In this episode…

Women and minorities make up some of the most accomplished experts in their fields, yet they are often at a disadvantage when attorneys choose expert witnesses, according to Dr. Pavithra Kumar. It is crucial to remain vigilant of subconscious biases and take positive steps to choose the best person for the engagement, regardless of background.

Check out the entire episode for our discussion on being proactive, litigation in crypto, and building relationships as an expert.

Note:   Transcript has been lightly edited for clarity

Host: Noah Bolmer, Round Table Group

Guest: Dr. Pavithra Kumar, Principal at Advanced Analytical Consulting Group

Noah Bolmer: Welcome to Engaging Experts. I’m your host, Noah Bolmer, and I’m excited to welcome Dr. Pavithra Kumar to the show. Dr. Kumar is a principal at Advanced Analytical Consulting Group. She specializes in applying economic and financial theory to questions arising in complex security and finance litigation. Dr. Kumar is a published author and holds a PhD in finance from MIT. Dr. Kumar, thank you for joining me here on Engaging Experts.

Dr. Pavithra Kumar: Thank you, Noah. I’m happy to be here.

Noah Bolmer: You have a background in economics and finance, but how did you first get involved in expert witnessing?

Dr. Pavithra Kumar: It’s been a long time since I finished my PhD, but it was an interesting route. I’d not heard much about economic consulting during my PhD at MIT. I knew I wanted to go into industry, rather than academia. During my third year of PhD studies, I interned at Lehman Brothers, doing research work, and I enjoyed it. I received an offer to return to Lehman Brothers full-time after [completing] my PhD. Unfortunately, my PhD ended in the summer of 2008, and I joined Lehman Brothers right before September 2008. As I’m sure many in our audience know, that was a couple of weeks before Lehman went bankrupt. Barclays ended up buying up Lehman’s U.S. operations. I stayed at Barclays for a couple of months doing different jobs. Things were in turmoil there, but I did technical analysis work on the trading floor. It was interesting, but not what I was looking for in terms of a more rigorous, in-depth research job. I went back to some of my contacts at MIT, and one of the professors I knew was affiliated with an economic consulting group in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I interviewed with them, liked the people, and the nature of the work, which involved applying analytical skills to real-world problems and consulting for lawyers on cases where they need expertise in economics and finance. That covers a variety of contexts and industries. It sounded super interesting and challenging to me, and I got an offer to join them. I was at that firm for almost ten years. I’ve moved around a bit and worked on both coasts. Now, I’m in New York at a well-known boutique economic consulting firm. That’s a little about my background and my path.

Noah Bolmer: Tell me about those initial phone calls where you get a call from an attorney, or from a representative of that attorney, and they say, “I’ve got a case, and it is X, Y, and Z. We think that you might be the right person.” How do you know that you are the right expert for the job? How do you know that they’re an attorney that you care to work with?

Dr. Pavithra Kumar: That’s a good and important question. I have expertise that can be applied in a variety of contexts. I look to see that it’s something that will utilize my core skills, which I would say are in corporate finance, securities analysis, valuation, mergers and acquisitions-related transactions work, and damages analysis across a variety of contexts. I would say my skills are a little more generalist. I would look to see that the case exploits those skills and that I can apply them to the specific question being asked. First, it’s important during these calls to establish your expertise in that specific area and show you can address the specific question they’re asking. You need to establish your credibility upfront to explain potentially complex issues simply to them. That’s what they’re looking for.

Noah Bolmer: Beyond being an expert in your field, what are some of the intangibles that they’re looking for? What makes a great expert as opposed to a knowledgeable expert?

Dr. Pavithra Kumar: It goes back to what I mentioned about being able to break down a complex issue in a simple way. Other things would be, do you show the capability to ask the right questions of them? Are you thinking more strategically? Are you thinking through the potential pitfalls or potential weaknesses of your analysis? That’s an important intangible factor. How do you present yourself? Do you speak clearly and confidently? Are you someone who’s personable, someone they will enjoy working with and interacting with? Do you come across as a reliable and responsive person? Those seem like basic things, but they are crucial when you’re working on cases that have tight deadlines.

Noah Bolmer: Attorneys have said how important things like demeanor are when they are selecting an expert that’s going to—

Dr. Pavithra Kumar:—come under pressure.

Noah Bolmer: One topic I’d like to get into is that there are not [many female] expert witnesses. You spoke about this recently at a webinar called This Talk Isn’t Cheap. What are the barriers facing female expert witnesses today?

Dr. Pavithra Kumar: That was a webinar I gave last year or two years ago. I’m forgetting, but it was recently. The American Bar Association’s Women’s Diversity Group hosted it. I was honored to be invited to speak on that panel. Yes, there are real barriers still facing females, especially minority female expert witnesses. I have seen positive change and some promising trends. I do have several ex-colleagues from other firms who have had success in getting on the stand, so that’s fantastic. The real issue here is that being a woman of color in this field marks you as a minority when many attorneys and experts are older, white men. The barriers go beyond being a woman of color. Just being a woman and a minority in and of itself doesn’t matter. Most of the people we work with are sophisticated people. They’re not prejudiced. A deep subconscious bias exists. That’s due to presenting yourself or appearing as somebody different. If it seems that you come from a different culture or background, speak with a different accent, have different interests, a different personality type, and upbringing are all subtle markers that mark you as being different from the mainstream, which in corporate America is still white male. Being a woman of color correlates with those differences. Correlation is not causation, as economists would say. The real causation here is being different from the typical white male. This is something I’ve reflected on a lot. Diversity initiatives, which companies engage in, are good, but I’m not sure they get at the core issue here. Women, especially minority women, need to be aware of the differences they present. You have to be extra careful at trying to overcome those upfront.

An issue I’ve faced in the past is that my upbringing is to be polite, deferential, submissive, and agree with what people, especially superiors, say. That doesn’t mean that you’re not intelligent and rigorously thinking through the analysis. It does present you as not being someone who challenges [you]. Someone who’s not thinking strategically. Someone who comes across as mechanical and detail oriented but is not stepping outside of that and thinking through the big picture to become an expert in that field or that case. That is an issue that presents itself more frequently for women, especially minority or foreign women, and it can manifest itself in feedback that you get as well.

Earlier in my career, I did receive feedback that I came across as too passive, too mechanical, not thinking of the big picture and part of that was true. I was so focused on doing a good job and mastering the details that I didn’t take myself outside of that and think more strategically. From my 16-plus years’ experience in the industry, this is an issue that affects women of color who are starting out in their careers. Unfortunately, it can lead to a dent in their confidence and can become somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that you keep getting this messaging that you’re too mechanical and passive, then, it’s difficult to break out of that.

Noah Bolmer: It sounds like the difficulty is prior to you becoming known as a reliable expert in your field when you’re just getting started. How do you overcome some of these obstacles? What actionable advice do you have for women, minorities, and in particular, minority women who are trying to break into expert witnessing?

Dr. Pavithra Kumar: As I mentioned before, first is being super aware of this unconscious bias. Secondly, if I were to go back to my younger self and give advice, it would be to strive not to come across as nervous or unsure of yourself. [Nobody] ever has all the answers, and I might be generalizing a bit, but I think men are better at sounding confident even if they don’t know all the answers. They’re coming up with a way to phrase it. “I might not know this, but here are some other suggestions.” Or “Here are the right questions to ask,” et cetera. There are ways to get around not knowing all the answers up front. What’s more important is to demonstrate the ability to think strategically. Think big picture, and to be able to present that sense of you know what you’re doing and in control, as opposed to talking quickly, sounding shy or unsure of yourself. That’s a pitfall. It’s a trap I’ve fallen into earlier in my career. I have seen others falling into that trap as well. That would be the number one thing to focus on, speaking slowly. I, and other women, have been told that you speak fast. That doesn’t indicate that you don’t know what you’re talking about, but it does communicate that maybe you’re a bit nervous and worried about what other people will think. Slowing it down, speaking clearly, loudly, and being able to come up with an answer on the spot, even if you don’t have the full set of information or a fully formed answer are critical skills. Women could focus even more on that in order to overcome some of these unconscious biases that exist in the workplace.

Noah Bolmer: When you talk about developing these skills, are there some practices—is there a way that even people who are not minorities, who might need to develop these skills further, are there techniques that people can use to get better at slowing down, and considering their response? What are the things that you recommend that anyone who struggles with these issues can do to improve?

Dr. Pavithra Kumar: That’s a good question. I will say my previous answers might have come across as presenting this as an issue just faced by women. I agree with you. It’s important to stress that this can affect anyone. This is the root issue. It happens to be a little more correlated with being a woman, being foreign or being perceived as different, but it can affect anyone. That’s a great question. I would say something that’s helped me, and this was at one of my previous firms, they did invest in quote, unquote, executive coaching for their staff, not just senior staff, but people at all levels, even associate level people who were starting out in their careers. This was not coaching on finance or economic skills. Everybody has that down. This is focusing more on the so-called soft skills or interpersonal skills. How to present yourself, working on your speech, having people practice presenting something, and then critiquing that. Saying, “You sped up here.” “There was an issue with your body language. You’re covering your face or fidgeting. That makes you come across as nervous.”

Something I’ve been told in the past, that I wasn’t aware of is that sometimes when I speak, I trail off at the end of sentences. I might trail off like this, giving an example. That makes it sound like I’m not sure of what I’m saying. And it’s completely unintentional. In meetings earlier in my career, I would present a point, and it wouldn’t land as well as I hoped it would. It sounded like I was not sure of it myself, so people didn’t pay attention. Part of that is due to the way I said it. I trailed off. This is something that both men and women can do. Having a couple of sessions at previous firms helped me. Things I was not aware of before like making you record yourself. In some of these sessions, you gave a presentation, then they played it back to you, and pointed out instances where I could have improved my delivery. Again, these are soft skills, but are super important, whether you’re a consultant or whether you’re doing expert witness work as well. It’s crucial and attorneys—this does affect attorneys’ perception of you because they want someone who is going to come across as confident and calm on the stand. For that, they need to know that you’re sure of yourself. This coaching can help you work on that.

Noah Bolmer: I’ve heard from attorneys who use mock cross-examination as a tool that occasionally they’ll record the expert witness and force them to look back and watch themselves. People hate listening to recordings of themselves or watching their performances, but I’ve heard that it can be an extremely effective tool in seeing for yourself the things that you might be able to improve upon. That said, what are the things that the industry—and it’s funny to talk about expert witnessing as though it’s a single industry because it’s not. Every industry has experts. What should attorneys and firms be doing to make sure that they’re not falling into the subconscious traps of not hiring women and minorities because of these perceptions? You’ve been doing this for 15 years, is there momentum in the right direction right now?

Dr. Pavithra Kumar: Another excellent question. I do think there is momentum in the right direction. We have a new generation of lawyers, younger, more diverse lawyers. Diversity is improving in the legal industry as well. You have more female minority lawyers in senior positions who are in charge of hiring experts. I do see positive momentum there. I’ve personally seen more willingness amongst this newer generation of attorneys to consider up and coming experts above and beyond their usual roster of the same experts over and over. Some attorneys have told me this explicitly and that they are looking for greater diversity in experts. This is not something that was said even five years ago. So, there’s definitely positive momentum. The change is still slow. The top experts are still older, mostly white men. It’s going to take a while for this to change, but as I mentioned, I do have colleagues from other firms who have managed to get on the stand. I’ve been encouraged by my own marketing efforts getting on the Rolodex of more attorneys. Getting more expert interviews, more visibility, et cetera. There is momentum, but this is going to be a tough one to change. You need to see more—you need to see change in client hiring practices and that will come with time.

Noah Bolmer: Is there anything that attorneys who want to move in that direction can be doing to make sure that they are considering the entire pool of candidates?

Dr. Pavithra Kumar: Honestly, just a willingness to step outside of the customary practice of hiring the same handful of experts. I’ve seen, especially on the plaintiff’s side where there’s a narrower pool of experts that their attorneys use. They’ve been making special efforts to reach out to different experts. So, I would—nothing sophisticated in this suggestion, but I would encourage them to keep doing that. Look on—using other tools beyond looking at the same people over and over again. Maybe using LinkedIn to try and keep tabs on experts. There are new expert search services which are available now. Maybe even AI will play a role in helping to find experts in the future. For lawyers, keeping up with some of these technological developments, keeping the rest of these new ways of searching for experts beyond just the usual few, I would encourage them to keep doing that. Change will be necessary at some point because there are so many new, complex areas of litigation arising. The usual suspects may not have deep knowledge of those areas because those are new. For example, [with] crypto litigation, it’ll be necessary to start looking for some of these newer, up-and-coming experts. Attorneys will be incentivized to broaden their search in this manner as well.

Noah Bolmer: That’s a great segue way. Shifting gears, you’ve talked about publicly, trends in crypto litigation. This is a new field. What is it like being an expert in these new, burgeoning upcoming fields? How do you stay on top of the changes that are happening every single day? How should experts maintain their expertise because obviously a big part of being an expert isn’t just being an expert. It’s not necessarily static. It’s remaining an expert. How do you keep on top of your field? What are some of the considerations that you have to constantly contend with in remaining an expert in the field of finance?

Dr. Pavithra Kumar: Absolutely. It is highly dynamic. Picking up on what you were saying, crypto is not an area that I was an expert in a few years ago. Clearly, that’s because crypto-related work has surged in the last two to three years in particular. Everybody who wants to get into this area is constantly having to learn new things. You’re right that I recently gave a series of three crypto litigation webinars with a colleague and expert at AACG. One of the ways I prepared for that is reading everything I can about developments in the crypto world. Not just litigation, but also regulatory and enforcement trends. I love podcasts. That’s one reason I’m enjoying being on this particular podcast. I love listening to podcasts. I subscribe to many different types of podcasts. Not just in finance and economics. History is another love of mine. I do look out for finance/legal podcasts on crypto, so lawyers’ perspectives on key trends in the crypto space, key regulatory and enforcement developments. I listen to some government-side podcasts as well. In addition to that, I subscribe to many newsletters related to crypto and you’re just—I’m on top of the news in general. In my inbox every day, I get several alerts related to the latest developments, your GENIUS Act, little coins, crypto being allowed in 401k plans, et cetera.

There has been so much going on in the last couple of weeks. You have new crypto initiatives led by the SEC, so that’s helpful. Being proactive and subscribing to all these alerts and updates in the crypto space. That has helped me keep abreast of the developments and helped us develop the key talking points for our webinars. We covered quite a bit of ground. We started out by discussing a general overview of how crypto differs from traditional money and then getting into some of the key regulatory trends. Our latest webinar, which was just last week, covered some of the key trends we see arising in the crypto litigation space and importantly, how economic and finance experts can plug in there and help attorneys.

In response to something else you asked about, what are the key areas of expertise or skills experts will need to provide in these types of cases. What’s interesting is the same basic tools relating to assessing economic damages, looking at drops in price of certain securities. These are key tools that you use in assessments of securities fraud. Those tools remain basically the same, but you do have to adapt that to the more complex world of crypto technology and also account for this dynamic regulatory and legal environment. It’s not a matter of learning completely new skills. It’s a matter of applying the basic economics and finance tools that experts already have, but knowing how to apply them to this new, highly dynamic environment.

Noah Bolmer: As somebody who gives a good number of webinars, how important is it to continually publish in your field? Is that part of why attorneys find you attractive as a potential expert witness?

Dr. Pavithra Kumar: Yes, absolutely. I would say the crypto webinars, for example, did attract a lot of interest from both attorneys and other experts who thought we could provide complementary expertise in some of these new areas of litigation that we talked about. Webinars and publications are also super important. At my current firm, we’ve published on securities topics and implications of Supreme Court rulings, for example, that impacted 105 cases last year. We’re planning to launch a series of podcast discussions, which will be a more informal conversation format compared to our more formal webinar sessions, but featuring conversations with experts. It’s a way to market our general expertise as well as market our network of affiliated experts as well. That’s important. Knowing how to market that effectively on LinkedIn and other forms of media as well, because the attorneys do pay attention to this. As I mentioned, in some of these new and growing areas of litigation, the traditional experts may not have the expertise they need, so they do need to get more creative in searching for other experts. Again, knowing how to market yourself, these various forms of content on LinkedIn and other channels is important in reaching attorneys.

Noah Bolmer: You mentioned marketing in LinkedIn and other channels. What marketing has been most effective for you? For instance, have you used referral agencies like Round Table Group? Do you prefer websites? What has been the most effective tool for you?

Dr. Pavithra Kumar: It’s definitely a combination of all of those. I am listed on Round Table [Group], so I have received a number of expert requests from them, which has been great. In terms of generating interest from attorneys, it all comes down to publicizing relevant content in a concise manner. I would say lengthy academic journal articles, while great for advertising your credentials, doesn’t quite catch the eye of attorneys as much as short and sweet, highly relevant content that you can blast out regularly. We have a mailing list of attorneys, so we e-mail attorneys with our latest articles, podcasts, webinars, et cetera. Then, I also helped to market that to my wider network on LinkedIn. Another channel I use is attending and networking at conferences, especially women’s conferences. There are fewer attendees so there’s more of an opportunity to build a close relationship with senior female attorneys. That has been super useful. Attending targeted conference and networking events in my areas of litigation, trying to sponsor legal events, and trying to get on speaking panels as well, that’s something I’m currently working on. That has been extremely useful [along with] joining exclusive expert networks. Round Table [Group] is a referral service. I am also a part of the Securities Expert Roundtable network. Several of your previous guests are also part of that network and that’s been useful in meeting both other experts who could use my expertise as complementary to their cases, as well as meeting securities attorneys and crypto attorneys. I met a couple at one of their previous events, which was useful for me. Of late, I’ve been branching out into joining these targeted groups and blasting out relevant content to them as frequently as I can.

Noah Bolmer: I’ve long thought that expert witnesses would benefit from coming together and discussing their experiences, either within or outside of their field. Have you met other expert witnesses and have you made valuable connections in that way? Is that something you recommend that other expert witnesses try to avail themselves of?

Dr. Pavithra Kumar: Absolutely. I’ve obviously worked with and met expert witnesses throughout the course of my career because I’ve supported a lot of high-profile experts. Most recently, I’ve seen this area of knowledge accelerate for me because I joined these exclusive expert networks, such as the Securities Expert Roundtable Group. What they do that’s unique is, they create a forum for experts to meet and share best practices, even relating to administrative stuff, such as, best practices for billing, crafting engagement letters, and how do I overcome a certain issue when speaking with attorneys? Even the first question you asked me on this podcast, things to cover in your first call with an attorney. We discussed that at our annual conference a couple of weeks ago, and they gave me a lot of valuable tips for sure. I’ve never been part of a group that has done that in the past so joining this particular group a couple of months ago has been useful. In addition to the lessons I’ve learned through working with experts over the last 15, 16 years. That is important. Not just sharing stories of things that went well, but it’s great when experts also share stories of things that did not go well. Lessons they’ve learned and what to avoid. We don’t hear enough of that, especially when you work at some of the larger consulting groups with these high-profile, prestigious experts. You don’t get the chance to hear instances of things that went wrong. In these more exclusive expert networks, people do share that, more stories, et cetera. That’s been useful for me as I try to expand my expert witness work.

Noah Bolmer: Speaking of working with other expert witnesses, have you found yourself interfacing with other expert witnesses during engagements? Do you have somebody who’s an expert in something in a related field, but not your field, that you end up either working with or working alongside of? Do you work with other expert witnesses during engagements?

Dr. Pavithra Kumar: Yes, that situation has arisen, sometimes on bigger cases. Even on the same side, you have several different experts who are working on different facets of a particular case. In an M&A case, there could be an industry expert on that specific industry sector, but there will also be a valuation/damages expert. There might be another expert on another technical issue on the contract and maybe a legal expert. I have worked on those types of cases. Typically, I’ve supported one of the experts but have been on calls with the other experts as well. There can be challenges in those situations in that you have to be careful to ensure that none of the experts contradict each other. The experts are obviously talking about different fields, so not necessarily an obvious contradiction in terms of how to conduct a specific analysis, but more indirectly. Are they contradicting each other with regards to the big picture? Is a concept that one expert is espousing, does that kind of contradict what somebody else is saying? Also, are they proposing different theories of the case, for example? You have to be careful to avoid that. I find that sometimes in these cases, especially if you’ve got a tight deadline, everyone is so focused on working on their own part of the project, and you say, “At the end, we’ll check that there are no conflicts.” This always tends to arise at the last minute and can cause a bit of a scramble to rewrite parts of each expert’s report to ensure that you’re all aligned. You do need at least one person in charge of overseeing all the reports. Someone who’s maybe not in the details of each of the buckets but can oversee everything and check that all the experts are in sync. The attorneys technically do this as well, but as the consultant you do need to provide that service to attorneys. That’s an important issue that the other side would pick up on for sure.

Noah Bolmer: Speaking of last-minute scrambles, when you’re engaged as an expert, do you feel that you’re typically given enough time to do the thing that you’re being hired to do? Do you feel sometimes that, “I wish you had hired me a couple of weeks or a month ago, [so I had] a more time to write this report or do more research to get the answers that you’re looking for?” What’s your experience been?

Dr. Pavithra Kumar: If you have a good attorney, they should know to hire you with enough time. Frankly, many attorneys, especially smaller firms with more limited resources, do have a tendency to hire experts at the last minute. I have received many requests over the last year or two for a one-week turnaround. They contact you at the last minute, and they don’t have their act together in terms of giving you all the documents you need. Thankfully, in many of those cases, the case has settled or they ended up not needing expert testimony, which is a relief because it would have been difficult to get what they were asking done in the short timeframe with their lack of ability to provide all the relevant documents. Unfortunately, I do see this. In general, attorneys should pay a more attention if they think they’re going to need an expert. They have to line that expert up with enough time in advance. Time and time again, I see that bad documents are not necessarily always shared right up front. They need to give you all the information they have as soon as they can, because otherwise, if this arises at the last minute, it can be a scramble to figure out how to get around those issues. So, attorneys could do better in this regard.

Noah Bolmer: Moving on to the general, tell me about what makes a great expert-attorney relationship. Not only getting off on the right foot, which we talked about, but maintaining that good give and take. A quality relationship that’s efficient, effective, and maybe even fun throughout the engagement.

Dr. Pavithra Kumar: This is a people business. It’s a business that’s based on trust. Being able to establish that trust early on with the attorney you’re working with, that’s the most crucial part. In order to engender trust, I try to be as open, communicative, and responsive as possible. I would expect that of the attorney, too. If a problem arises, they need to tell you as soon as possible. I mentioned bad documents, if there’s a negative piece of information, they need to tell you as soon as possible. Don’t withhold that. Don’t tell the expert at the last minute. Establish open communication lines. That’s related to having mutual respect and understanding.

Respecting the fact the expert—respecting the position you put the expert in. Not trying to force the expert to go out of his or her scope. Not trying to squeeze in changes to their opinion at the last minute. Again, I have experienced this, unfortunately, with some attorneys. On the day of filing, [they] try to make somewhat material changes to the language of the expert report. You have to be careful not to just accept that. I’ve worked for experts, and if you’re a consultant to the expert you have to be the gatekeeper and make sure that attorneys are not reshaping your expert’s opinion. Be vigilant of that. Attorneys should be respectful of experts in that regard and understand the scope of this expert’s report and make sure that the expert stays within their lane. Veering out of their lane is one of the ripest areas for attack in cross-examination, if not the biggest area of potential critique for an expert report. They do their best to prepare you for surprise attacks and cross-examination, taking the time to do a thorough deposition and trial prep with you if the case reaches that stage. All of that helps to build mutual understanding, respect, and trust. From my side, being as responsive as I can, if I’m the expert, to their requests, trying to think of ways to improve the report. Going above and beyond and trying to make life with the attorneys as easy as I can.

Noah Bolmer: That was all great advice. Before we wrap up, do you have any last advice for newer expert witnesses or attorneys working with experts?

Dr. Pavithra Kumar: For newer expert witnesses, I heard this great piece of advice at a previous conference, so I’ll steal it here. For upcoming experts, the best way to be seen as an expert and to advance in the field is to act like an expert from day one. Obviously, you still do your day-to-day job, but act, behave, and speak like an expert. Think about what an expert would say. Think through the questions an expert would ask. Think strategically. Think through the weaknesses of your approach, and communicate those upfront, even if you’re a junior associate on the team. Doing all that will change people’s perception of you, and they’ll start to think of you as someone who could be an expert down the road. This was a pitfall earlier in my career where I thought the focus was you’re getting the work done and getting the work done right. Obviously, it is, but I just focused on that as opposed to stepping out a bit and thinking more about the bigger picture. This is not advice just for women of color. This is advice for everyone. Step out of the weeds a little. Don’t mechanically go through the work. Think about what the work is for. What are the bigger questions we need to ask here? How does this work fit into the bigger puzzle of the case? Present yourself as thinking through those issues proactively early on. That will help you advance in this line of work.

Noah Bolmer: Absolutely sage advice. Dr. Kumar, thank you for joining me today.

Dr. Pavithra Kumar: Thank you, Noah. I appreciate it.

Noah Bolmer: And thank you, as always, to our listeners for joining me for another edition of Engaging Experts. Cheers.

Dr. Pavithra Kumar, Principal at Advanced Analytical Consulting Group

Dr. Pavithra Kumar, is a principal at Advanced Analytical Consulting Group. She specializes in the application of economic and financial theory to questions arising in complex security and finance litigation. Dr. Kumar is a published author and holds a PhD in finance from MIT.