Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News. I'm so tired. My body battery is twenty one out of one hundred.
Is this the thing that I should know what it is?
Well, if you have a garment, you would know what yours is, So that.
Was a yes, I should know what it is. But I don't.
I don't know what's going to happen when I hit zero during this podcast, maybe all time.
Hello and welcome to The Money Stuff Podcast. You're a weekly podcast where we talk about stuff related to money. I'm Matt Levine and I write The Money Stuff com for Bloomberg Opinion.
And I'm Katie Greifeld, a reporter for Bloomberg News and an anchor for Bloomberg Television. Short week this week, can't we short week? Short? Tough week? It's not as bad when we're all on Fridays. I love those for Davies. When you're off on a Monday, it just feels like the rest of the week you're just sliding rapidly down a mountain.
And here we have reached the bottom of the nets.
We're about to crash.
Yeah, it was what have we scraped.
Up for Jack Bogel's nightmares?
Because we have like a synergy where you read about a thing and then I wrote about the thing you wrote about.
Yeah. Yeah, I guess the challenge for us is finding things to say beyond that. But we're going to tackle that in a minute. We're also going to talk about taxicabs and New York's all important industry, and then we're going to talk about truth, social.
Social Left for GTF. Jack Bogel's Nightmare.
Yeah so you know Jack Bogel.
Yeah, we're buddies.
Yeah.
I actually did meet him once.
Yeah, I wish I had met him. I mean I worked closely with Eric Belgunis from Bloomberg Intelligence, who literally wrote the book about Bogel and Vanguard, and he sounds like he was a real who to interview and talk to up until the end. But he founded Vanguard. He's the father of the index fund. He hated ETFs, which is really funny since they're sort of the offspring of index funds. He said that ETFs they only incentivize trading among This is a quote fruitcakes, nutcases, and the lunatic fringe.
And it's funny that in twenty twenty four, some ETFs are being designed to do exactly that just incentivized trading them on that cohort of traders.
He's kind of wrong that, like an SB five hundred, ETF is a perfectly good buy and hold product that's actually slightly better than an index fund because it has tax advantages if you are going to buy and hold it. But it is also the case that you can put lots of things into an ETF wrapper, and some of those things are high octane gambling products.
I feel like I've ETF pilled you over the course of this podcast, which is great. It's nice to hear like a full throated defense.
You know. I was for a long time an investor in Vanguard index mutual funds.
And I would imagine then I was like.
I know enough about the tax advantages of ETFs that I'm going to start being an investor in index ETFs.
I get it, But I don't like day trade them, you know. And I mean Jack Bogel he was a principaled guy, so he did. He didn't like literally the exchange traded portion, like why why do you need that? He also famously didn't want any commodity funds or anything like that. He was just stock spawns playing fanilla that
was his whole thing. And now you look at this ETF market that we exist in, and the subject of my story specifically was these leverage single stock ETFs, leveraged and in verse one point two five all the way up to three if you include Europe as well. Europe has higher leverage than we do. And uh, I've been calling them one day only funds because you're not supposed to hold them for more than a single day, in some cases not more than a couple hours.
Right, there's a lot there. One thing is that this is not a fund, right, You're getting a levered three times return on an n video or whatever. Like. It's not in any meaningful sense an excentradmoron. It's a retail leverage product. Right, It's a way, Yeah, you get three times the returns of a stock without borrowing money from your broker.
Yeah, And if you talk to the CEOs of these firms, that's exactly what they say. I've interviewed Will Rind of Granite Shares for this article, and that's exactly that they're offering institutional grade leverage without the expenses of opening a traditional margin account.
Right. I mean, they probably do get better leverage terms than every tilvester, but it does come at the cost, as as you and I both read about of like they rebalance every day. Yes, so if you borrow money to buy a stock, you decide when you want to close out that position. I mean, unless you get a margin call, but like you know, you decide want to
close that position. And if you take out a fifty percent margin Lon and died, you know, twice as much stock you have, like two times leverage, you'll get two times the return of the stock for whatever period you hold it for. With the leveraged ETFs, it doesn't work that way. They rebalance every day, so you get two times the daily returns or three times the daily returns each day. And as you and I both read about, that has like sort of arithmetically paradoxical results, where like
you read about there's a micro strategy. Micro strategies is like insanely volatile sort of bitcoin proxy stock, and there's a micro strategy three times ETF micro strategy is ut like one hundred and ten percent this year, and that ETF is down eighty percent, right, yeah, because three times one hundred and ten is negative eighty which is not normally how things.
Work and it's so interesting and you know, the math is so much better than me. So that's that's the micro strategy dynamic, and you're seeing that play out with Nvidia and a lot of these single stock funds are based on Invidia. That is the most popular stock to launch a single stock fund on. Understandably, it's not as bad. You're doing negative right, exactly.
Lower than three times, but it's it's not nicive.
Yeah, you're doing pretty okay up to this point. We'll see, you know what the next few weeks hold for in video, but you're doing pretty okay if you're in a leverage long and video product.
Yeah. It's like the math has to do with basically, like the comparison between the sort of returns of the stock and the volatility of the stock. So Microshata is incredibly volatile and is up a lot, but like in Vidia is less volatile and is up more, so that effect sort of swamps the volatility effect. But basically, like the intuition is, you know, if a stock goes up ten percent and then down ten percent, you're subtracting the
losses from a bigger number. So when it goes up to ten percent, you have a bigger number, and then down ten percent is like ten percent of a bigger number than you started with, and vice versa. If it goes down ten percent and up ten percent, you're getting like ten percent return on a smaller number. When you multiply things, that effect gets amplified, and so you're making
the downswings worse. Yeah, and therefore you can turn the long term returns negative even if the unmultiplied returns are positive.
So not to toot my own horn, sure, but this article was much more widely shared than I anticipated it to be, partly because you wrote about it in Money Stuff, and it feels like the probability of getting your face ripped off is what a lot of people focused on. But the surprising thing that I found while looking at this was actually that these funds are being broadly used
as intended, which is interesting. There's a really rough Napkin math way to take a look at the average daily holding period, and again this is very rough, but basically, if you divide the average trading volume by the average market cap of one of these funds, you should get a pretty rough answer there. So if you take a look at the largest single stock ETFs, it's also from granted shares, it's two times long. On Nvidia, it's almost
five billion dollars. It takes under three days for the entirety of its shares to flip over, which is not bad, you know.
Yeah, they do a good job of warning people. Yeah, and probably if you're finding this sort of thing, you know what you doing. But that average probably can seal some number of people buy it and forget it and then end up down eighty percent or whatever.
Yeah, it's inevitable that someone's having a really painful time and maybe doesn't even know.
Most likely doesn't even right. Yeah, three times Yeah, I think that, like they are probably mostly being used for speculative day treading by people who know what they're doing. Yeah, but that's Jack Buckle's nightmare, right exactly. And also, I mean, in addition to my sharing your piece, I don't know if you saw you were, Cliff Asma has put out this this paper this week. Oh my god, market inefficiency.
Old man Wining is he is what he called himself.
He said something like, I'm gonna sound like a grumpy old man because he's like sort of known as a as a like quantitative value investor and essentially the point of the paper is like, it's hard to be a quant value investor these days because like value keeps underperforming, which he argues is because the markets are inefficient. And one reason markets are inefficient is because people are crazy, like retail investors are like crazily chasing like speculative eyes.
And he does cite one day on the ETFs with a little parenthetical Grayfield twenty twenty four. I loved that footnote saying what fresh hell is this?
So he tweeted that on Friday, and like three pm on a Friday, I am fried. You know, there's nothing left. My body battery is negative. I saw that he tweeted that, and I was so scared because all he said was what fresh hell is this? With no follow up? And I was like, is he gonna rip me? Like what's going on? But I'm glad that he said it.
He's mad not at you, yeah, but at the thing you read about.
Hate the game, not the player. One quick fun fact on the average holding period, so less than three days is really short. Eric Belchunis was telling me that remember those vics ETFs that blew up in Valmageddon. Sure, at one point one of the biggest ones had an average holding period of literally less than one day. The average holding period was less than one day, which is amaz So people were holding it for like.
During the blow up or like weeks before the.
Book going into it when they still existed. Yeah, now there arefs.
Again, that does suggest professional usage, right, yeah, or they're crazy day dreading.
I don't know.
The one other thing I would have mentioned is yes, that the day after I read about this, the trader launched a set of products that are like week long yeah, month law liberty.
That was such funny timing. Yes, And funny timing is kind of what we're talking about with the dfs, so I so they're trying to solve this problem of volatility, drag or decay. I know you don't like those terms, but that's what they're trying to do with these. I actually spoke to the guy behind it. His name is Matt Markuwick's and he said that, I know, we were just talking about how less than three days is pretty good.
He was saying, and they have single stock daily ETFs that it's clear people are holding these for more than one day, which is not using them as intended. So he's not happy with that stat So the idea behind this with a weekly reset is that you don't have to babysit the funds in your position as closely as you would have to with a daily reset. But even still it does introduce risk, like you have to show it at I know, but you have to time when you buy it to get the full effect.
Right. The reason the one day funds work the way they do, even though people get mad about it, is because they're giving you exactly the same experience every day. They're like, you're getting the one three times daily return no matter what day you buy it. With a weekly fund, if you buy it on a Tuesday, you're getting slightly different eybe more or less, you're getting a slightly different
than the advertised return. But if you then hold it for four days, you get something closer to what you expected, Whereas if you hold the single day ETF the daily rebouance ETF for four days, you get something very different than three times the four day return. Yeah, if people hold things more than a day, it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong or not using it as intended. It's just they are making a series of bets that are like,
this is going to go up each of these days. Right, if it goes up all of the days, then holding the daily rebalancing atf is better than holding that's true, the weekly. It's just like it has to go up every day. Yeah, maybe it will.
I feel like that's a in some cases generous interpretation of holding the daily one for more than one day, that you are choosing clearly, in.
Some cases, gener clearly. In some cases people just buy it for a year and forget about it. Probably someone is like, at the end of day, yeah, this is getting up again tomorrow. I don't know.
Taxi caves and the American Transit Insurance Company, Boy, are they in trouble.
Yeah. So this is a Bloomberg News article about the American Transit Insurance Company, which like apparently insures.
Most sixty percent uber.
Drivers, taxi drivers. If you get if you've like get in a car in New York, it's probably insured by them.
Yeah.
And there's a reason for that, which is that they offered cheap.
Rates, super cheap.
And there's a reason for that, which is that they were under reserving for their risk and now they are apparently insolvent.
So this is amazing because if Bloomberg News has done a great job covering this, and I was reading one of the pieces out today that Okay, so this company was founded in nineteen seventy two, and in nineteen eighty six, state regulators were already describing the company as insolvent by six million dollars. That is according to a state examination report that was obtained by Bloomberg. So they've been insolvent
for decades. It was six million dollars in nineteen eighty six, and I believe in the second quarter it posted more than seven hundred million dollars in net losses. That's according to a filing with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. It's amazing how long this has been.
Going on, right, I mean for years people have been saying they're charging too little, yeah, and they're underreserving. And you know, it's a great illustration of like a lot of financial services, it's very easy to win market share by being wrong. Yeah. So the classic is like consumer like lending. FinTechs will be like, we have this new algorithm to like evaluate people's credit. It's better than regular credit scores, and we're going to do such a great
job and make so many loans. And if they make so many loans. That just means they're like mispricing on the risk and their algorithm is wrong, and then they you know, and like the way it works is that if you do that, then you get a lot of business and book a lot of profits early on, and then later you go insolve it window. It's like don't get paid back. It is weirder here just because this is a decades long process process where like they keep apparently under charging.
Yeah, this is pretty bad. This is according to Bloomberg News, reporting again that New York's insurance regulator issued a report on Thursday that shows that state regulators under both Governor Kathy Hochel and Andrew Cuomo have been aware for at least half a decade about just how bad things were. So this has just been festering in plain sight.
For a while, right, But it's like the fix is rates.
Yeah, and you know, it's hard.
To politically unpopular to be like we're going to double the price of insurance for ubers, which means we're going to push out the price of and ubers And I don't know, yeah, we sort of hope that like this this is the thing, like this model of like under charging for insurance through in market share and then like getting out of town when the when the when the
claims come to goodbye. It's like so obvious, right, there's lots and lots of insurance companies in history that have kind of done this, and the point of insurance regulation
is just to prevent that. Right. But in a important salient industry like New York City taxi cabs, it can be hard for the regulators to say, we have to double rates because the insurances be underpriced, and so you get this weird dynamic where where it's like the short term benefit of everyone and to under charge and then it's like, you know, you kick the can down the road and yeah, there's not enough money to pay claims. Yeah.
According to Bloomberg Reporting, drivers insured by the American Transit Insurance Company typically pay annual premiums of four thousand dollars to six thousand dollars, depending on experience, accident claims, different calculations. So I mean jacking that up to eight thousand dollars a lot, I mean I assume a lot of drivers just wouldn't be able to do that.
I just think about that's a lot higher than my current insurance yeah, but I'm not driving yeah the day.
So what happens now? According to Bloomberg Reporting, I wonder how many times I'm going to say that the New York regulator has ordered this company to weigh a sale. I don't know what happens here. It seems that a lot of people are saying a lot of analysts are saying that if they can't keep insuring drivers, it's going to be massively painful for people moving around New York drivers included.
But because like some drivers will be forced out of the market because they won't be able to get insurance. Yeah, and then like prices of ubers will go up, Yeah, because they've been underpressed for years, that'll go offer.
It's horrible, and maybe it's gonna happen. You did compare this to that working paper that you reference in money stuff about when insurres exit. It was a case study looking at Florida red.
It's so good because it's like half of it is. This is just this classic insurance story, which which is, you know a lot of houses in Florida are risky, right, They're like near the beach and there's hur Again.
I'm well acquainted with Florida real estate. Sure, yeah, I leave that one hanging out there.
And so you know a lot of insurance companies don't want to ensure them or would charge very high rates. And so there's this like class of wish insurance companies in Florida that will ensure you know, houses in risky.
Areas, vibrant startup ecosystem.
And they'll do it at like reasonable seeming rates which are probably underpriced. And this paper argues that these insurers are under capitalized and risky insurance have to be raided by ratings agencies. These insurers tend to be rated by like new startup ratings agencies.
Another rant ecosystems.
It's like slightly different criteria from the regular more traditional ratings agencies. And so you have these insurers that are like, according to the others of this paper, under capitalized, that get good enough ratings to be like sort of in good standing with regulators. But so that's like kind of normal. And then like you know, some of these insurers go bankrupt. When then when a lot of clampshead and it's like wow, you know, they're not really providing insurance. The fascinating thing
is like it's homeowners insurance right. So like New York City taxis it's like this politically scient industry. It would like be bad for the government if you couldn't ensure your home, and so the regulators have an incentive to be okay with these companies. But there's another party, which is, you know, these homes tend to have mortgages, and the mortgage lender doesn't want them to be uninsured or you know,
have insolvent insurers. And what the authors find is that when these insurers ensure the homes, the mortgage lenders are more likely to sell their mortgages to Fanny May and Freddie Mack, the government backed mortgage you know kind of
guarantee firms. And the way it works is just like there's a market signal that these insurance companies aren't that good, and the market signals the banks don't want to hold mortgages that are insured by them or where the houses are insured by them, But the banks will sell the mortgages to Fanny and Freddy, which like are kind of like unthinking, like they don't like send a market signal, they just like look at the rating and like there's a rating from like this arguably you know, bad rating.
Agency and they say you meet the ratings criteria, said, we'll buy the mortgages, and so all of the like mortgages and like the risky areas migrate to Fanny and Freddy because the market doesn't.
Want to hold them, similar to houses in Florida. Seems like a really shakily built system. There.
There you go.
It is interesting. I mean, coming back to the timelines here, reading and listening to your summary of this paper, which I haven't read, it seems like these insurers are cropping up in Florida, whereas again this is in New York with the taxi industry. Is just I am just speechless that it's been going on for longer than I've been alive.
Yeah, some of this is like increased the claims in verdicts, right, Like yeah, some of it is like all of insurance is like estimating risks, right, and like maybe they were doing an okay job of estimating risks and then the risks changed, but maybe not.
Well, it'll be fun to follow.
We'll definitely talk about it next week.
Yeah, the whole system collapses and I.
Can't get here because I can't get.
A newer then we really have to cancel the podcast Truth Social DJT, DJT.
Trump Media and Technology Group, Right for sure, Social, let me be formal, Trump and Media and Technology Group is the is the name of the company, and DJT is the ticker, which is what everyone calls it.
So true, So this stock is flat at least on Thursday on a year to day basis, a one year basis, it's down closed to seventy percent since it's market cat beaked in early May. It's now worth three point four billion dollars. It was almost ten billion dollars. It has to be one of the few three billion dollar companies that doesn't have a single analyst that covers it. And
I know why because what are the fundamentals here? But I'm still really hoping when I typed an A and R on my Bloomberg terminal that something would possible.
Imagine being an alyss covering this company. Like it's bad enough for me writing about it, but like like what can you say?
Yeah?
Sell and then like Donald Trump will be mad at you, yeah, And what's the benefit of that? Like everyone knows that, Like there's no fundamentals to this company.
So you remember when meme stocks were just dawning. I guess so came up and AMC. There were real analysts who covered those companies, but like.
Those are like you kind of say stuff about that business exactly. You can be like, okay, this this is you know, a thousand percent, but.
A lot of them did end up dropping coverage and.
Because like like what value do you add?
Yeah, I remember inviting a couple of them on TV and they were like, I Am not going to talk about this on time.
And it's because like, one, what value do you add? Because like the dynamics are not things that you can inform with your fundamental analysis. But then also people being mad at oh yeah right, yeah. It's the same with DJT, right, like oh, you could be like, you know, this company is like one million dollars of revenue and it's a three point five billion dollar market cap sell right, Like okay, one, everyone knows that, and then two people get mad at you, like what's you why?
Yeah? Yeah. So it's interesting. It's enormous fall from grace. Of course it's approaching the end of the lock up period, but also the fundamentals that it did have have been eroded, undermined by the fact that Donald Trump is back on X Now I don't know what are you not a truth social guy? This is shocking.
Truth social. I agree with you that, like if your if your case, if your business case for Trump media was like truth social is like the place for tens of millions of Donald Trump fans to like get their social media, then like the fact that Donald Trump is back on X and that X is like clearly the right wing social network. Now, yeah, undermines that business case.
I do have some stats for you. Okay, So Bloomberg's Bailey Lipshoals has done such a fantastic job covering pretty much everything but including a dj team. So I was asking him how many people are actually on truth Social and it's really difficult to tell, and DJT truth Social will refute these figures. But this is according to aptopia. It's been around three hundred and fifty thousand, not above
one million, over the past year. For context, I think Twitter has a few hundred million, and then you compare it to Reddit.
I wouldn't compare that number to the Mummy Stuff subscriber base, but I won't because those figures maybe.
Flex Flex what's your market cap?
Yeah, it's three five billion.
That's huge. Wait wait, wait, one more point Reddit ninety one million users in the second quarter. Reddit's market cap is only three times that of DJT. Reddit is like nine point seven billion.
It's the way. Maybe the case with the stock was Donald Trump is going to.
Start that I could see that as social media.
I think that's that's over now, right, I mean, no one, no one really thinks that now. The case for the stock, if I had a case for the stock, it would be like it would be a corruption based case, right. It would be like Donald Trump lucom president again is most obviously large and monetizable asset will be his like sixty percent holdings of DJT, and people who want his attention and favor will do things to increase the value
of that stock. I don't know exactly what that is, right, Maybe like the Saudi government will buy ten percent of the stock at a premium. Right, Maybe someone ever knows offered to take over the company. Maybe Elon musklell strike a business deal where like you know, there's a lot of ways you could imagine the stock going up because people want to influence and or send money to Donald Trump.
That case, I think has been a little undermined by the fact that Trump and his sons have been promoting a crypto project, right yeah, because it's like like DJT is essentially a token of like let's give money to Donald Trump. And they're like, wait, we can create those tokens, like freely, we can create as many tokens as I.
Confess something to you. I have been blissfully not following that story at all so.
Closely, but there is there's like and there's not much of a story. It's like, yeah, they have teased like we're starting this like DeFi Crypto World Liberty project, and then the other day they.
Were act like it was Eric Trump, right, it's.
Like the Trump sons. But then like some other Trump family members were hacked and like we're posting promotions for for their crypto project that were actually just like scam sites that would take your money. So it's just like
too perfect. But anyway, the point is like the DJT thing is such an amazing proof of concept because you have this like minimal business and you attach a three billion dollar memestock to it, and like you to do that again with like without the minimal business, right, you do like some DeFi project and you're like, oh, give us money for a DeFi project, and like it gets a billion dollar market cap. Yeah, there yet, but it's like the more they do that, the less any individual
project is worth. Right, So I think that undermines DJ two too. But then the real problem with DJT, yeah, go on is that Donald Trump bounds like sixty.
Percent of it, for sure, he does.
Shares are locked up, and the lockup ends like.
This month, yeah, I September.
Yeah, And so like it's fascinating to me because what he sold it all? Yeah?
And can he sure?
I mean in what sense?
I don't know. There was some in reading the various articles that Elliptionals has written about this, it seems like there are some complications about whether he'd be able to sell it.
At one fells, you can't if you're an insider of a company, you have limit, like legal limits on how
much you can sell without registering yourselves. But like he could conceivably to a registration statement, and the company would do a registration statement saying we're selling He's selling two billion dollars of stuck, and then like they could try to find buyers for it, and they might write like they might not as like a not necessarily as that on the fundamentals of the company, but as a like I would like to give Bendon Donalds from Yeah, you see this a lot in crypto, where it's like you
can do a thing and it can have like nominal multi billion dollar market capitalization, but then when you try to cash in, the evaluation proof stamp to zero, right, like because like the valuation is like trading of a like a sort of small like portion of the of the market cap, like you own most of it, and like your involvement is crucial, and once you sell, everyone will say, oh, this thing is going to zero, and so like the market cap just poofs and you're not
able to actually extract the billions of dollars of paper value that's like easily imaginable here, right, And like it's probably part of why the stock is going down. And it's like Trump wants to monetize it. Like that's a bad sign for the future of the stock, and so
like why would you hold going into that? But I'm not sure what happened here, Yeah, and other possibilities people be like, oh, yeah, we love Donald Trump, we love what he's done with the truth social and we're going to pay to buy stock from him, right, Maybe not you know, it's like seventeen dollars. Now, maybe not seventeen dollars, but enough that you could extract hundreds of millions of dollars from this company that has a million dollars of revenue.
Yeah, so we'll see because that period, that lock up period is expiring very soon.
I assume he's not actually going to dump stock and like, you know, now mighty borrow against the stock. Like I love that outcome because like I love the idea of being the margin lender at a bank and having him come in and say, I have two billion dollars of DJT collateral. How much will you lend me against the non recourse what's the right answer?
Then you literally start rubbing your hands as you say, I love this outcome.
To me if you were like Donald Trump wants to borrow against two billion dollars of DJT stock non recourse, Yeah, like how much would you give him? Some twenty million dollars? But like someone will go higher?
Someone someone will So there's a lot to keep an eyeball on here. You do present two robust, compelling reasons to explain why the stock is absolutely pancaked over the last two months.
It hasn't even like pancaked is the wrong word. It's a three point five billion dollar market.
It's seventy.
It's a stack, so it's like, you know, like people put in ten dollars a share, like way back when when those back launch, and it's at seventeen. So it's like it's a pretty successful spack.
It was more successful, though it is less successful than it was. There's also the argument to be made that Donald Trump's clear lead in the polls has eroded since Kamala Harris entered the race. Absolutely, and this was like a proxy.
Partly because it was just literally a proxy here, it's just literally a token of attention, and then partly because if you had a business case for the stock, it was it evolved around him being president and somehow value according to the company because he's president, and if he's not president, if he's not president, maybe has more time to focus on his social media company and it will become a powerhouse.
But yeah, it didn't make me think briefly, and this is something we've talked about before election contracts and the fact that they're illegal. Question Mark can't really do.
That right, Like if you want to bet on like the fluctuating chances of Donald Trump being elected, Like trading DJT stock is not the worst way to do it because it does seem pretty correlated to his like polls. Yeah, it's probably easier to get money down than it isn't like the action contrast markets.
Yeah, so if you want to scratch that itch, this is the way that people have been doing.
It, go on because it doesn't like resolve to one hundred dollars if he's elected on zero dollars if he's not right, it's like it's not it doesn't really have anything to do with but it does.
Because like a million percent, right, there's some.
Like business case for if he's president, it's worth a lot of money, and if he's not president, it's not worth a lot of money. But I think probably the moves in the price are exaggerating that business case, and it's really mostly like people want some proxy for that, and it feels like a good proxy.
I still wish some analysts covered it. I want to interview the loan analysts.
It would be fun, right, because this is the thing, like there should be analysts who cover meme stocks and this stock and crypto, and they should just have a different method of it out because like, obviously you're not going to be like, oh, he looked at orders and they're coming in a little light, right, you need a different method of analyzing this company. But like, if you're good at making calls about what the stock would do, that'd be like a value.
Out of ten read in the room reading sentiment, I will say zerolysts track the stock as tracked by Bloomberg. So maybe there's someone out there in the world but they're not on the Bloomberg terminal system. Someone some of the I want to hear from you.
How's your battery?
Oh god, it's nineteen This has drained me.
The electricity of the last.
Fading before your eyes and yours. I'm going on vacation though, really yeah, on vacation. It wasn't enough. I'm going to retact it the week after next. Maybe not ma, maybe I'll wait a few months there. But anyway, the week after next I'm going on vacation, so there won't be used a podcast.
In lieu of a scintillating conversation about the monetary news of the week. We're going to can and mail bag.
Yes, absolutely so send us your best questions. We appreciate everyone who's sent questions so far, and we have those in the can, but we want to fill thirty minutes. Oh my god of answering questions.
So what kind of questions do we like? Our producer asked, and we look fl mixed.
What do you like?
Fun question?
I love talking about myself. No, yes, No one ever asks me questions.
Oh okay, this is the call.
Please. I love talking about myself.
Talking about that would be a good episode.
I like other things too, But what do you like?
Matt? I like questions about myself.
We're both needy people.
It's the point of a podcasts.
Yeah.
I also like finance stuff. I don't weird conceptual stuff. I love Katie's.
Horse, horses and cats and reptiles.
I'm more of a dog guy myself. And that was the Money Stuff podcast.
I'm Matt Livian 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 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.
Our theme music was composed by Blake.
Maples Friend and Frances Newnham is our executive producer and special thanks this week to Cal Brooks 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