Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Hello and welcome to The Money Stuff Podcast, your weekly podcast where we talk 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 do we got today, Kitty?
We're going to talk about SEC raids and how to trade them. We're going to talk about private credit ETFs, question mark, and we're going to talk about Spotify arbitrage.
Yes, excellent, sec raids.
I'm a little bit surprised. Were your SEC jacket?
I know I should have. I wrote about this, like amazing paper about what happens on the SEC visits a company, and I mentioned that I own an SEC raid jacket that I joke about wearing but never wear.
And you didn't even bring.
It in, did you know? I read about this and then reader emailed to say that an sec red jacket was his Halloween costume. That's funny, but he didn't have one, and he didn't actually know that they even existed, so he just like got a blue windpricker and like got yellow tape and put SEC on the back and wore it to like Halloween parties with the finance pro friends, to be scary. Yeah, that was a really good idea. I have a real one.
It'd be kind of funny if he paired that with just fangs. That's it's the whole costume. That's cool. Well, if you used the fact that you own an SEC jacket is like a cute little setup to talk about. Maybe a tradable signal. Maybe not that amazing paper. Watching the Watchdogs, yes.
Watching the watch dogs tracking SEC increase using geolocation data. What they find is that when the SEC visits a public company, that probably means there's something bad, right, and so it's a negative signal.
It's not just a chat, like just a coffee meeting.
In aggregate, statistically it's a bad sign And so like you get Adnorrambal returns of like negative one point four to one point nine percent over the three months after the SEC visit, whether or not there's a subsequent announcement of an SEC investigation, even if they just do an informal visit, there's some negative signal there. They also have some really fun findings about the insider trading around. Yeah, usually the sea of a company and the SEC comes
and visits. Should you sell the stock because that's bad news or should you not sell the stock because that's insider trading? Yeah, the answer is most people. There seems to be a chilling effect where people tend not to sell, but like when it's really bad news, they do sell.
Well, I have to say so. The stat that you highlighted was that insiders are sixteen percent less likely to sell into two weeks surrounding an SEC visit relative to periods with no visits. I'm kind of surprised it wasn't like eighty five percent or ninety percent. I feel like if the SEC was knocking on the door, maybe I would just sit tight for a moment, right.
Because like, arguably that's material news, and if you're still selling, it does seem risky. But you know it's not that because like maybe they're coming to chat, right, like you don't.
Know, Ye, well, maybe it's that pension for risk that got you from the SEC in the first place.
Right, The causation can go their way, right, You're you're the person who's you know, they're visiting you about your insider training. Keep insider trading. Yeah, so that is interesting, but it's not as interesting as the methodology of the paper,
which is like amazing. It's basically like, your phone has two hundred as on it, and like one hundred of them track your location, and ninety nine of all times, at all times, and ninety nine of those sell your location to a data vendor that then sells it to hedge funds. Right, that's what your phone is.
That's all right, that's why I never turn off my location. I want the hedge funds to have that data.
And the hedge funds appreciate that. Yeah, and they use it as far as I can tell, mostly to figure out what stores are getting a lot of foot traffic. Yeah, that's the main U said. This sort of thing is like, oh, there's a lot of foot traffic to this retailer, so we should buy that retailer.
Not just like Katie want to just salad today and usually she goes to Sweet Green.
You know, my understanding is that this data is pretty anonymized. They don't have like Katie's data. They have like you know, how many people went to Sweet Green. But if you get all the data, you can like kind of recreate who's Katie. Right. You can look at the phone that is at the Bloomberg headquarters a lot and at the horse Barn a lot. Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is Katy.
It never goes downtown, right.
And so what the authors here did is they got all the cell phone data and they figured out which phones belonged to SEC employees by looking at like which phones were like mostly in SEC offices. And if your phone is mostly in SC office, you're an SECM player. And then if it goes to a corporate headquarters, then the SEC was visiting that company.
Well, let's just read this. You put it in the column. But for listeners who haven't read the newsletter, a smartphone is assumed to belong to an SEC employee if it is quote paying for at least twenty unique workday hours within one SEC location during the month, and the accumulated time in the SEC building is greater than in any other buildings in the respective month. I do like to imagine though, that they're tracking janitors.
Maybe, but the point is that those genders are then also visiting.
Maybe they're freelancing. I don't know.
Okay, okay, but statistically it works out to be a useful signal.
This is true.
So there's so much to say about this methodology. One thing about it is I've talked a lot of my column about how the SEC gets mad at banks for letting their employees talk about business on their personal cell
phones and finds them hundreds of millions of dollars. This is like SEC employees' personal cell phones providing tradable signals too well to academics, right, And I think this is very funny that the personal cell phone usage of the SAC continues to be like a funny little mindfield an agency that is finding banks for using personal cell phones.
I will note that it was a pretty short time period. They were collecting data from January twenty nineteen to your A twenty twenty, so you know, a little bit over a year.
But still, Yeah, the paper came out like this year, and the data is from four or five years ago, so it's not tradable in the sense.
That you know, well, the data is.
If you had it in real time, and like these vendors, they do sell the data in kind of real time. So like my question was, can and do hedge funds trade on this signal?
Yeah?
And I asked people the email if they did, and no one said they did. My impression is that most hedge funds do not try to get the data that is like can we identify Katie? Or like can we identify SEC employees? They get like how many people were in the building? Right, Like they're getting you know, aggregated data and not like trying to individual identify people. And so this is probably not a signal that anyone actually trades on. Also, it's not like so strong a signal.
You know, it's like one point nine percent of normally turns over three months. That's like, yeah, it's.
Like, well, I was wondering why that would exist at all if people weren't trading on it. You know, it's like a chicken in the egg thing.
Why what the data?
No, Like, why you would get those abnormal returns? Like why is an informal SEC visit bad? Necessarily? What was interesting, if I understanding this correctly, is that you had that abnormal performance even if no formal investigation was announced.
You could tell stories, right like they're aggressive with their accounting, and the SEC says, knock it off, and they stop being aggressive with their accounting, and their next you know, earnings report is disappointing because they've stopped fudging them right right right, you know stuff like that, or just like they're a badly managed company, which is why the SEC is visiting them, and that bad management ends up affecting their performance. Yeah, but like I don't think people trade
on this, lagneal, but it is interesting because heedgehones. Do you use self one location data and self on location data is like controversial, right, people get mad. You know, your phone now probably asks you like will you left this app track you which you didn't like used to do as much like now it's like Apple is trying to provide apps from tracking you unless you want them to, which you do for them.
I always say yes.
And you know, people have like periodic like privacy worries about these things, And if you're a hedge fund, you're putting a lot of effort into compliance. You're putting a lot of effort into making sure that you're buying this data from vendors who sort of ultimately have user permission to track their location, and that it's anonymized in the right way so that no one is going to later accuse you of insider trading or of like violating people's
privacy or anything like that. And you know, you worry about the regulatory environment changing and like getting harder to use this sort of self in location data. And one thing that might cause that to happen is the SEC finding their personal phones being tracked to like create a tradable signal. The SEC might get annoyed by that. They might say, so we should cry down on these vendors.
Maybe don't build your whole business on the availability of this data.
Yeah, but I think that this is a big source of like alternative data for chants to actually trade on. And now, obviously don't build your business on like SEC self fund data, but nobody does. That's just going to make paper. But the academic paper that draws awkward attention to location.
Data, well, I was going to say, even if no one has emailed you to say that they're trading on it, there's an ETF for everything, Like some interesting indie little issuer might be reading this.
People do try to trade on SEC investigations, people like FOIA SEC investigations to sort of see what's being investigated and use that as a signal. And this is like a sort of much more real time, weaker but interesting signal.
It's just still Yeah.
I don't see people paying for this data.
I want to see it. How much does this state of cost? We should do like the money stuff investigation and try to trade on it. It sounds fun. It's still out there. Moving on, moving on to ETFs that don't exist but might one day. At least this one has plans private credit ETF. So we were just talking about this sort of in a thought experiment type of way. How would this work?
That's real.
The big brains that Apollo have a plan, Apollo. Yeah, I did, the big brains at Apollo. I'm screaming. The big brains at Apollo have a plan.
We're keeping all better. Yeah, they have a plan. And the plan is they're a teammate with State Street to make an ETF that is like mostly public credit and some private credit. I think, yeah, I understanding.
There's many interesting things about this. I find the partnership interesting just from like an ETF industry perspective. It's public and private credit. We had talked a bit about how there was that fifteen percent limit on a liquid securities Give me the mount Levine take, because you actually haven't written about this yet.
I haven't this is a podcast exclusive. Okay, So you mentioned the liquidity role, right, Like typical sec mutual funds, including ETFs I have to have none more than fifteen percent of their assets in I liquid securities, and private credit is probably an ill liquid security, probably in the sense that like you can't it doesn't. It's not like
a really you know, liquid trading market. I liquid means something like we take you more than seven days to sell it without affecting the market, and we just have like an initial filing. And so I don't exactly know what they're doing, but what they've done here is they've said Apollo has a trading desk to trade private credit. Just first of all, fascinating, like that's kind of a new thing. But their trading desk is going to give
firm inter day bids to the ETF. So all the private credit stuff that the ETF holds, which it presumably bought from Apollo, apollow will buy it back and they give you a bid to buy it back every day, and the ATF can sell it every day. And I think that the point of that is to satisfy the liquidity requirement, because what they say is, you know, if apollow will buy it back instantly. Then that makes it liquid and so we can fulfill the ETF rules. I
think that works. It's a little cheap, it's a little weird.
Well, I have to say, I'm really interested to see. First of all, we have to get at the launch. Talking to people, it seems like there is confidence that this will launch, but with any first of its kind sort of fund, there's always questions over whether the sec will green lighted. I am curious to see if it launches, how much of it actually is private credit, because you take a look at some of the details, at least eighty percent of the fund's assets will be in investment
grade either public or private securities. As much as twenty percent may be allocated to high yield bond. So it could just turn into it's eighty percent high grade public debt and then twenty percent high old bonds.
Yeah, there are a lot of regular stock mutual funds that are tech focused then like have one little holding of like a startup private stock. But yeah, ninety nine percent public equities. You can imagine this being that there's like a little sprinkling of private credit.
Yeah. Ron Barren's funds, I mean he has at least one mutual fund that's all public and then just SpaceX.
Two points with this one is it's easy to get retail exchange traded private credit exposure. It is called the BDC.
Right, people find that unsatisfying, though I.
Know that I don't enough. A BDC is a business development company. It's a publicly traded pot of private credit.
It feels like buying micro strategy for bitcoin exposure.
Though no, it's not feel like it. I don't think it does. That's what the BBC is a private credit fund. That's what it is. It's a exchange traded, publicly available fund that holds private credit loans. The difference between it and an ETF is that a BDC is closed. Then you can't take your money out. There's an arbitraged mechanism, and so it won't necessarily trade it net asset value, but mostly pretty close. I think. So I don't fully understand the need for an ETF. I think some of
it is like feed driven. Some of it is like just the ETF is the popular product, and so a BDC feels weird and different than the ETF, feels like an easy thing to hold in your portfolio. I suspect part of it is like market maker driven. I suspect that like the jan Straits of the world love trade and ETFs and so like they're like, hey, we could do it private credit ETF and so there's some like desire for that, whereas the BDC is more of an
orphan in like the market structure world. But still it's weird, right because like a BDC is this it's a retail private credit fund.
Yeah, I don't know. It does feel unsatisfying. Well, I mean maybe because I'm totally ETF pilled, But why.
Does it feel like? Tell me what is wrong with a BDC in your mind?
It just feels like a proxy.
It just feels not as lot a proxy. It's a pot of private credit assets. There's nothing proxy about it. It is simply a pot of private credit assets.
I know I'm not alone because if that answered the desire in the marketplace. And maybe it's a misguide.
Because the name is business development company. Yeah, sounds like a need a company that develops businesses.
It needs a rebrand, right if you just call it a exchange would you be happier if you called it an exchange traded closed end private credit fund?
Are you still just allergic to the words closed in Yeah.
I mean again, like I'm ETF pilled, so I need the I need the openness.
Okay, here's the other thing I want to say about this though. You know, we talked about Bill Ackman's closed then fund he should do an ETF, and I was like, well, you know, he wants long term capital so that he can make long term investments. I've written a lot about private credit in the last few months, and one thing I always say about private credit is that it is a better funding structure for making loans than banking, is right,
Banks have short term funding, Banks take deposits. It's possible to have a run on bank deposits, and so if banks are making like liquid long term loans and funding them with short term deposits, that's a risky business to be in private credit. Meanwhile, Like raises money from insurance companies and it's a fairly safe funding source for their long term loans. If Apollo is offering to buy back it's private credit assets every day, like that turns it
into runnable funding. If they have an ETF that they promise to buy back the assets every day, like if something goes wrong, investors can take all their money out and follow off the buio back and then have to raise new funding. So it is a much riskier funding source for private credit than like the traditional you know, insurance company, wealthy individual, whatever, like long term locked up money. So in that sense, it's very different from a BDC.
R BDC's are permanent capital. ETFs are kind of runnable capital.
I just got a buzz. Maybe we don't want to include this, but I just got a buzz because there was just another filing for private credit ETF. Oh there you get at like two thirty pm on Thursday for the bond blocks Private Credit Clo ETF. Reading from the prospectus, the fund is a newly organized, actively managed exchange traded fund that will invest, under normal circumstances, at least eighty
percent of its net assets in private credit. Colos may invest up to twenty percent of its net assets in broadly syndicated bank loans, broadly syndicated bank loans clos, high yield bonds, investment grade bonds, and cash. So the demand at least from issuers is out there. Even know BDCs, to your very real point, they exist. They exist also it feels like there was a response. There's clearly a
response from this issue or bond blocks. It feels like there was a response from Blackrock to this because people have been waiting for this. I mean, we've talked about it on the podcast before, like who's going to figure out how to put private assets in a publicly traded ETF. We know that black we know that Blackrock has ambitions there, and on Thursday they didn't announce that they were doing that,
but they did announce this partnership with partners Group. They're teaming up to offer retail investors a variety of private markets through a single portfolio. They want to create like this one stop portfolio to private equity, private credit, real assets. It's not an ETF though, no, because it's not true retail.
It's like a model portfolio for like qualified investors. Yeah, you need to have like, no, for two million dollars in assets.
Yeah.
And it's just like if you are a customer of a wealth manager, like they'll happily put you into like a private credit fund or whatever, and now black Rock will help them put you into a portfolio of private credit funds in one place. But it's not an ETF. It's not like it's not like a true retail thing you can buy.
Yeah, you can't click a button and then buy it. It is interesting though, just it feels like, especially in the ETF market, there's an arms race for any white space, and here's the white space. I do think it's interesting that Apollo partnered with State Street. It does suggest that like Apollo isn't all in on the ETF industry, that they didn't want to you know, high.
They don't care, I know, I know, but they want like funding for their giant portfolio of private credit. Right if State Street comes to them is like, we'll give you retail funding, they'll take it, right. They're not like, ooh, the one basis point fees on ets we want that juicy.
It is interesting that they went with State Street though, I mean, State Street obviously is home to the oldest and biggest ETF, but they've kind of been slipping in the ranks. Who does States But Goldman Sachs, for example, has this accelerator platform which is like a white label, but not quite a white label that some big names have come through. I'm kind of surprised that Apollo went with State Street versus going through a white label such
as Goldman's. But that's just a little bit of industry chatter. Does not it does not matter to end investors at all. Let me just check my phone. I'm sorry, everything's so stupid all the time. I'm excited to talk about Spotify.
That's a.
I've never thought about the economics of Spotify before we get to Michael Smith, which we might. We might get to him. He sounds like a fake person. Maybe he's a robot.
Oh could be yeah, Michael calm Knuckles Smith anyway, Spotify, Yeah, I mean the way it works is like you pay like twelve.
Bucks a month every month I do.
It doesn't matter how much you listen to it. You pay twelve bucks a month.
Yeah. I have never thought about that, and it would really suck if they did a sliding scale based on use because I listened to so much.
Yeah, I mean, the whole point of it is like you don't, right, Like, the whole point of it is like, you know, it used to be paid for albums and now you pay for unlimited streaming and you pay twelve bucks a month, but Spotify still pays the artists based on how much they stream, sort of like takes all the money that it gets, yeah, and it signs seventy five percent to the rights holders, artists and record labels, and then it divides up that pot of money based
on relatively how much you stream. It's not like Spotify is like we pay one cent to stream, and like if they're more streams and they expected, they pay more money thany expected. They pay a fixed amount of money, but they divide it up based on how much your songs get streamed. And so what that means is that if you are a customer and you pay twelve bucks a month and you stream music twenty four to seven from month, you will allocate more money than the twelve
bucks you put in. Spotify will send more than twelve dollars to the people you are listening to. Meanwhile, if I sign up for Spotify and I listened to one song a month, Spotify will send like one penny to the artist of the song that I listened to. And once you know that, like the answer is obvious, which is like you sign up for Spotify, you know you have a computer on mute playing twenty four to seven the songs that you want to send money to, and then like you get the money.
Yeah, And that's what I do money, That's what I do with money stuff. Absolutely, I have my laptop at home just listening on.
Loose and I make three tenths of a penny.
I make nothing. I'm doing this for fun. I'm just doing it for the good of the company.
He gets all of it. There's not that much money in this unless you have a thousand computers saying it. And so there's this guy, Michael Smith who had a thousand computers which I mean actually like virtual computers on like a cloud service. Right, He had like a thousand cloud computers streaming songs twenty four to seven to send him the money. And because Spotify pays attention to this stuff, he couldn't just like stream one song over and over again.
He had to set up a bunch of fake bands and have the fake bands record a bunch of fake songs. And even the fake songs, he can't just be like him tapping on a table, you know, has to like sound song like. And so he had like hired an AI company to write like AI music and it is so disappointing. The prosecutors list a couple of dozen band names and a couple of dozen.
A lot of them titles, I mean, many of them are kind of cool sounding.
They're so good. This is like an alphabetical list, like there's like a randomly selected bit of the alphabet. So the song titles are mostly words starting with zy that don't make any sense. But they include zygotes, zygotic, zygotic, wash stands, zime, doing zimes, zimite, zimo, fight, zimo, jens. And the artist names include Calliope, Bloom, Callous, Humane, calm Knuckles, good, calm Market, calvinistic dust. Yeah. Anyway, it's like a lot
of great, randomly chosen names for fakes. But my point is that all of this stuff presumably lived on like Spotify. I say, we say Spotify, it's like all the streaming services he apparently took for money, so Spotify, Apple, and he's like YouTube. All these songs apparently lived on these services, and they all seem to have been taken down because I've been searching for them, I can't find any because like if we could play.
Them, I know, like asking from the perspective of the listener, like we should be playing this music.
These songs good, were they best? Were they mediocre? They were generated? By AI, so they weren't like just nothing, they were an AI trained in music. There he composed the song.
So how much money did he make? That's insane? So it was about this, like when people just get too greedy, Like what if he had pretended to be a real artist and like made his own music, and like maybe I don't know, he had a hundred songs under his name, but he had all these robots listening to it, and maybe he only made a million dollars. Would that have been less detectable?
I think it would have been more detectable, because like the reason he had all these songs was that no one was streaming these songs millions of times. Each of these songs was strained a small number of times, and like in the aggregate, all of his songs were streamed a lot, and he made a lot of money. But if he had just one song and it was streamed ten million times, someone might say, but what if.
He had a hundred songs? You know?
Like what he decided that the best way to avoid detection and to avoid getting caught by Spotify's cheating checking algorithms was to have a lot of songs so that it's spreading out among a bunch of different songs.
I respect his hustle. Should I say that I respect okay, good, I respect its hustle too. All say I wish that he had actually made music.
He had a robot makings and I probably I know he made music, and then he decided that it was more.
Like I would have appreciated the vulnerability if he put his music online and then he.
Needed thouands of songs. Yeah, he was busy running a scam.
That's true. It does sound. It does sound draining.
People email me a lot to be like, your math is wrong. And in fact, when like Spotify gives this money to the rights holder, like most of that goes to the record labels, it doesn't really go to the artists, and the artists are getting stewed. Fine point taken. I'm writing about this guy scam like in fact, the streaming services are worse for musicians than I implied when I
read about the arbitrage. But secondly, like twenty people emailed me about Wolfpeck, which is a funk band that you might know as one of my like notes for what I wanted the money instead.
Of theme song to sound like oh right now, I.
Was like describing the vibe I wanted and a brilliant art director Jackie was like, oh, you should listen to this Voltpec song.
I was like, yes, now we're going to see stream skyrocket.
For full Yeah. Yeah. In twenty fourteen, they put out an album that was like twelve thirty second tracks of silence.
And they were like that, so what you wanted our music to sound like? No?
No, Otherwise they put out music that is louder. They asked their fans to stream it on Loop as they slept. Yeah, because the fans weren't paying for that, right, they didn't didn't affect them right as quiet, and they weren't paying because they paid a flat feet of Spotify. Spotify counts to stream if it's like more than thirty seconds, So you stream like twelve thirty one second songs on loop all night, then that's like, you.
Know, that's great.
Eighty stream right now, eight hundred streams.
I'm certainly not going to fact check you.
Yeah, it's like thousands streams for them, right, So that's like thousands streams that like a fraction of a penny per stream is like ten bucks or something. Not bad if all of their fans do that. They were like, we're going to put on a free concert funded by.
The that's hysterical.
They ended up raising about twenty thousand dollars and the album was removed for violting Spotify's terms of service. Oh, come on, nobody thought it was a crime. Somebody emailed me to say that they handed out twenty dollars bills at this free concert to thank their fans for doing it. I don't know that's true.
That's so fun.
Anyways, really cool. The other thing that people pointed me too is that in twenty sixteen, Nelly owed two point four million dollars in back taxes, and so there is a hashtag campaign Saved Nelly to get people to stream hot in Here some number of times that was estimated between like two hundred and eighty and four hundred million in order to raise the money.
It's insane. I don't know if it were it worked to put I'm sure Nelly's fine.
He's fine.
Yeah, he's fine. I will say I listened to podcasts when I sleep, which got me thinking about the sliding scale, Like most of my Spotify usage comes at night when I'm asleep.
Oh, I mean, people were like, is this a crime should be a crime.
I know it's in the code.
It's in the code, right. I mean, like there's a lot of stuff like this, where like there's a company that has some terms of service and people violate the terms of service and then people are, yeah, shouldn't they just sue them?
Right?
And I think here it's a little different because this doesn't actually cost Spotify any money. Spotify doesn't care. Yeah, Spotify is like, we get all this money and we set aside three quarters of it the people who own the songs, and we just don't care what happens. Yeah, whoever wants that, you know, we don't care. We have like some reasonably fair formula as a matter of like pr and as a matter of like you know, getting the record labels to sign up to put their music
on Spotify, but like, they don't care. It's not their money.
So it doesn't get worse for artists. Is Spotify g's more popular, that's.
What compared to I don't know. I guess it gets good for artists because Spotify has more money and it sets aside a fixed fraction of that money for artists. It's bad for artists if the alternative Spotify was like buying CDs. Oh yeah, But what's really bad for artists is like if there's a lot of guys like this, that is people's reaction to the story is like, yeah, okay, here's this one guy with a bunch of bots and a very sort of sophisticated way to do this arbitrage
who made ten million dollars? But like, are there hundreds of those guys? Is a lot of the money on Spotify going to people who are somewhere faking their streams, and obviously Spotify like puts a lot of effort into stopping that, and they did keep stopping this guy, and you had to go to some lengths to get back on. But you know, people are suspecious and they did extract ten million dollars from Spotify.
That's so funny. That's so much money. Sounds like a good, good gig. Oh. One thing I wanted to add he paired up with that AI company in like twenty eighteen or twenty nineteen, Right, they were early.
That's true. Yeah, yeah, I don't know what AI means, right, Like you can get pretty sophisticated with chenerative AI models now that will like make a song in the style of blah blah blah, but like like if you.
Randomly, I do wonder like when it's together, you might have enough.
To full Spotify in twenty eighteen.
Yeah, that's true. I do wonder though, when AI artists are going to become big on Spotify, because I'm TikTok a lot and there's all these silly AI songs of Drake singing like Alana del Rey cover and some of them we're good, some of them sound like real music, So that'll be an interesting ethical question for Spotify. And like a couple of years, probably I wish I had a snapperod turn. That's fine, that's fine.
And that was the Money Stuff Podcast.
I'm Matt Levy 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 Open Interest between nine to eleven am Eastern.
We'd love to hear from you. You can send an email to you money pot 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 on Them.
Our theme music was composed by Blake.
Maples, Brandon, Francis nunim As our executive producer.
And Stage Bauman is Bloomberg's Head of podcasts.
For listening to The Money Stuff Podcast. We'll be back next week with more stuff