Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Tell me about New Orleans. I went to New Orleans where the streets sticky little yeah, and like get out of the knees and like the floor.
It was scienti e. Sampling of the streets.
How is the uh the vibe? The conference?
It was good, you know, like I guess that I had this image of my mind in my mind if it's like a super fun conference and then at the end of the day it's an I'm a night lock conference.
You know, I don't know what you're saying.
We'll leave it to the readers, the listeners imagination.
Well, I was in Las.
Vegas, also sticky.
Yes, Las Vegas is also grim, but.
It was nice, like I don't want.
Yeah, New Orleans is beautiful.
Bourbon Street is a strange place, but nice. Yeah, it's good.
There's mules pulling carriages.
I didn't see mules pulling carriages a little like street car, like a little tram.
Yeah, there was none of that in Las Vegas. But we went to the Titanic Museum, which for some reason is in Las Vegas, famously land locked, and it was a great conference. Got to talk shop with a lot of et F folks a lot of fans of the podcast, Yeah, which is cute.
They're like, Katie, we like the podcast. All that we ask is more ETF content.
Actually, yes, yeah, I did text that to you. Yeah, that was cute. Any other news, Yeah, I bought a house a house. Yeah, well, nothing's been signed, but they selected our offers, so we're really thrilled.
Congratulation.
Thank you. That's fun to laugh with a good friend. Should I tell the listeners that I'm pregnant, You're going to say.
Should you tell the listeners you're a street address, but both the address of your house and the name and SOUCHI a security number.
Of one on one.
It doesn't No, she's not across the finish.
Congratulations in your house and your pregnancy.
Thank you.
It was like, really, all the listeners where to send the baby gifts?
Please don't send me anything, Please don't do that. But yeah, I needed a place to live because our rent, our lease is up at the end of May, and then I'm doing August. I love deadlines.
We're gonna say the baby's name on this podcast.
Julia.
Her name is Julia?
Really?
Yeah? Have I not told you that.
I don't know my mother's name is.
I never do that.
Yeah, I don't really get that. I've been cooking up this name for like the past decade. So I'm excited to finally have something to name Julia my mother's name is.
I know.
Actually I love the name August. Gus for sure. I have a horse name that my husband thinks that's weird.
But it's weird because you have a horse named Gus, or because if you have a boy, you're going to give the boy the name of the horse.
We're going to name a child after horse. Yeah, And he's like, we can't do that.
In some sense, this is the least surprising thing I've ever heard.
Yeah, but you know, it's just such a handsome name. August.
Yeah. Good for a horse.
Yeah, come on, it's a multi purpose.
Hello, and welcome to the Money Stuff Podcast. You're a weekly podcast where you talk about stuff related to money. I'm Matt Levine and I read the Money Stuff column for Bloomberg Opinion.
And I'm Katie Greifeld, a reporter for Bloomberg News and an anchor for Bloomberg Television.
So we had a podcast last week about private credit.
Huh, we sure did this week?
Well, you can't get away from it. It's like every other Readspike on the Terminal is about private credit.
Yeah. So what I'm seeing on our podcast last week was like, it's the bigges. It's the most important or most interesting or biggest story in finance. And who was it who said that? As a golden executive who said that that private the private markets clients love the Iran war because it destrides from their problems, which, yeah, sort of thing you don't say out loud, but.
He did, and we're thankful for it.
But here on this podcast, we're sticking.
To private credit.
Yeah, Apollo and Aries those were the big ones this week.
Yeah, I think by it said it's increasing, right, the more bad headlines there are about with their all requests and bad redemption requests, the more the next one gets a bigger redemption request. So now Apollo and Areas both got like eleven plus percent redemption requests from their private business of album companies. Yeah, and they both stuck to their guns and said we'll give you back five percent and the rest you can come back next time.
Yeah.
So you know that's uh, that seems to be the.
Playbook, which for everyone except that one.
Plus yeah, a couple. There are a couple of exceptions. There's the Blackstone one where they pass the hat and cast out like nine percent by like raising money from Blackstone itself and some of its employees. And there's also like the Blue Owl obedc two to one, which is like they sort of limited it, but they also said they're winding it down and returning more capital, so it's like kind of a mixed bag. But yeah, most of them, I said, look, these are long term SI liquid vehicles.
Yeah, the deal is.
That you are locking up your money in illiquid assets in order to earn the higher returns that are maybe promised to liquid assets. And you can get a little bit of your money out, but like you can't get a lot of them your runny out. And that was the deal. How do you think, said in an interview. It's not like it's on page ninety two of the perspectives, it's on page one.
Yeah, it's true, And.
Like they were like, yeah, that's the deal. And if we if we cast more people out, that would be failing in our funuciar dity to the people who stay in, which is true for two reasons. One, it's like, oh, we have this like liquid stuff, and we're not gonna we don't want to do fire sales, and so we're going to keep the stuff and cash up people a little bit, but not sell loans to cash more people out. But the only reason it's true is, like, you know,
this is what we talked about with the buzz. People have a lot of doubts about the marks and these funds. Yeah, people have a lot of doubts that when a private credit fund says it's NAV is whatever, that that NAV reflects like the actual market value of the loans. And so one concern you'd have is if you're running one of these funds is like if people come to you to cash out and you cash them at you cash them out at NAV, and if the NAV is way too high, then you're cashing them at way too high.
You're giving them too much value, and then people who stay in the fund are getting diluted by you cashing these people out. And so when these fund managers say, is part of you know, our job as FIDI shares the people staying in the fund, we can't cash out more than five percent. Like that's true, but it's also like a little bit of a worrying thing to say, because it suggests that, like you also might be a little bit worried about your iyvay.
Yeah.
Well, so if you had super large redemptions that you redeemed, what are you selling to meet them? There was a quote in a Bloomberg story out this week from the global head of credit strategy over at City who said that if you start meeting redemptions that are too large, what does the surviving portfolio start to look like?
It's like the least liquid. Yeah, weirdest cats and dogs in the portfolio probably right.
Yeah, so that's fair.
It is fair. I have a lot of sympathy with iry fix saying it's on page one of the perspective. It is right.
Yeah, that's what this deal is.
This is I liquid stuff. The role of this is this is you are a wealthy person. A small portion of your money is in ill liquid stuff that you won't need for years, and this is that, right, and so you shouldn't need the money. The private credit fund is in the business of writing through periods of volatility by not giving your money. Pack's like becoming clear this is the product working as intended. It's just that you know, people are mad about it.
Yeah, functioning as sold.
There's a great Bloomberg article. You know, there's like a phrase liquidity illusion, Yeah, which just an annoying phrase. A great Bloomberg article about people talking about liquidity confusion. Yeah, where they're like, you know, they quite like Blue Owl and Apollo people saying basically sort of saying, yeah, we don't know how these things were sold. Maybe the advisors didn't maybe highlight this enough. This is again what I was talking about last year.
Yeah, I don't know, man, we did have that conversation, like where was the potential point of miscommunication? I have one of the Apollo quotes in front of me, so I'm going to read it. This was coming from Jim Zelter speaking at a conference that maybe the industry may have failed to clearly explain liquidity restrictions. Quote, certain distribution channels in certain parts of the globe may have not fully communicated the risks inherent to the asset class, he
said in Melbourne. And so you have a mismatch right now in shorter term redemptions. Sheesh, I don't know what do you do about that certain.
Parts of the globe. Is interesting because my impression is like that part of the globe is the USA, but I don't really know. My impression is Financial Advisor sold product that like there are a lot of like dentists in the US who are trying to get out of these things. Those dentists people were like literally sending made dentist forums discussing. Yeah, the fighter's private credit funds.
We talked about this. I think when it comes to the Blackstone example, like Okay, yes they are functioning as designs, but it still doesn't feel good necessarily, And when you think about future fund raising, it's certainly the.
Future fundraising is really interesting, right, One like fascinating thing and I wrote about this this week is that all these funds are getting like big redemption requests. They're also getting big ish inflows.
Yeah, not as big for now for.
Now, yeah, but like like really now now you're like I want in at NAV. It's just an interesting vibe because they're clearly people who are looking around and saying this is oversold, this is overblown, Like it's not as bad as it seems. We're gonna buy at the lows, right. So, like BoA's wine scene is like I'll pay sixty five cents on the dog, but the people who are sending their checks to these funds right now are paying NAVY. They're not buying a discounts, they're not buying it lows.
They are just like, yeah, we trust that it's fine what we want in and it's just sort of a strange, like like non clearing market, right, Like all these people want out at NAV, they can't all get out. Other people want in at NAV. Why.
I mean, there's been five billion dollars of inflows so far this quarter.
Yeah, I think both the Apollo Fund and the Blackstone Fund that we talked about, they both had inflos that were kind of around the amount that they actually cashed out. So like the Apollo Fund got like around five percent infos paid out about five percent outflows. You know, got requests for like eleven percent outflows, and that's like seems to be kind of normal. Like their infos and outflows roughly matched when you cut out the outflows they didn't actually pay out.
Yeah, I will say, I mean this quarter, we don't know what in the quarter, that's right, Yeah, that's right. Did any of them come in the last four weeks? I would like to know did you see this story? JP Morgan planning a private credit fund that allows seven point five percent redemption.
That's a exelling, but that's like the credit card that has got to Yeah, I don't know that's what you want to lead with.
They're leading with it.
Well, I don't know.
If that's that reassuring whatever.
It's also public and private credit, so some of it will be in private.
But the future fundraising stuff is really interesting, right because you know, two months ago, the whole story in private credit and private markets generally, it was like, we're going to open up the frown case. We're going to raise trillions.
Of dollars from put this in your retirement accounts, and like this does not undermine the case for pretty good in your retirement account.
It doesn't, but it does.
Perception is everything, yes, everything in this business. And I don't know when it comes to future fund raising, maybe seven and a half percent redemption on a totally basis, maybe that'll ancise some of these you know word skeptical investors.
Like somebody email me like, if this didn't exist, there weren't these BDCs, if there hadn't been this rise in private credit, all this stuff, all these loans would more
or less exist in like highyield funds. All these companies that borrow from you know, Apollo and Areas and HPS and whatever would be borrowing from the bank loan or the high yield market, and there'd be like CLO funds and high yield funds would own the debt and when people got nervous about software apocalypse and whatever, they would cash out of those funds, and those funds would sell the debt and the price of the debt would go down,
and we would have like a different possibly also bad situation. Right, Spreads would widen, prices would go down, people would get nervous, people would go like, you know, the debt of these companies is collapsing, but they'd all get their money back at whatever the mark was. You know, here it's like there hasn't been fi ourselves at the market is still functioning on the loan side, and then on the fund side, everyone's complaining they can't get the money out.
Yeah.
Do you want to turn tractly to Larry Think?
Yeah, actually you mentioned Larry Think, and uh, you know, he's had a lot to say in the past week, some of it just in the written word. And you'll never believe this. He thinks that Americans should buy more stocks.
It's so great I wrote about this. He's right in a very conceptual way, but also like as an index one manager. It is very much his book. But like you know, he wrote the letter as annual chairman's letter to investors. What he talks about, what's upon a time where we talked about ESG.
Now it's talked about the climate.
He talks about Yeah, like whatever's top of mind this year? It is neither iran nor private credit. Oh it is AIE a big popular top of mind thing. And he's like, yeah, what's going to happen with AI. It's going to put a lot of people out of work, you know, And it's like great classic stuff, right, It's like people are worried that AI is going to take all the jobs.
What does it mean for AD to take all the jobs? Well, it means you don't have a job, and it also means that like the money that you would have gotten paid goes somewhere, and it probably goes to corporate profits. And so he writes in the letter, when we talk about the economic disruption of AI, most of the conversation
is about jobs. But history suggests that transformative technologies create enormous value, and much of that value accrues to the companies that build and deploy them into the investors who own them. So it's like, look, in the future. He doesn't say this, I say this. In the future, there will be no jobs, but instead of jobs, there will be corporate profits. And so you as a person should transition from having a job to owning the shares of
the companies that will make all the profits. How can you do that, Well, flacrock has index.
Ones good news, good news.
So I'm parodying this, but I also the kind of think it's true, right, I mean, if you were really worried about AI like significantly displacing human labor, right, that's a good problem, right, Like in a world where like robots do all of our work for us and we don't have to work, and we sit around and just.
Like eat bon bons.
Yeah, they consume the production that the robots produce. That's great in the aggregate, but then it's like, if you don't have any way to pay for the production that the robots produced, then that's bad for you. Yeah, And so how do you do that, Well, you give everyone a share in the companies that own the robots and
then you're fine, and like how you do that? A classic story is universal basic income, which is basically like the government takes some money from the robot companies and gives it to you so you can pay for food and stuff. But like you know, they call that universal basic index fund ownership in other ways, like make sure that everyone owns a share of the index fund, and the index fund owns the companies that own the robots, and then it's fun.
Yeah, well while there are still jobs. One of things proposals was that employers should basically set up emergency savings accounts of up to twenty five hundred dollars so that their staff can invest in the markets, which was slightly interesting. It's like a private side answer to Trump accounts or something along those lines, right, I mean.
Like all this stuff is like it's sounds like aggreate. Conceptual level, it's like, yeah, well, all on the robots and then it'll be great. But then it's on practical level, it's like you'll have a twenty five hundred dollars emergency fund that will and share it on the robots, and then like, okay, how will you pay for food for the rest of your life.
If one has jobs, don't worry about it.
I will say, it's very easy to have the cynical take that. Yes, this is Larry Fink talking his own book, but.
It's a good book. I mean his book is like everyone should own like a share of the economy, which like it, it's like a fine book.
Yeah, but also propositions his.
Starting point that AI is going to exacerbate wealth inequality. That's not controversial, you know, like silly.
Version of it, which is that there will be no one will have any jobs anymore and we'll just eat what the robots produce. But like the non silly version is like, yeah, they'll be like you know, there'll be winners and losers from A.
Yeah.
Though, by the way, like exascerate inequality, it's unclear, like exactly what the dynamics are, right, And so one thing he writes about in the letter is that like the skilled trades, there are jobs that will be displaced by AI. Yeah, there'll be more and less displaced by AI, and like plumbers and electricians will be less displaced by AI. And in fact, you'll need a lot of electricians to maintain
the data centers. Yeah, and like podcasters and index fund managers will be more displaced by AI, and so you know, it's unclear exactly how the inequality runs, but like you know, Mark Zuckerberg will do great.
Yeah good, Just worried. But I was speaking to a Lapshaw this week. He co wrote the Sacrini piece that tanked the markets that one day in February. I was on vacation. He wrote a part three this week, and we talked to him on the television.
Fair one.
No, I mean we talked about it. So he had an interesting one. I don't know, I feel like part two was the one that really was it part two? But yeah, yeah, I was on vacation, so you know part.
One was like the hipster breakfast that nobody read.
Yeah, yeah, I was on vacation. So I was like, I'll just let this blow over. Fine, and then there was a war anyway, So he wrote that the AI complex and the consumer economy are increasingly on opposite sides of the same trade. Every investment today in an AI company or beneficiary carries an implicit short on the consumer economy, and I thought that was kind of interesting.
What does that mean consumer economy?
Because basically, if you're replacing human workers. That's a dollar of household income that's lost, so people will have less money to spend.
I don't think that's an entirely coherent macro vision. I think, like, you know, this is what I think would say, like, in a world where AI takes over all jobs and therefore no people have income to pay for consumption, that's
not good for open AI. They're good for like Nvidio's business model, Like you need someone to pay for the consumption, and so the sort of rejiggering of the economy to allow people to pay for the consumption in this world or no one has any jobs is a interesting and like, you know, a little bit stupid question, right, because it's all sort of like fad to say at this point, But like that's what I think is ready about, Like how do we restructure the economies that when no one
has a job, they can still pay for consumption?
Yeah?
I mean, to this man's credit, he does right that this is not sustainable and it's not something that the AI complex, investors or society should want.
Right.
So, right, if you're open ai, you need people to pay twenty bucks a month to chat to your porn bot, right, Yeah, you need. That was a joke. They've they've pulled the porn bot.
But yeah, thank you, thank you for saying that.
But uh, you need buyers, consumers, and if it displaces everyone from their jobs, this is why, like Sam Altman talks about universal basic income, it's the same thing.
It's Andrew Yang. Yeah, well, sure put some respect on his name.
He doesn't run an AI company, but yes he might.
Probably it's gonna be interesting to get back to Larry Think's annual letter for like two years straight. He was obviously hot on the climate. We don't talk about.
ESG anymore, I know.
So maybe this is going to solve all the doom and gloom.
Uh, it's always like it's related to the ESG stuff, right. It's like Larry Think is in some deep sense like an index funded manager right at his background and like whatever, he sits atop this giant conflex that owns everything, and so he thinks about the world as a guy who owns everything, right, and so this year he's writing about
everyone should own everything. But in previous years he's like, you know, if you're someone who owns everything, you can't be like focused on the cash those of one particular company you have to think about like society as a whole, and so YESG was an early way to do that where it's like, you know, the oceans rise, they'll wash away all by companies. Let's not have that, right, And they're like, is a different variant on a similar sort of way.
Of thinking, Well, we'll reflect on this in two years. Maybe he top.
Ticked it, maybe we'll go back to Yes.
Would be so fun if you just continue.
Right, gets selected and it's like, you know, it's really important, it's climate change.
We're back.
The Information reported that SpaceX might file to go public this week.
Yeah, it hasn't happened yet.
Well, actually they could. They might be able to file confidential aner. I don't think it's.
Happened yet, but yeah, it's Thursday, so they have, you know, a little bit of time left in this week. Bloomberg News has reported this month, Yeah, such.
Was almost the same as this week.
Yeah, that's true. Bloomberg News also reported that now they're looking to raise seventy five billion dollars. Yeah, I'm wonder how high this number can go because the last figure that Bloomberg News reported was like fifty billion dollars Yeah.
The interesting thing is, like it's not even the fifty or seventy five or whatever billion that is big. Like what's big is that there are a lot of investors who have written pretty big tickets in SpaceX. Slash XII, slash X is the whole mishmash of Elon companies. Yeah, and when this company goes public, like the first day, they'll sell whatever, seventy five billion dollars worth of stock. But then like soon after that there will be you know,
trillion dollars of stock to sell. There'll be a lot of stock to sell, a lot of early investors and employees and Elon musks who want to sell stock and raise money. And so the information talked about, Like one thing that they're very focused on the IPO talks is
figuring out the lock up structure. You know, who you do an IPO, You sell stock in the IPO all the big like insiders and early investors can't sell any more stock for six months, and then after six months their stock comes free and there's not like often a stock drop when everyone is able to sell and they all sell stock at once. And I think SpaceX wants to be more thoughtful, more aggressive, more something about that.
So it's not just like sell nothing for six months and then cell trillion dollars with the stock in one day, And it's more like, you know, how can we structure that so we can get at the stock that people are going to want to get out And that's going to be interesting, right, There's gonna be a lot of turnover in the stock. Yeah, And like they're greening between
the lines a little bit. All the index firms are like thinking about how to restructure stock indexes to allow SpaceX to get into their indexes earlier, so that it's essentially early investors can sell the index ones and like make that trade clear. So it's going to be it's gonna be.
A lot of stock, yeah, particularly interested in the index side of things.
Yeah, obviously, Yeah, people are mad about it.
People are mad about like the index one.
No, I don't know, YAX managers not.
The index one. Is the index providers changing their rules like NASDAK is talking about changing the rules of the day is like one hundred and like even S and P is like you know, I mean we could that's basically.
Yes, I could see. I was actually having this conversation yesterday.
Like it was all the talk of the at the ATF country.
No, but it should have been, honestly. But there's the idea out there that part of the reason you don't want freshly public companies in your index is because they need a period to season and like maybe get through some of the weirdness that you're talking about when it comes to lock ups, et cetera.
Yeah, I know, but like but part of like the weirdness is just like straightforward to supplying to men stuff
for it. You have like volatility because like the company goes public and then it's seasons or whatever for a little while, and then there's a day when everyone can sell their stock, and so the stock bounces around in anticipation of that day, and then after that day and then it settles down, and then like the there's another day when the nix Fens have to buy the stye and then it goes up, you know, and like if you can mush those things together, you reduce some of that volatility.
Yeah, there's a day.
Where like all the early investors can sell to s and P five hundred x fense and like you know that's volatile. Yeah, I don't know, it's like somebody exaggerated, But yeah.
I guess we'll find out what these index overlords decide. But I feel like there were a few different SpaceX tentacles this week. You wrote about this one that, you know, when it was reported by the Information that SpaceX could file as soon as this week, you saw a bunch of space related and satellite stocks surge, including EchoStar.
Yeah, so EchoStar is arguably a SpaceX treasury company.
It's not really I was thinking about dats.
Yeah, but it's a it's a real business, a real bit has like a.
You know, direct TV and stuff, but it's like largely a collection of spectrum licenses that it's like in the process of selling off, and it's sold some of them for cash and some of them to SpaceX for like eleven billion dollars of SpaceX stock, And so if you zoom way out, it's like it's like kind of a pot of cash plus some SpaceX shares and you know, you can that's just the proxy for SpaceX, and so people have been sort of treating it as a proxy
for SpaceX. It's come up a lot, and it went up when SpaceX was reported to be planning on i PAS soon the other space companies I.
Don't really get I know, I know, surely if you've.
Got a space portfillo, you got to sell some space companies to make room for SpaceX.
Yeah.
Yeah, so, I mean it wasn't as clean of an explanation for those ones. But in the case of EchoStar, okay, they have a bunch of SpaceX stock, what happens when SpaceX goes public? Like, how would the shareholders of echo Star sort of feel that?
I don't know, I don't know what their plan is. I think to some extent people think of it as like a capital return play, where like they're selling Spectrum for cash and stock and events. You sort of end up with like a much smaller business and a big pile of cash and stock, and then you start thinking about how to return that cash and stock to shoulders.
And the cash is fairly easy and the stock is not that hard, and so you end up somehow extracting some space stock out of a eco store or they sell it in cash.
But that's exciting.
Yeah.
I was also excited to talk about this because there's a closed unfund angle here as well.
Here's a closed unfund.
Yeah, more than one.
Maybe we taked ages ago about destiny d X y Z yeah, and this week or I guess last week, this insurging. There's the fund Rise Yes, innovation fund called which is natrating at like twelve hundred percent of navy or it was it was, Yeah, it's not a little bit.
Stron came out with a short against it on Thursday.
Is the short thesis this is trading at twelve hundred percent of navy.
Basically, yeah, that's a good short thesis.
Let's see. I'm oh yes, questions simple math and asset value.
Simple mouth and has a value right right, So it's like it's a closed and fund. It's a small fund. It's like six hundred million dollars. It owns stock in like open AI, Anthropics, SpaceX, like.
Big name, all the bill, the big ones.
And it was like a privately managed, clothed in fund that has like gone public but most of its shares
are locked up. So the actual like amount of stock that is available is like in the tens millions of dollars they've had more than ten percent of the shares are available, so it's not one hundreds of millions of dollars, And a lot of people want to own SpaceX anyway they can get it, and so there's a lot of demand for that, like relatively small stub of fundraise innovation fund stock, and not a lot of supply, and so it's trading it, you know, traded up to twelve hundred
percent of NAV and at twelve hundred percent of NAV, you're not getting any SpaceX exposure. You're just getting exposure to the premium.
Right that's said before, I have a great idea for Bill Lackman. Oh, he should put space X in his clothes and funds and then he won't have to worry about the discount.
It's true, you know, someone pointing out to me there's SpaceX and all sorts of clothes end funds, including a blue Owl technology course, a little bit of SpaceX stock.
And it's like, I feel.
Like like one like important move that you can make in today's financial markets is like putting up a big sign saying, well, you own some SpaceX and then sort of see if people, you know, start paying a premium for your stock.
Well, we'll see. I'm also curious to see what happens, obviously when SpaceX goes public, because a lot of these funds also are subject to a lock of period or at least a lot of the spbs.
Wait, can I tell you an unrelated elon Musk thing.
I was hoping you would.
That is amazing.
Tell me.
Okay, So he lost the Securities Forrod trial this week or last week. He agreed to buy Twitter in twenty twenty two. He like backed out of the deal. He like tweeted publicly like the deal is temper around hold. The stock dropped. Eventually he had to close the deal. People who sold stock when he tweeted that sued for securities that it was a weird case. They sued in the a federal court in California, and they won. Last
week He's lost the securitiest FROD case. Like the damages haven't been determined yet, but they could be billions of dollars. It's a little nuts. But anyway, this week, his lawyer, Alex Spira, sent a letter to the court basically saying, like we should have a mistrial. There is misconduct in the jury room. The juri had to fill out some form about like you know, like the stock drops and the one of the numbers on this forum was four
dollars and twenty cents. Oh boy, and the letter this like insane letter, like this long passionate yet like legalistic letter that Alex Bira sent to the court is like they filled out all these numbers in black ink except for the four twenty, which they wrote in larger font and in blue ink to drive home the fact that it was four twenty, a number previously associated with the Elon Musk. Good lord, so someone said it to me, saying Elon Musk doesn't think four twenty is funny anymore.
But it's like what a life he has? Any I've ever been more put upon the Elon Monk. People are just making fun of him at four twenty. Can imagine finding him liable for securities read it's weird that.
Does any of it matter to him?
Rationally? No, but like emotionally, I think very much so. And that was the Money Stuff Podcast.
I'm Matt Levine and I'm Katie Greifeld.
You can find my work by subscribing to the Money Stuff newsletter on Bloomberg dot.
Com, and you can find me on Bloomberg TV every day on the Clothes between three and five pm Eastern.
We'd love to hear from you. You can send an email to Money Pod at Bloomberg dot net. Ask us a question and we might answer it on the air.
You can also subscribe to our show wherever you're listening right now and leave us a review. It helps more people find the show.
The Money Stuff Podcast is produced by Moses Onam and Alexis Hot.
Our theme music was composed by Blake Maples.
Amy Keen is our executive Thanks for listening to The Money Stuff Podcast. We'll be back next week with more stuff.