Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Hello and welcome to the Money Stuff Podcast. You're a weekly podcast where we talked about stuff related to money. I'm Matt Levine and I write the Money Stuff column for Bloomberg Opinion.
And I'm Katie Greifeld, a reporter for Bloomberg News and an anchor for Bloomberg Television.
What are you telling about today, Katie?
We're going to be talking about Purdue Pharma and non consensual third party releases. We're going to be talking about empty voting, and then we're going to talk about cryogenics. Yeah, the blood Farman.
Yeah. But before that, there's only one piece of news this week.
Yeah, come on, let's go. You gotta puppy. Tell us about this puppy. I've seen a ton of pictures and I want to hear you describe her for the audience.
She is extremely cute. She is a wheat and terrier. She's eleven weeks old, is like mostly brown, like whetons are sort of beige when they grew up, but when they're babies, they're mostly brown, with like a black nose and black paws and a little white spot on her tummy.
Yeah, it's pretty good man. Yeah, she has that cute dark face though, oh yeah, does she keep that? Like, how does it work with wheatons?
All of their fur lightens and it becomes more uniform, but sometimes their muzzle is darker than the rest of them, but it won't stay black.
Okay. Interesting because my parents have an Irish wolf found and we got her as a puppy. They did. I don't live with my parents, and she started out much darker and like her face was a bit darker and then she lightened out. So you're physically here, but I feel like you're probably thinking about the puppy I'm thinking about. Yeah, but you know what else we're thinking about?
Non consentual third. Yes, Wow, we stuck transition.
You were so right Purdue Pharma. This decision actually came down a little bit ago.
Yeah, it's in the news this week and I read about it this week because they went back to bankruptcy
court and they keep doing stuff. But basically if Perdue Pharma opioid manufacturer make Toxi Content responsible for untold devastation owned by the Sackler family and it went bankrupt a few years ago to basically deal with like fairly paying out the opioid claims from you know, victims and victims families and also like state attorney generals and as part of the bankruptcy, you know, basically like there's not that much money left in Purdue, although what's left is basically
like we're going to continue to sell exi content and give the proceeds to the people who became addicted to oxy content. Right, they reached this deal to pay out the victims where they would take what's left of Purdue and give them, you know, money out of the continuing business. And they would also take six billion dollars give or take from the Sackler family who had owned Perdue, who had taken a lot of money out of Purdue over the years because it was this profitable company that made
them billionaires, and they reached this deal with it. Sacklers would kick in six billion dollars and in exchange for that, the bankruptcy court would say, no one can sue the Sacklers anymore over opio It's their liability is capped at the six billion dollars they're putting back into the predy bankruptcy. And this was a controversial thing in bankruptcy law, where some bankruptcy courts thought you can do this. You can say, we're going to do what are called non consensual third
party releases. We're going to say everyone's lawsuits against these people who are not in bankruptcy but are like connected to the bankruptcy, everyone's lawsuits are extinguished forever, and the bankruptcy court is just sort of like a powerful arbiter or a fairness could extinguish those claims. And this was controversial at the time and eventually went to the Supreme Court, and last month the Supreme Court said, no, you can't
do that. Only essentially the company that's in bankruptcy can have all of its lawsuits terminated, so the sacklers can't get this sort of like universal release from liability. And so one thing that means is like the deal is off the sacklers. We're going to kick in six billion dollars of their mon It's not like sitting in a bank account. It's like in these trusts, it's overseas. It's like it'd be hard to get that money without them voluntarily giving it to you. And they said, we'll give
you the six billion dollars. We'll still be rich. I keep a lot of the money who took out of Purdue over the years. But this way you'll certainly get the six billion dollars, which is better than you do if you had to try to sue US and foreign courts and all this stuff. And now that deal is off because the Supreme Court said the Sacklers can't get what they want from that deal. They can't get a total release from claims, and so now it's sort of
in this limbo. And the thing that happened this week is that you know, it's back in the bankruptcy court, and the Purdue creditors, the people who are trying to get money out of Purdue, basically said they're going to file a lawsuit or they are seeking permission to file a lawsuit against the sacklers, trying to get money from the sacklers to kick back into the bankruptcy estate. Because
that's kind of like how this goes. When the Supreme Court says you can't do this universal sediment, the next thing that happens is that Purdue itself sues the Sacklers to try to get some money out of them.
Raises the question of what does this mean for other bankruptcy cases, if you don't have non consensual third party releases just practically or pragmatically speaking, whatever you want to say it, that seems like it would get pretty messy pretty quickly.
Yeah, this is an unusual case, and that the sacklers are so personally identified with this and like they have
a lot of money. But right, there are a lot of these what are called best toward bankruptcies where it's not just like a company owes money and like doesn't have enough money to pay it back, but it's like aspestos and tobacco, like the company does something dramatically harmful and ends up owing much more money than it ever made, and it's like people are looking around for third parties, often who made a lot of money running those companies, and if you can't get the third party release, then
like those people are less likely to contribute to the bankruptcy. Now, it's an unusual case here because the sacklers took so much money out of who do and are quite rich, and so getting their money is like really important to the bankruptcy. There are a lot of other cases where it's like the company itself is the main source of money and so like you can still really claims against
the company. That's what bankruptcy is, right, Like, the bankruptcy process is designed to end all lawsuits against Purdue and sort of parcel out the money among everyone who had a claim. But it's just that's Purdue, right, Purdue is in bankruptcy pre.
Due pharma, perdue pharma, as we've been instructed to call it.
Yes, right, when I wrote about this, I did occasionally call it Purdue, and I got an email from a student at Pretty University saying it is not the same thing. Please call it predy.
Far school allegiance just runs deep.
It's fair. You don't want to be associated with bad stuff. But anyway, you know that here, like most of the money went out to the sacklers, and so it's particularly important to have their contributions.
So those two numbers, there are eleven billion dollars what the sacklers took from Purdue Pharma and six billion dollars what they've agreed to give to the victims. If they had agreed to give ten billion dollars, if their eleven billion dollars, do you think that we'd be having this conversation.
First of all, they say all these public statements that a lot of that money they didn't really take out eleven billion dollars, it's like a lot of money when to paying taxes and so like. Really the six billion is much closer to all of the money that they took out than it is to half of the money that they took out or the No one thinks they're going to be poor after this, Yeah, but uh no, I mean the answer is no. The Supreme Court decided
not a fairness question, but a legal question. I think it's tainted by the fact that people are really angry at the Sacklers. And I think there are a lot of other bankruptcy cases where the third party release was less controversial and like was clearly useful to getting a deal done, and like the Supreme Court took a case where the third party is particularly unsympathetic, where it's these billionaires who like sort of cause the help gide epidotg.
But if you just like read the reasoning of the Supreme Court case, it has nothing to do with Rather, the settlement is fair and had they kicked in one hundred percent of their money and agreed to work for the victims for the rest of their lives, it's still they wouldn't get a third party release.
So so no, we could talk about the descent.
Yeah, I mean, like, I just it's a hard case.
Like I think that bankruptcy is this weird area of law where it's like the bankruptcy court has a lot of power to kind of craft the deal that seems fairest to it, right, Like, it really is the case that bankruptcy gets rid of all of the lawsuits against Perdue, right, Like everyone has claims against Perdue, and the bankruptcy court says, all those claims are gone forever, and in exchange, you get whatever you get from the bankruptcy settlement, which could
be pennies on the dollar, could be nothing. It extinguishes all the claims. Like that's what bankruptcy is. It's like dividing up and ending all the claims against the company. And because of that, bankruptcy courts are really in the business of like trying to craft fair deals and then like sort of imposing them on people who are making everyone unhappy. Basically like imposing a deal on everyone even
if they object. And it's sort of natural for the bankruptcy court to say, well, in order to get the fair deal that like works the best. We need to not only end claims against Purdue, but we have to end these claims against the sacklers. And because that's part of like achieving our goal of fairness, it's like sort
of part of our powers. But the Supreme Court said it's not really part of your powers, right, Like you only have jurisdiction over the bankruptcy, not over the you know, everyone else who comes into contact with it, and so it's not part of your powers. And I think there's like a good argument for that. It's just like a matter of law. But yeah, it was a five to four decision in the Supreme Court, and Justice Kavanaugh wrote this the sense saying, you know, this is a shiny
example of the bankruptcy process. Right. The point of the bankruptcy is to get as much money as you can for the victims. And they did that, and they did it here by a sort of compromise that made everyone unhappy, but kind of like achieved the rough justice of getting as much money as possible for the victims. And then the Supreme Court says, no, you can't do that, and so now it's sort of in this limbo where probably the victims will get less money.
Yeah, in that descent you wrote, because some victims or creditors may hold out for any potential future settlement for any one of those reasons and instead still sue, the Sacklers are less likely to settle with anyone in the first place. Maybe the clouds will part, but in a world where non consensual, non debtor releases are categorically impermissible, any hope for a new deal seems questionable. So we'll see.
Yeah, And I wrote on Thursday that they're trying for a new deal, right, Yeah. The biggest claims against the Sacklers don't belong to like individual victims. They belong to Purdue.
Right.
The biggest claim against the Sackler is they took all this money out of Purdue, and Purdue has, like in bankruptcy claims that they should give the money back, and so they will bring those cases against the Sacklers, and they will hope that the Sacklers will settle those claims and we'll say, you know, we're not going to get released from all the other creditors, but we'll get released from Purdue, and that's like the biggest thing. So we're going to settle that. But will they settle that for
six billion dollars. There's some chance that it is, in fact, if you're a fantasy that will get any money out of them.
So watch this space. Let's talk about empty voting and politan versus Massimo, which you've described as a long, weird proxy fight.
Okay, here's how weird it is. I suppose this company, it's like a health tech company. They like sued Apple over Apple Watch, like they're you know, they through something. Yeah, health pulls something.
It was a big deal, like a year ago.
Yeah. So anyway, but there's a company, public company, and Polotan is a hedgehund that ran a proxy fight complaining about how they run their business and one and got two seats on the board of directors, which has like
five members. And so they're on the board and they're running another proxy fight to get more directors because they're like this company is still stonewalling us, like they're having three two board votes where like the Polotan guys lose out on the vote and they claim they're not getting enough information and they're sort of they're keeping the board
in the dark. So it's this very like awkward boardroom tension where like the activist and the company's chairman are both in the boardroom at the same time and apparently still vehemently dislike each other. But anyay, they're running a proxy fight. So they're company is holding a shareholder meeting at the end of July to vote on whether the company's nominees or the Polyotan nominees will get elected. And Polotan just filed this letter saying that the company is
doing some empty voting. So empty voting is like in theory, it's like you own one percent of the stock or whatever, and you get the votes for like ten percent of the stock. So like classically you like buy eleven percent of the stock, you short ten percent of the stock, right, so you're like long eleven percent, short ten percent. You're net long one percent, So you only own one percent of the stock, but you have eleven percent of the votes and then you vote way out of proportion to
your economic interest. This is the thing that people like talk about as a concept a lot and you rarely see like actual cases of it, and here I'm not sure you see actual cases of it. But like Polytan says, you know, we got like the voting records and it seems like this one brokerage firm voted a lot of shares, like a lot more than it owned a week before the record date and a lot more than it owned
a week after the record date. So what they think happened is essentially it borrowed that stock from other shareholders just around the record date for the vote, so that it would own ze point nine percent of the stock just at the vote, and then it got rid of that stock afterwards, so it never had the economic exposure. They say it's a brokerage firm affiliated with an investor who's a friend of the chairman of the company, and so it's like they called it a favor and like just got a lot of votes.
How do you prove friendship? I mean, do they have a podcast together?
What is this? It doesn't matter. Like if someone actually borrows ten percent of the stock to vote it and then that gets rid of it the next day, then that's weird. Yeah, that's weird. And then you know, like polytimes, I always should investigate it, right, and like if it turns out that the chairman of the company was like emailing the guy being like, hey, borrow ten percent of the stock so you can vote then that's bad, whether or not they have a podcast together.
I was going to ask you that is it bad. They're alleging that this happened, et cetera, But is this not allowed?
I don't know. I don't know. No one knows, right, I mean, like, this is the thing that people talk about and people like write papers about because I think it's interesting. It seems like it should be bad, right.
It seems like the point of shareholder voting is that you own a portion of the company and you care about the company being good because it's like your stock, right, So you want the stock to go up, you want the company to be profitable, all those things, and so your votes are in proportion to your economic interest in the company. And if you find a way to get votes that are not in proportion to your economic interest, that seems like it's wrong and not how voting is
supposed to work. But there's no actual rule that says your voting has to be in proportion to your economic interest. Then, you know, we've talked a lot about like the Paramount deal, where like the whole point of the Paramount deal is that Cherry Redstone owned like ten percent of the stock and had you know, seventy five percent of the votes, right, So it's not like a love of nature or as far as I can tell, a rule of the SEC that you need to have votes in proportion to your
economic interest. Like I just don't think there's a rule that says, like if you own ten percent of the stock and then do a swap with a bank where you're short ten percent of the stock and so you have no net exposure and rule says you can't vote.
I do wonder, like what the incentive for this brokerage firm associated with an investor who is a friend of the Massimo chairman. What is their incentive to do this beyond their friendship? You know, I have a lot of friends, and there's not a lot I would do for them.
I feel like if I had a lot of money and someone was like, would you empty vote for me in a proxy fight, I would say yes, just because it's like a cool legal precedent. Yeah, Like I don't know, like you get it, yeah exactly, but no, I mean, like what's in it for them? But it's unclear how much it costs them, right, because like you do have to do it right, it's.
Like the pain, Yeah, I mean the effort alone.
There's some transaction costs. Loosely speaking, what you're doing is borrowing the stock for a couple of days, which is like you pay a stock borrow a fee, which is like for like most liquid stocks, it's like, yeah, on the order of twenty five basis points per anum, so it's like not that much, but it's yeah, little cost. But probably you're not literally just paying a stock biffy.
Probably you're like doing something sort of thing where you're like buying the stock and simultaneously shorting it, or like buying the stock and doing a derivative. So you're playing some transaction costs. So it costs you money. It doesn't cost you like as much money as buying ten percent of the company, but it costs you some money. What's
in it for them? I mean like literally one possibility is like there's no allegation they weren't a shareholder, right, And so if you're like a one percent sharehold of the company, and you think one side here is clearly right and one side is wrong and it's better for the company for Massimo to win this proxy fight, then doing this empty voting costs you a little bit of money, but it gets you the right result in the proxy fight,
and then you're one percent stake is worth more. Right, So that's a possible explanation.
Right, I mean that, but that comes back to the point you made that like in activist hedge fund, like they would want to have the economic exposure as well.
Yeah, it's hard to know, right, Like loosely speaking, if you're an activist, you can own more than ten percent of a company's stock without like running into complicated issues around trading. Some people do, but it's like often activists
will sort of cap themselves at nine point nine. A lot of activists will run proxy fights owning less than nine point nine percent because they're not that huge a fund and the company is big, right, Like you have you know, like the Engine number one proxy fight at Excellent where they own like essentially zero, but you know they own a tiny fraction of one percent of the company because they were a little hedge fund and xcelln A is a giant company, right, and so maybe they
would have liked to own ten percent, but they didn't have that kind of money, and so they owned a lot less. It's a lot cheaper to buy votes than it is to buy stock. Right. I don't know how much cheaper, because it depends on the stock proa costing exactly how you structure the transaction, but like, yeah, it's cheaper.
And so if you are an activist and like you are sort of capped out economically at like one or two percent of a company, you might want to get to ten percent of the company just to win the vote, right, just in empty voting. Now that's an interesting case because that's like, clearly your motivations there are good, you're just buying votes, right, but like you want the stock to go up, and you do have economic exposure to the stock.
The really interesting case is like what if your motivations are to tank the stock?
Right?
I mean, like I wrote about this and people email me, like what if you're actually short, Like you're a short seller you want the stock to go down, right, you're short one percent of the stock. Why not get long eight percent of the stock and short nine percent of the stock and you're still net short and you still want the stock to go down, But now you have eight percent of the votes, you can like mess up
the voting. Yeah, I don't think there's a ton of cases where you can actually do any damage to be accompanied by voting. But there are a few, right, The one that I thought of immediately is and this is hard to do just because of the size, But we talked about Elon Musk's compensation vote. We certainly had he lost that vote, I think the stock would have gone down, right, he might have quit in a huff, Right, this dog probably would have gone down. And then if you were short,
you would have made a lot of money. And so if you were short, you know, two percent of Tesla and like you got to be short nine percent and long seven percent and like messed up his vote, then like you might have made some money on it. Now, you can't really do that because Tessla's enormous, but there's maybe some circumstances where you could be a short seller who gets some empty votes to like mess up some sort of shareholder vote.
You know, I'm happy we're talking about this. I feel like we're getting closer and closer to talking about close end fun proxy fights.
Oh yeah, I'm sure.
Gosh, it's just I don't know, the inevitable tug of the universe pulling us towards talking we're going to talk about close unfund proxy fights, Yeah, anything else you'd like to ask.
The only other thing I'd sad about ant the dding is like people say about this all the time in credit.
In credit, there's a lot more you can do, And so you can buy up like fifty percent of some series of a company's bonds and be like much more short with credit default swaps than you are long bonds, and then you can like mess things up and so like the classic case, and no one knows if this is true for some reason, but like a company called Windstream basically like was forced into default by a hedge fund, Aurelius that owned a bunch of its bonds and said
you've defaulted on these bonds, and it was widely rumored, never like really fully reported. Was widely rumored that Arelius bought a lot of CDs protection and it was net short the company's credit, which makes sense because it like bottled these bonds, said you're in default, and the value of the bonds dropped precipitously. So that's not a good
trade unless you're also doing something else. But there's a lot of like people call it empty creditors, empty voting, and credit where you can be more short somewhere else and cause a lot of problems with their long position. Also, creditors can kind of do more to like cause problems. There's only so much to share. Older vote can do.
Cool empty voting, empty voting voting. All right, Oh, now.
We're cooking with frozen heads.
I'm so excited to talk about this. There was just a fantastic article in bloom Earth is so talking about and interviewing a state attorneys for people who freeze themselves and want to be brought back to life. There's so many questions that I feel like they can't be answered, but they're so fun to talk about.
Aaron Schilling right of it and says it's like a philosophy las hypothetical, and it really is. It's like Derek Parfect. It's like it's like if you were cloned, is like your new consciousness you or is it somebody else that matters? Is like a matter of like legal inheritance.
Yeah. Absolutely. If you set money aside for two hundred years in the future and you're brought back to life, is that your money depends on what your trust says exactly?
But are you you?
Are you you?
Because like one argument apparently some kinds of trust, you can't get the right tax benefits. You can't be the beneficiary of your own trust. And so for some people the answer that you want is no, you are not you. If you're brought back to life, you're a separate person, and therefore you can inherit from yourself. Well all the other contracts are you'd want answer to be the other way, like, no, I'm the same person, so I get to keep mine.
I mean, if you freeze your brain, does your soul get frozen too when you're reanimated.
I don't know that your soul like a separate third thing, which is like your legal person.
Right, Well, someone makes care about your soul. Someone makes the point in this article one of the state attorneys that reversing a death certificate is super complicated. So for legal purposes, maybe you should be a different person when you wake up.
Yeah. One thing you learn in law school is the rule against perpetuities. Are you familiar with the rule against perpetuities?
Yes, we're all aware. I mean, I hope of the spy kids.
The spy kids. Right, So the really against perpetuity says that certain kinds of trusts, traditionally all trusts can't go on forever. There are some places where it can't go on forever means they can't last more than one hundred
years or whatever, which is like a natural thing. But the traditional rule is they can't last longer than lives in being plus twenty one years, So lives and being, I mean, you write some list of specific people who are alive today, and when the last of those people dies plus twenty one years, that's when your trust has to end. And so famously spy, the s you have is a.
Trust, a unit investment trust.
It's a unit investment trust, and it terminates when the last of like it's like what like thirty it's something.
It's like something like like a dozen dish yeah people below twenty Yeah, when.
The last of them dies twenty one years later, Spy ends, right, And like the people they're called the spy kids are all they are like the children of like people who worked at the at the company, the lawyers lawyers kids. Because that's what you do. You try to pick the longest life. And so you pick like twelve people, so like if one of them dies by a freak accident, you still got like eleven more. Yeah, and you pick young people because because then like they're likely to live
longer than if you picked old people. And so that's the traditional really insperiputunities. But that doesn't help you if you're planning to be reanimated in two hundred years, because then everyone will be dead plus twenty one years, everyone alive of the time except you, maybe right, because like one question is like, if you're reanimated, do you spring back to life, and therefore the true springs back to life?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Well, also, I mean looking for into the future, what if you set money aside and then you aren't reanimated, this never comes to fruition. What happens to the money eventually? And at what point do you just someone say, Okay, this clearly isn't going to work, let's crack open the piggy bank.
Well, I think that the legal rule is still the rules perpetuities. Like I think the answer is, like, you know they do this in states where instead of like lives and being plus twenty one years, the rule is like trust can last for five hundred years, and so you set aside money and a trust, and it's like if I get reanimated, the money goes to me, and if not after five hundred years, that do against the charity or whatever, right, but like we'll all be dead.
I mean, we'll speak for yourself, right exact Apparently.
Like if you're not reanimated in five hundred years, like, no one cares about that.
If I found out that I had an ancestor who left me some money five hundred years ago, right, right, well, I'd be psyched about it.
Contingently, right, like, yeah, your ancestor left some money for himself to reanimate his frozen head, and then five hundred years later, his frozen he had still not reanimated, and it's like, okay, it goes to Katie.
It's probably kind of gross too, because I, yeah, I don't know about this, sure, see, but apparently, by one estimate, about five five hundred people are planning for cryogenic preservation. That's actually I don't I was going to say that's so many people, but actually, in the grand scheme of things, that's not that many. I kind of want to be one of them, though. If it works, sure, if it works, yeah, but eventually we will die, Matt, so you might as well,
you know, take a gamble on it. I will say though, like if my parents were some of these people who were like estate planning for their frozen heads, I would be so mad.
It is a little I don't want to say selfish, but right, instead of the money going to your air as it goes to Maindaniel frozen.
Head, yeah, I'd be like, I need this now, feel.
Like the pretty small chance of maybe not small chance for some chance of reanimation.
Yeah, I don't. Actually I have no idea either. I did love this quote though in the article This is from Mark House. He's an estate lawyer who works in Scottsdale, Arizona, and he says the idea of cryo preservation has gone from crack pot to merely eccentric, and now now that it's eccentric, it's kind of in vogue to be interested in it. Eccentric is such an interesting word because that is the word that wealthy people use to just say weird.
You can be eccentric if you have money. If you don't have a lot of money, you're just a weirdo.
Right, and you definitely need a lot of money to be excited.
That money aside for exactly yeah, right. There's also I mean there's also the big question of like what currency are we going to use in five hundred years?
Oh yeah, like you wake up and you need money, right, and like what if your dollars are worthless? Yeah, put in a bitcoin if your bitcoins are worthless, right or like? But also like along the way, like presumably there's some warehouse that is billing somebody to keep your head frozen.
Just a warehouse of heads. It's this is just the perfect topic. I love this.
I must say, Yeah, can we talk.
About my novel? So I am such an egomaniac, like I actually believe that I have gold here. I have an idea for a sci fi novel. I'll talk about it in general terms. Is I really am worried someone's going to steal it and write it before I have a chance. But it involves blood farming, it involves time travel, and I mean there's a lot of ethical questions there. Yeah, like to save the human race if you needed to like farm people's blood. Is that okay?
I don't know, Well maybe the financial podcast. I don't know.
I'm worried I'm gonna get canceled, Like I don't know.
A farm people's blood.
I don't want to. But like if you traveled in the future and like through the method of travel the population was weakened and everyone had bad blood and you needed more blood, you know, what would you do? I don't know, blood farm.
Yeah. Science fiction is always like these sort of like technological or like societal hypotheticals. But it's like what about the lawyers, right, It's like, what are the legal regimes applicable to these like science type of I mean, that's.
The type of world building that you have to do in a sign line.
You need to think about the trust in the states rules.
I'm reading a book about fairies right now, which is just like straight fantasy, and I feel like you don't run into these kind of questions as much in fantasy that involves fairies and magic because you have magic, where a sci fi you know, you have to create a world where these rules make sense.
I often think that you should have more of it in fantasy, right, because like the financial implications of like having magic, right, what kind of society would you have?
I guess Harry Potter to try to tackle a lot of those questions.
Some of them I remember had a bank, they had a bank. There's like some brief mention in Harry Potter that's like there's like some laws of somebody's laws of transfiguration where you can't like create food out of nothing or something. I forget exactly what it is. There are characters in Harry Potter who like don't have a lot of money. Yeah, like wizards, and it's like, well, they're wizards. They can do whatever, you know, they can like create
stuff out of nothing. They could create magic, right, so like why do they not have a lot of money? And there's sort of like a nod in that direction, but it's like sort of perplexing.
So like they can't create food out of nothing, but they do have spells that could kill.
People, right, Yeah, so you could like.
Yeah, exactly, you could get into gring gods, but then there's.
Green gods, but like just a regular bank.
Yeah, or you know, you walk into a shop.
Right, yeah, take what you want, disappear.
Yeah, there you go.
Anyway, right, world building in science section.
Yeah, anyway, I just feel like I've accomplished everything I want to in journalism, So it's time to.
You've been a TV anchor in the right kound of TV anchor for four days.
Yes, it's over anything else. Who want to say my dog.
Is really cute? And that was the Money Stuff Podcast.
I'm Matt Vivian and I'm Katie Greifeld.
You can find my work by subscribing to The Money Stuff newsletter a Bloomberg dot com, and.
You can find me on Bloomberg TV every day between ten to eleven am Eastern.
We'd love to hear from you. You can send an email to you money dot at Bloomberg dot net, ask us a question and we might answer it on 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 Anna Maserakus and Moses onam.
Our theme music was composed by Blake Maples.
Brandon Francis Nunhim is our executive producer.
And Stage Bauman is Bloomberg's head of Podcasts.
Thanks for listening to The Money Stuff Podcast. We'll be back next week with more stuff