Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
The bird's doing well, by the way, So the next milestone is like he flies, Yes, he is great news. He yes. So I believe last week I was talking about how we needed to work on flying, really good at perching, really good at eating.
Sure you've been showing him YouTube videos.
We've been working on flying. He's pretty good at flying.
Now.
The thing is, I'm still working on my flying. Apparently came naturally to the bird. I have to keep reminding myself, like, this is a baby bird.
Yeah, do birds when.
I think he's or she, we can't tell because it's a baby is just entering adolescence. Because the bird will also like peck at you, Like yesterday was sitting on my shoulder and it was like pecking at my ear and then I googled it and they go through a teenager phase where they like get into biting you for a little bit and then they kind of grow out of it.
Anyway, congratulations to your bird, Thank you, Hello and welcome. It's going to keep being the bird Stuff podcast, isn't it.
I love it?
Anyway, Hello and welcome to the money Stuff Podcast. You're a weekly podcast where we're talking about stuff related to money sometimes. I'm Matt Levine and I read the Money Stuff com for Bloomberg Opinion.
And I'm Katie Greifeld, a reporter for Bloomberg News and an anchor for Bloomberg Television.
Katie, in your other life as an anchor for Bloomberg Television, you've been anchoring some Bloomberg television.
Absolutely, because we had a little bit of a SmackDown this week, I'm trying to make this a dramatic.
Everyone loves a financial industry SmackDown now after ever since the like the classic act then icon one from like a decade ago, Everyone's like, oh, SmackDown.
I mean, we'll never achieve those heights again. That was That's at the Bar and no one's passed it since. But in slightly less interesting smackdowns smackish last week I believe it was, there was a splashly Bloomberg News article about how Jim Chanos has a short thesis when it comes to Michael Sailor's strategy, the idea being that you basically short strategy and you buy bitcoin because strategy trades at a premium to its actual bitcoin holdings.
Yeah, and one thing that Jim Chaino said that is entirely accurate and revealing, and everything ignored is that micro strategy also does the same trade and enormous side. Yeah, and like micro strategy is like kind of like fundamental business models, Like, well, our stock trades that two times the value of the underlying bitcoins, So we're gonna sell a ton of stock and use the money to buy bitcoin.
It's like, yeah, of course it's the great trade. But like micro strategy has some advantages and putting the trade on Jim Chanos doesn't have, Like they don't have to pay to borrow the stock, they can't get squeezed out of their sharp but they were doing the same trade.
But anyway, yeah, well go on. That was Chenos's position. We interviewed Michael Sailor on Tuesday of this week, and obviously he disagreed.
Well, he was like, no, nobody should sell his biker strategy stocked by bitcoin. That's a crazy thing to do. Why would anyone sell biker stategy stocked by bitcoin? Yeah except for him, but whatever, whatever, No, I mean, to be fair, he's not doing it anymore.
Yeah. Oh. He also said that you know, Chinos doesn't understand how like his valuation of strategy is off sides. That was on Tuesday. Jim Chanos came on Bloomberg Television on Wednesday with my colleague and friend Scarlett Fou and give his side of the story. I mean, he said that Sailor is a great salesman, but basically his argument amounts to financial gibberish. I think he might have I think he might have said that on social media and not on I would it's really the case that like,
oh wait, wa wait, let me read you betweet. Actually it's pretty good. In response to Sailor's television club from our interview with him, this is, of course complete financial gibberish. Mister Sailor wants you to value his business based not only on net value of his bitcoin holdings NAV at market, but additionally with a multiple on the change in that NAV exclamation point, because now he can leverage his balance sheet. Lol.
I mean, like, I'm sorry, that's correct. Like I don't want to say that micro strategies thing can't work right, because it's worked right, and like a lot of people have gotten carried out shorting it right, and like I'm not saying, oh, it's a great idea just short micro strategy, but like it is gibberoiush right, It's like the point that they're making is like bitcoin has gone up a lot, and so when we buy bitcoin, we're creating a ton
of value for shareholders. And like at some level that's true, but another level, you just buy bitcoin, Like.
This is true.
And I think I probably said this on the podcast before, but like a thing that is just wild to me about micro Strategy in particular and bitcoin treasury companies generally, is like you have to tell some story about why you're not just a pot of bitcoins, right, and there are a number of ways to tell that story. And like all credit to micro Strategy, they've done all of it.
They're smart, like they're good at fine, Like this is a well run bitcoin treasury company with a model that I fundamentally don't understand, but like they're great at it. But the sort of central story that they tell is like, well, we can be levered bitcoin holders, right, Like we can be instead of just you know, buying bitcoin put in the plot, we can like borrow money to put bitcoin
in the plot. We can you know micro saylers, like we can issue preferred stock that pays ten percent, and we can buy a bitcoin that goes up by forty seven percent a year, and therefore we're like we're doing an arbitrage, which is like nobody should ever said the word arbitrage. You gain after that. But the thing that I find fascinat about micro strategy is that, like from the shareolders per sective, it is just not levered bitcoin exposure.
Like the way micro strategy works. If there's a sixty billion ish dollar pot of bitcoin that trades it one hundred and twenty billion ish market capitalization, which means it's not levered bitcoin for you. If you put in a dollar, you get like fifty cents worth of bitcoin, which is the opposite of leverage. Leverage is like you put in you get back two dollars with a bitcoin. So I just find it somewhat crazy making. But here we are.
But the thing is, even if Jim Chinos is correct what you were saying he is, that doesn't mean his trade is gonna work.
He's sorry, I want to be there. The thing that he has definitely correct about is that it's jibberish, right, just from an aesthetic point of view, it's jibberish that doesn't doesn't mean the stoggle go down.
That's the thing, and that's something we've talked about before with these bitcoin treasury companies, is that in the stock market people are happy to pay double basically in the case of Strategy, like the.
Trade is about that that can't last. Yeah, and like you see cracks in it, right, the game Stop is now a big treasuring company and like it should converts this week, and you know, let's talk with down like twenty percent at some point, like you know, two weeks ago, I would have said, like, yeah, any company can like announce that the bitcoin treasuring company and like trade at two x of the value of it's bitcoin. Like it's not quite as true anymore.
Yeah, like kind of immediately if it came not true, yeah.
Which is great, but like the micro strategy still does. I mean it's coming a little bit.
Yeah.
But it is a little bit weird to me for Sailor to criticize Channis because as Channos has said, and as I just said, Sailor was doing the same trade right selling micro strategy, Like micro Strategy is in the business of selling it's on stock to buy bitcoin, right, So clearly, at some point in the fairly recent past, like this year, like micro Strategy has thought that bigcoin was better as it than its stock, right, like you could sell this stock to buy bitcoin. That's a longer
as true. Right now, they're doing a lot of weird stuff,
and they've moved kind of further away from equity. Right they started doing stock and convertible bonds, and then they moved into like this very high premium convertible preferred, and they moved into I think higher premium convertible preferred that has looked less and less equity content, and now they're selling straight ten percent preferred that doesn't convert into stock, So they're basically you know, if you just look at their actions, it suggests that they thought their stock was
overvalued at some point and now they think their stock is fairly valued. And I think he's on TV something like you know, watch out, Jim Chanis, because we could issue preferred and you know, if the premium comes down, we'll just issue more preferred, Yeah, which I took to sort of mean that they might buy back stock, which is also crazy making.
This might be what you're referring to. He said, if the stock trades at a week premium We're just going to sell the preferred and if the stock rallies up, he's going to get liquidated and wiped out.
Yeah, which doesn't exactly say we're going to buy the.
Stock, but yeah, whatever. So he also said so if the premium declines enough, he will issued preferred also in that scenario and then buy back the common shares.
Well whatever.
I mean, he's a few different king plans. Something that I thought was interesting from that interview, which I'm still trying to formulate an opinion on. So maybe you can give me one is you know, I asked him, you have all these copycat bitcoin treasury companies that are coming out, do you view them as competition? He said, I don't view them as competition. I view ETFs that track preferred
shares is competition. So as Investco has one, I think the ticker is pg X. It has like four billion dollars in assets, So I guess he's trying to compete for investor attention, like he wants investors to buy his preferred shares, not broadly preferred shares. I don't really know.
Interesting, Yeah, the bitcoin treasury thing is interesting because he has, like for a long time been a proselytizer for other companies should do this, right, Yeah, And when you think about like the model, like Jim Chandos and I can talk about the premium all we want, but like fundamentally, Michael Sailor reviews micro strategy, they bet that bitcoin will go up, and so like the main thing they want
is for bitcoin to go up rate. Yeah, and the more companies that devote themselves to buying bitcoin, like, the more bigcoin will go up, and the better off micro
strategy and shoulders. All right, so they're not competition, right, Yeah, like in a world of like enormous competition for you know, people to invest in this thing, Like would micro strategies premium come down maybe, But if micro strategies premium comes down by like Bitcoin going up ten x, I'm like, that's great for Michael Sailor, you know the preferred thing, Yeah,
Like I don't. I actually don't know who. I've always thought of straight preferred as a pretty niche financial product, right, It's like, yeah, a lot of banks issue it, and it looks some like utility ones. It's not like a huge You don't regularly have tech companies being like I'm
going to issue a straight preferred. Right, it's not like a real thing, Like bankers don't go around marketing ten percent preferred stock to companies, and micro Strategy is doing it in size, And yeah, I guess they're competing for like the fairly limited pool of like retail investors who want preferred stock. You know, they're offering ten percent. They're like,
take our ten percent. And I guess, like surely somewhere out there there's a fixed income investor who is like, I just want a safe, high dividend, and the best dividend paying stock that I can get is this microstritge preferred And I don't care what the business model it's vies. Yeah, don't tell me about it, as long as they keep paying the dividend. And that's the thing that someone thought I.
Could have seen him embracing these ETFs and other funds the track preferred chairs because theoretically micro strategy Yeah, so I don't know.
Yeah, I don't. I don't really understand either, but like right to the extent that like instead of buying a diversified dividend fund, retail investors like I want that micro strategy dividend, Like.
Yeah, who won?
Who won?
Yeah?
Like to the extent that, like I'm the judge of this match, Like, yeah, I'm going to award it to Jim Chana's on points to the extent that, like, you know, we'll find out when someone gets knocked out, Like Jim Chanas is going to exit this trade before Michael Saylor does.
That's true. That's true.
He's going to do great.
Cycle recruiting. You wrote that, Uh, no one likes it.
It's amazing. They fixed it. They just fixed it.
Well, Jamie Diamond especially didn't like it. You're right, he solved the problem.
So I have some backstorright here. So I clerked for a federal judge after law school, and clerkship hiring has the same issues, where like basically there's a pool of candidates, and there's a pool of judges, and there's like a ranking of prestigious judges is ranking of prestigious candidates, and
everyone's the best candidates are the best judges. And you know, it used to be that like towards the end of law school, you'd interview with the judge to get a clerkship, and then some judges were like, we'll interview a little earlier for clerkships. To start in two years and then we'll get the first cut up. The best candidates of crept up earlier and earlier, and it became like untenable.
And when I was a clerk, my judge was like the leader of the like clerkship hiring plan that told people you can't hire before, like you know, the beginning of the third year of law school. And it was like kind of mostly enforced, but like a couple of judges defected and hired in the second year, and you know, I couldn't enforce it, but I was like in a dudgeon when people would would hire clerks too early, And so I saw this process play out where like it
got too early. Everyone's like, this is dumb, it's too early. Let's move things back, yeah, and and hire on a normal schedule where we can like see people's grades and like know what they're like, and not just like hire at the beginning of law school. And we set it back,
and then like immediately it started decaying again. So I think that like private equity hiring is a little of that, where like there's a logical time to hire new private equity associates, and it's you know, as they get to the end of their investment banking jobs, right, it's like three months before those jobs end or whatever. And because prestigious firms want prestigious candidates, they'll be like, well, just interview a month earlier. And then everyone rushes to, you know,
keep up with them. And so now it's the hiring is like before the investment banking jobs start, and everyone that's Domin. So Jamie Diamond is like, that's Domin, we won't let you do it. And because he's Jamie Diamond, because JP Morgan is a big prestigious bank, Like they've had some traction where I think Apollo and General Atlantic have already said I'm not going to hire people this year for their twenty twenty seven start dates.
But it sounds like you're saying you don't think that this truth of sorts will last.
I think in five years we will be reading articles about how private equity hiring is, you know, starting before.
Investing, talking about on this podcast.
I'm talking about on this podcast for sure. This is yeah, this is a this is a long run contact for this podcast. Will this equilibrium decay like next month? I don't think so. I think there's gonna be like a real impact, where like people who started private equity in twenty twenty seven might get interviewed in twenty twenty six
rather than twenty twenty five. Like that that could really happen because it has gotten sort of comical and like there is like some good will around, like moving things back, but like will it last forever? I don't know. I don't think so.
Well, it's interesting. I took a dig in some of the Bloomberg historical archives. Morgan Stanley tried to do something like this.
Everyone's tried to do this. This is like a thing. Yeah.
Well, in twenty thirteen, Morgan Stanley then abandoned their attempt to block first year bankers from talking with recruiters for outside firms. Employees complained and the complaint this is all according to people familiar from the time. The complaint was that they're being put at a disadvantage to you know, other entry level bankers at other firms.
I don't think JP Morgan could enforce this. Yeah, the private equity firms hadn't come out in support of them. Like the calculation of JP Morgan is not just we will stop people from taking offers too early, because like that is really hard to do because you know, everyone going into banking wants to be in private equity, and like, you lose analysts if you said you can't go into private equity. But I think because also the private equity firms don't love it, it has a chance to succeed.
Well, that's what I'm curious about. So I mean Apollo kicked this off, Mark Owen said in an email statement to Bloomberg. When someone says something that is just plainly true, I feel compelled to agree with it. But is part of the calculation on Apollo's part that they're going to earn some brownie points with Jamie Diamond, and that's more valuable than you know, getting an early shot at some of these analysts.
I think it's both. Like, I think they're not kidding that it's dumb to hire people before they graduate from college, right for a job that starts in two plus years, and you know, interview them about like LBO modeling when they've never worked on a deal, right, Like it's genuinely dumb. You know, Like, yes, being in the good graces of Jamie Diamond is not a bad idea for any private equity firm. But like no, I think I mostly agree with them. I want to tell you about a couple
of like reader emails I've gotten out this topic. Yeah, so one as I heard from someone who was like, yeah, I started in banking. I accepted my PE job like immediately, and then after a couple of weeks in banking, I realized I didn't like to do deals, and so he like backed out of his PE offer, which, first of all like yes, and generally I think and Apollo talking about this, they're like, we want to get recruiting right.
If you're recruiting people before they start in banking, you don't really know that you're getting the people who really want to and will be good at doing private equity right. They don't know anything about Yeah, I've never worked on whatever they've been. This is part of a bigger process where everything is crept up earlier and become more intense.
So now like you interns, well, we talked about university finance a few weeks through.
Like I'm like, oh, they don't know anything about banking, but they've been like doing banking since there were children. But still, like you get a better sense of who actually wants to do it if you interview people after like a year in banking than if you interview them
after twenty minutes. Yeah, I thought it was interesting that like this doesn't happen that much, like people backing out, Like he was like, yeah, my firm was then like advertising for someone to fill this spot really quickly, because like they don't over hire. It's not like you know, an airline where they sell twenty percent more seats because they figure people will drop out. They just figure everyone they hire's going to start two years later, which is
pretty wild. The other thing that guys, like a couple of people are like you ask, like why is Apollo jumping to agree with Chap Murray? And like more possibility is they think that recruiting this early is not a good idea and they would like to recruit later to get more have a more informed recruiting conversation. Another possibility is they want to curry favor with shaving time. And
a third possibility is that they don't need as many people. Yeah, Like the third possiblity is you're hiring for twenty twenty seven, you're like okay in two years. First of all, like there's all this stuff about how like private AQUD firms have nothing to do, like they're you know, they like can't get any excess, Like shops are kind of bored, like they're not doing as many deal as they can't raise money. You know, Yeah, it'd be good to tighten
this wigod for twenty twenty seven. And then there's also just like the theme of what AI will do for junior hiring and financial services, right, Like, so if you're like running a big private equity firm and you're looking at your need for junior headcount two years out, and I feel a little uncertain, and you might say, you know what, we don't need to hire everyone for twenty twenty seven right now. We can take a pause on that and see how many people we actually need in
twenty twenty seven. So I detinally don't know, like if you were a junior, like if you're about to start your banking job, like I don't know whether you'd rather have private equity recruiting now or not. It's kind of nice to have your entire future sewn up for the next five years, but at the same time, it's like stressful to interview now without knowing anything and without having done any deals and commit yourself to you know, your jobs for the next five years. I would think it's
better for candidates to have a little bit more time. Yeah, but not if like the reason for that is that you know, the dystopian the dystopian future.
Yeah, that AI will just replace them anyway. Also wanted to talk about this a bit more from you know, the perspective of an Apollo or another pe firm. The reason why everything has been pushed are we saying back
or forward? Probably the reason why later. The reason why everything is getting pushed early is theoretically because they want the best analysts, and it's almost seems like a trade off that to get the best analysts, part of the price you pay is probably some of the folks that you hire two years early before they have any experiences, some of them are going to be duds.
Oh yeah, yeah, And this is I mean, this is what they say when they agree with JA. We want to get the recruiting right. You know, I did get one reader email. I was like, it's really hard to do recruiting. We've never found a way to be really like confident that we're getting the right people, and so like, who did the good job in the interview and is going to Goldman? Is like fine. To me, it seems like this would be a bad recruiting system because you
would not know anything about people's performance. But like the counter argument is like, yeah, you never know anything anyway, and that's fine, But yeah, I would think that you'd get a lot of duds or people who aren't motivated, or you know, you'd miss a lot of people who like don't have the most prestigious backgrounds. But I actually kill it in banking, you know, like like it seems like a worst recruit process than like waiting until people have like done deals for a while.
Also, in you know, all the coverage I've read about this over the past months, in the past couple of years, it just seems like there's only one pipeline to get into PEE at the entry level, and that's to come from banking. Do they hire from anywhere other than I be Yeah.
You know, historically some number of like management consultants, some number of post MBA people. But I think it's increasingly hard and increasingly like the pipeline is the pipeline, and like there's like one way to do it, you know, particularly because they're interviewing so early.
Well, we'll see how long this truth lasts.
Yeah, I think there's something interesting, but like people want me to be like, if they want to compete for the best people want, don't they just wait and pay more. There's a weird fungibility about like both the people and the firms where it's like we all have to do the same recruiting at the same time because we're getting
the same people to do the same job. Like you could have imagine like one private equity firm going to people, you know, a week before the job starts and say, look, I know you've accepted a job at another private equity firm, but like we think you're good, we'll double your salary. Right, you could imagine doing that, but I think it's like not done and you know, sort of frowned upon. And it's like small enough industry that people wouldn't do it.
But it is a strange thing that everything feels so fungible and like, yeah, you know, it's such a direct competition for the same people that do the same thing, rather than like, you know, trying to differentiate yourself in some way other than hiring twenty minutes earlier.
Yeah, the grand convergence.
Right. There's a story in the Financial Times about Tower Research Capital, the great delightful high fregancy trading firm.
Yeah, one of the oldest ones. Yeah, if I'm the oldest, I don't know.
It's hard to note what counts as the hypercancy trading firm, but they're they're sort of big established hygh frequency training firm, and they're starting a they're apparently launching a hedge fund to run outside capital because like, you know, your high fagency trading firm, you run your own capital. You get like market signals that tell you what stocks to buy
in the next three seconds. Yeah, and like those signals throw off enough exhaust that you can be like, I'll know what stocks to buy in the next three minutes, right, Yeah, you like, you know, you reach your capacity for how much of that you can do with your own money, and then you're like, well, open up to outside money and charge people twenty percent for telling them what stocks
to buy in the next three hours or whatever. So it's an interesting like convergence of like what hedge funds do and what hypergency trading firms do.
Yeah, this is an interesting one. I liked this phrase that was in the FT article. Let me find it where I put it? In my notes. Oh yeah, I like this mid frequency strategies. I haven't heard that before. We talked about high frequency, but now we're talking about mid frequency.
Different. I don't know what it means, because, like, I think different people have different Like I think there are definitely people in the world who you're like, oh, yeah, I'm a high frequency trader. I've trade like every couple of days, right, But like, yeah, when like HFT people say it, they mean, like when HFT people like I trade every second, They're like, oh, that's so low frequency.
What a pedestrian case of trading.
You know. I've said milliseconds in articles and people have been like, seconds are so slow we're even talking about but no mid frequency. So we're doing a microsecond and an hour. Yeah, I'm sorry, we're doing a microsecond in a month somewhere in that range.
I do like to imagine like a full circle moment though, like Tower being an example of Okay, they're you know, going out the time spectrum and maybe just we end up with long only fund managers at a certain point.
I don't think we're gonna up. Well, it's sure like this is the thing, like people who are doing a lot of quantitative research into like signals that tell them
what stocks to buy and sell. There are different ways to use that, and often it's like at different time scales, where like if you have like a pretty good method for knowing which stocks are likely to go up or down, like, one natural thing to do is to like buy the ones that'll go up and short the ones that'll go down, right, But nothing to do is you buy the ones that go up and not short anything and run a long only fund, right, And so you have like you know,
AQR and other people who run you know, hedge funds and also are like, well, just take the long signals and run long only money because people want long only products. Or like, you know, I think about like other examples of this kind of thing, and like you look at Renaissance, and it's never clear exactly what the dividing line is.
But like Renaissance, you know, yeah, as a very famous, extraordinarily successful hedge fund called Medallion that has been closed to outside money for that now because it's too good and it only has so much capacity, right, Yeah, And so they close it outside money and they run their own money and they make themselves billionaires, and then they go, well, you know, we have all of us, like you know, it's like pretty good signals that you know, like we
reach capacity on our own money, but like we can use those signals to run institutional money and like not quite as good but good enough. So there's a lot of that where like you know, people who have really good signals that have limited capacity will run their own money with those really good signals, and then like there's some second tier of like we can run other people's money and still be pretty good.
Yeah, I mean other I don't know that.
Towers advertising that like maybe they're like, oh or like mid frequency signals or even better. You should definitely get in on this, right, But like I do think in renaissance is quite explicitly the case that they're like we have really good stuff for us and like okay stuff for you.
Yeah, yeah, I yeah. The article doesn't go into that, but it does say that this would mark one of the first examples of a large high speed proprietary trading shop opening a product for outside investors.
Yeah sort of. Wellthough, like Jane Streets, it should bombs, right, Yeah, not not a product for outside investors per se, but like the idea that like you are a big successful proprietary trading firm, and so you use outside money to grow your business, is not like completely unheard of true? And also I think some of them have taken like outside equity investments. So I'm not sure about that you.
Touched on this, but one of the quotes in the article, attributed to a person close to Tower is that there's just a finite limit to the amount of money that you can make with the really high frequency strategies. Why is that It's just because they're dealing with the likes of Citadel and Jane Street and trying to compete against them, or what does that mean?
Well, like stocks don't go up that much, and so is that just in a microsecond?
Right?
Like like what is investing? Right? Like you're a sort of deep questionnaire. It was like why should you make money by buying stocks? Right? And the answer is in like the long term, because you're alligating capital to its best uses, and you are saying this AI company is going to transform the world, and so if I invest in it now, it'll like ten x my money because like it'll be transformative to the world. Right, And if you're like why should you make money holding stocks? For
like one one thousandth of a second. The answer is because you're providing a tiny, tiny liquidity service to somebody, right, And like it turns out that you can make a really nice living providing a tiny liquidity service to people. But you can't, like, you know, make a trillion dollars, right, Like you're not like allocating capital to like changing the world really yeah, like providing a little service, right, So,
like there shouldn't be that much money. Like there's a lot of money in very high frequency understanding what stocks will go up in the next hundredth of a second, But there's more money in understanding like how the economy will transform the next ten years.
Right, yeah, Because I wrote that quote and I was like, isn't that true of a lot of things? What I mean, like there's only a finite amount of money that you.
Make, Like I don't think that there's Like I think the one place where there is not a amount of money is in like understanding what companies and technologies will be transformative for the world, right, Like if you like pick where economic growth will be, like you can make a trillion dollars, right, Like not really, but like I mean you can't, right I mean, like, you know, Facebook is a trillion dollar company, right, you can like know what the future will look like and make a trillion
dollars right, Like you can't? You know, you're like prodding a service. Yeah, the bloomit how much money you can make?
Well, there's a quote in here from a professor over at the University of Illinois who also here's another quote that just made me think a little bit. If you're a firm that gets really good at mining gold, why sticks are just mining gold? It's like both That was another thinker.
Mining gold, right, but.
It's like you.
Newsletter why Not? Why Not? Podcast? And that was the Money Stuff Podcast.
I'm Matt Luvian and I'm Katie Greifeld.
You can find my work by subscribing to the Money stuffnewsletter 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 Moneypod 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 Nunham 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