this, buy now/sell now". It is a probability model that gives a probabilistic best choice at the time (monthly). He even points out some shortfalls of his system in that it doesn't pick up current events until it begins to impact data. So a client would need to know that and not use his system specifically to select stocks but more to know a general guideline of allocation. Essentially, it's another tool that a fund manager or stock picker could use to feel more confident about their $ distribution choices. I honestly was very interested in the model and see that it does have value. I appreciate Mr. Harrison pushing Mr. Burns on behalf of RV viewers to get a piece of the action with his question on macro environment from a sector analysis standpoint, what's your weighting? Thanks for that Ed, we appreciate you making someone be as forthcoming as possible. Ty Mr. Burns for responding well and fleshing that viewpoint out. Lastly, I really appreciate Mr. Burns thoughts on the financial sector and it's pressures. Raising capital levels, lower interest rates, and time until this changes. He seems to be a bit more standoff in more volatile, higher beta sectors and cautions a move into defensive companies (lower risk). Overall I get a sense he's uneasy about the market probably more so than many investors. It seems his MAER model is going to get a good workout and be tested real time in an untested environment. I know very little about the model other than what is presented in this interview but I think Mr. Burns has done his homework and I think the model along with a well thought out "if-this-then-that" plan would be valuable for a manager. Ty for the interview guys.

It would be great if Real Vision interviewed Anton Kreil

Sam, thanks for sharing your unique process and approach. Very insightful. Great job on the interview Ed!

Japan hmm really? take a look at Japanese banks. Why wasnt he asked this question?

Regarding the growth vs value case he makes: it's been know for quite a while that financials are repressed, China's demand for materials is slowing and that the global investment focus has been on US growth. This is discounted in the growth/value spread that is at a multi-decade divergence.

"Garbage in, garbage out"