Number one, When you're putting together a global portfolio, and there are some of the KKR offering which have a global footprint, how do you think about balancing exposure to the world's largest economy, the United States, with that international piece? Are you targeting certain weightings? And secondly, when you look around the world with KKR's presence, where is the marginal dollar you've best spent right now?

So for us, it actually looks pretty similar around the world.

And I know that's a bit of a probably not what you expected me to say, but let me dig into that for a second.

In being global, we are also very linear in how we invest.

We are not trying to pick vintage years to make bets.

We buy 25 to 40 companies a year, regardless of the market, right? We bought and we invest somewhere between $20 to $25 billion a year.

We did that in 21 when everything felt like it was up and to the right.

How has KKR done in terms of realizations? And then kind of what was the secret behind that?

I had a conversation with someone who basically said something along the lines of, PE is broken because they're sitting on aging assets that have gotten too big, so their only option is to IPO, do you think that that is a mistake that this industry has made, just letting things get too large and giving themselves only that one option?

I do, but I also think it has to do with the type of business that you're dealing with.

When you think about the industries, the geographies, the types of companies that you're buying, you've got to make sure that they're nimble.

You've got to make sure that they're staying relevant to the times and you're not beholden just to that one theme doing one thing.

get in, do your work, get out.

But I think we've had a bigger problem.

We have a little bit of a pig in the python, right? And when we think about exits, you often don't think about how you got into those businesses, right? I think there are 32,000 companies that are owned by private equity today, about $4 trillion.

Can you just give us a sense check? Nearly a year on, are there still just too many funds out there?

Number one, When you're putting together a global portfolio, and there are some of the KKR offering which have a global footprint, how do you think about balancing exposure to the world's largest economy, the United States, with that international piece? Are you targeting certain weightings? And secondly, when you look around the world with KKR's presence, where is the marginal dollar you've best spent right now?

So for us, it actually looks pretty similar around the world.

And I know that's a bit of a probably not what you expected me to say, but let me dig into that for a second.

In being global, we are also very linear in how we invest.

We are not trying to pick vintage years to make bets.

We buy 25 to 40 companies a year, regardless of the market, right? We bought and we invest somewhere between $20 to $25 billion a year.

We did that in 21 when everything felt like it was up and to the right.

How has KKR done in terms of realizations? And then kind of what was the secret behind that?

How do you think about the further you get away from a product that everyone kind of understands? It seems like there is an inherent tension there that a lot of these products are in the sold, not bought category.

I don't disagree.

I think private markets as a whole is it's sold, it's not bought.

But I also think that's because of the phase or the chapter maybe we are in and the evolution and the growth of it.

Folks have... been investing in public equities or fixed income for decades.

They've gone through that education of understanding what they're buying, how it works.

You really haven't done that yet in private markets.

Right, right.

You look at the fundraising charts of, like, top 10 managers in each asset class strategy.

So when you look at all that, you sit there and say, okay, institutional investors have grown their allocations to private equity substantially.

In the 80s, the early 80s, it was maybe 1% to 3%.

Today, it could be even up to 50% from some endowments and foundations.

By the way...

I'm not going to comment on what level you should.

I mean, I have a view, but, you know, I think there's it's not one size fits all and that's OK.

But when did you start thinking about those types of chess moves to really help people navigate private markets writ large?

and that is probably concentrated in fewer firms right look at the fundraising charts of like top 10 managers in each asset class strategy so

so when you look at all that you sit there and say okay institutional investors have grown their allocations to private equity substantially in the early 80s it was maybe one to three percent today it could be even up to 50 from some endowments and foundations by the way i I'm not going to comment on what level you should.

I mean, I have a view, but I think it's not one size fits all and that's okay.

But institutional investors are going to cap out at some point.

And what they're doing actually, which I think is really smart, is they're using these moments of volatility to realize that all their managers are created equal.

So they're consolidating.

The managers who have had more of a formula for success have been ones that they'll double down on.

But when did you start thinking about those types of chess moves to really help people navigate private markets writ large?