Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news. We haven't done this for a while.
We haven't seen each other in two weeks, I know. But after like ten days of going by your desk and everyone's like, no, we don't know where she is.
Oh my god, Like I told them all, just if that comes by, I'm not here. No, I don't know where I've been. But now we're back in the booth.
Back in the booth. Hello, and welcome to The Money Stuff Podcast. You're a weekly podcast where we talk about stuff related to money. I'm Matt Levian and I are at the Money Stuff comn for Bloomberg Opinion.
And I'm Katie Greifeld, a reporter for Bloomberg News and an anchor for Bloomberg Television.
It's good to be back, Katie, It's good.
To be back.
What's gone on today?
Well, we're going to talk about incredited investors what that is? Should it exist? We'll talk about beamstocks growing up or Meme.
Investors investment firms.
True, that's true, and we're going to talk about naughty esg.
It's less fun that it's accredited investors.
Yeah, what are they? So? Currently two hundred thousand dollars income is what you need to be or a one million dollar net worth if I'm an individual.
Yeah, so it's all sorts of like bars. Right, So, like the way it sort of like casually works is that you can invest in private stuff if you're an accredited investor, and you can and anyone can invest in public stuff. And the accredited investor bar used to be like I don't like one or two or five percent of households, and now it's like twenty percent of households
because it's not index to inflation. So now you need to have an income of two hundred thousand dollars a year or three hundred thousand dollars for a couple, or have networth of a million dollars, or have a series seven or serious sixty five lescens. So if you have like the securities license, you can be an accredited investor, and if you're an accredited investor, you can invest in various sorts of private investments, mainly like startups. And people
don't like these rules. Yeah, I should say, I read about this the other day, and he'll point out they're actually two like higher bars. So there's the bar for investing in hedgehunds and private equity firms, which is basically, if you're an investment manager and you want to charge performance fees like hedgehunds and private equity do, you need to have qualified clients, which basically means like a two point two million dollar networth, So it's a little bit
of a higher bar than the accredited investor bar. And then the other thing is like there's certain kinds of private investments that are only open to quibs qualified institutional buyers, which basically means an institution with at least one hundred million dollars. So like those are the higher bars, but anyone can invest in startups in theory if they're an accredited investor, which means, you know, a two hundred thousand dollars income, which is like not that uncommon these days.
Like one thing I pointed out is that like the number of people who meet that qualification is about equal to the number of people who own stocks directly. So it's like the investor class is pretty much overlapping with the accredited investor class. There's this perception that like these days the good investments are the private investments. Yeah, like we were talking about a lot, right, and so they're like, why is it that, like people who don't have a
lot of money can't get the good investments? And then two, why is it that, like the term accredited just correlates with the wealth, Like it sort of seems like accredited means good or smart.
Or perhaps qualified In some right.
It seems unfair that qualified would just be in like having enough money, and so there's always this push to open it up for like a test. So it used to be only the money qualification, and now if you have certain securities licenses like this Ery seven, you can also be an accredited investor because you're, like, you know, if you like work at an investment bank, like, you're probably like you know, probably know as much as the
average bear about like investments. And so the most recent news is that, like the Senate is pushing for a bill to make the sec write an exam that anyone can take, and if you pass the exam, then you're an a credited investor and you can buy private stuff.
This scratched a memory up to the surface. This is slightly different, but it's related. In April twenty twenty two, FINRA called for comments on whether they should introduce knowledge checks before you know, retail could buy what they defined as complex products, which basically meant like leverage and all these like funky ETFs that we talk about on this podcast sometimes. And that was met with outrage. People hated that idea.
Right, because that's like those products are public product. Anyone can buy those, right. You don't have to be a credited investor to buy a triple LEBRITYTF or zeroed A options on socks. There's all sorts of stuff that is available to the public, which basically sort of means like it's meant disclosure requirements, right, there's not formally supposed to be like really substantively of like whether it's a good investment. You know, there's like a certain amount of pressure on
stuff to not be crazy stuff. But like in general, there's a lot of public stuff that is risky, and there's this weird situation where a lot of public investments are very risky and dangerous and sort of hard to understand and anyone can buy them. Yeah, And then there's a lot of private market stuff that's like like space stuck that like you're not allowed to buy because it's limited to people with at least two hundred thousand dollars
of income. It's weird that anyone can buy the products that Finnerun's toy strict and then like they're trying to expand the qualification for the act.
Time again they opened it up for comments. They received more than twelve thousand comments, which was pretty wild. That shattered the record. I don't know if it's since been shattered, if they've opened up comments to anything else crazier, but usually they get like a couple dozen comments, so this was wild. It is interesting, you know, the disclosure base
sort of whatever is how we do it now. I don't know how it want to talk about that, but basically, you can market all of this crazy risky stuff as long as you put in like big bright letters that you might and probably will lose money on that. That's fine.
Yeah, although like a weird aspect of that is you're often buying it through your app, right, Yeah, Like there's no requirement that you've read any of the disclosure The firms can't market it without all the warnings disclosures, but you can buy it, you know, you pushed button.
That's what one of the points that Finn made at the time that since these rules were put in place. There's a lot more self directed investors in the market now that aren't necessarily going through a financial advisor. There's a lot of people just clicking around on robin Hood for example. That's a deep tease to what we'll be talking about next. And that's why they floated the idea of a knowledge check that was unpalatable. It's interesting that the Senate is pushing for some sort of test now.
Yeah, and like private investments are the opposite, Right, you can't buy them on it app. You do have to you know, essentially buy them through a broker or a financial advisor, right, And there is some history of skepticism about how aligned the interests of some of these brokers
are with their clients. Right. I mean, there's a lot of private market stuff that is very high fee has, like lots of layers of fees for products that like, you know, you could probably do better by buying a you know, index CTF, but like the advisor gets paid more for selling you the complex product. And making people pass a test might make them more resistant to getting pitched bad products, but it might just make them feel more sophisticated and then make the advisors salivate of even
more over selling them bad products. Right, I don't know about these tests.
You know, there's not a lot of teach one.
I would I wrote, I would love to write one, right, I would also love to I love taking standard I s house but that tracks. Yeah, but like it would be so fun to write this list. But like just you sort of know what it would be like. It would be like, you know, like compound interest and like that. It would be like sort of like financing trivia. He would potentially give you the illusion of being sophisticated and
being able to sort of see through. Yeah, but that's that's all your financial advisor needs, sow you sort of ruinous product. If you were starting from scratch, you would not like divide the investment universe this way, right, Like you would not let people buy all of the risky, weird products that Fenner is nervous about. When the Senate talks about this, they talk about like, you know, investing in like local small businesses, right, Like you can't like
those they are exemptions to the rules. But in general, it's kind of like difficult and risky for small businesses to raise money from like people in their community. Because like there are you have to bet SEC exemptions, like there's a credit investor tests, and it might be nicer if more people could make those sorts of private investments. And those investments in some ways seem like more appealing
or more like wholesome than like triple levertyts or whatever. Right, the complex products that that Fenner is right, this is more of a niche comment, but I liked it. So I used to be a convertible bond underwriter, right, And like a lot of bonds are done under an SEC rule called rule one forty four A, which basically means that you have to be one hundred million dollar institution to buy them, right, And it just like it makes
their disclosure a little bit easier. But one reader was like, why am I allowed to buy the stock of a public company but not their one forty four A bonds? The one forty fairy bonds are sort of by definition safer, right, they're like senior in the capitol structure, but like he's not allowed to buy them because he doesn't have a hundred million dollar fund, right, But like anyone can buy
the stock. So there's a lot of stuff like that where it's like what gets treated as like a risky, dangerous thing for retail investors, and what gets treated as like no problem, anyone can buy that by clicking a button just doesn't track any like economic or disclosure reality. So I don't know, I don't have a good solution.
I've written my bad solution, which is that the SEC should give out a certificate of dumb investment where you say, I know I'm buying something dumb, and they slap you and you say, no, I really want to buy something dumb,
and then like they give you the certificate. But like the important thing in my original proposal was that then if the thing goes to zero, you're not allowed to complain, like to the press or to anyone, right because like a lot of this stuff, it's like retail investors buy this terrible thing and I realized that is a terrible thing, Like no, no, it's gonna be great, and then they buy it and goes to zero and they're like, oh I was defrauded. It's like, oh, you knew it was
a terrible thing. So the idea of like making people sign a form saying they know they're being dumb is appealing to me because when it would sort of like obviate some complaints. And then two, like all this stuff about accredited investors, like it comes from a place of like thinking, those are the smart investors who get access to the good stuff, and I suspect that the real experience is kind of the opposite, where like those are
the investors who get pitched the expensive, weird stuff. And when you make it a test of financial sophistication, then like people want to take that test. They want to pass that test, and then they passed. This was like, oh, I'm so sophisticated, and then they buy the worst stuff because like they have this illusion of sophistication, Whereas if you make them sign of things saying this is dumb, like it's less aspirational and like maybe maybe like deters them from buying the worst things.
That's true. I mean it would be labor intensive to have to line up like a staffer to slap every single person that it's.
Really a hypothetical, but like I like it, you know.
I don't know, I think we should kick it around. Write the test, Matt. We didn't insult any dentists when mean stocks grow up? You know, Robin Hood, do you know Robin I remember a time when their bare case on robin Hood is that, you know, you would have all these people who use robin hood as a gateway drug and then graduate up into proper investments such as index funds, and that they migrate over to like Schwab or Fidelity for example. That hasn't really been the case, hasn't that.
I mean, you and I were reading this Baron's article about how robinhood is growing up, and like the stat that I found shocking is something like ten percent of Americans have robinhood account Yeah, like American adults whatever and rest adults, and robinhood has zero point three percent of like retail financial.
Assets, which is sixty five trillion.
Sure, but like they are thirty three times bigger by number of people than by assets, right, Like they have a lot of people, but like a tiny fraction of those people's assets, or else they have only the people with very few assets, right or some companies. Yeah, and that does sort of suggest that that bear case had some truth to it, which is that people do the fund trading on Robinhood, but when they grow up to like their index funds, they do it somewhere else.
Well, two points to that number One, the stock is up like one hundred and ten percent this year, so like in terms of it being a bare case, it's certainly not playing out in the stock market. And two that may be the case. Robinhood is working really really hard to grow up, which I find interesting. They had their Hood summit in Miami. I think it was last week or the week before, But in any case, they have all these new features that are coming out. They
have this desktop trading platform. That's one thing. They're offering index options for the first time. That's kind of exciting. But I thought that this was interesting. There's one to three percent matching bonuses for investors who transfer assets to robin Hood's platform, so they'll pay you to bring your money over to Robinhood. And as of June twenty twenty four, Robinhood has provided customers more than two hundred million dollars
in matches on asset transfers and retirement account contributions. That's according to the company. So they are trying to grow up.
Right, It makes little sense, right, I mean, if you're a person who has like one thousand dollars robin Hood account for fun and like your retirement savings at Fidelity, and it is like, bring all your retirement savings over to us, and we'll give you one percent of the or three percent of them, Like yeah, why would you done? Right? And if you're like relatively self directed in your retirement savings or an ETFs anyway, like yeah, that's free money.
There's some lock up on it where you bring the money over you you have to keep it at robin Hood for a while. So right, it's it's part of the strategy for them to go from being people's like fun money play you know, shows confetti when you do a trade account to being like their main you know, savings and investment account. The other thing that I thought was interesting about what they're doing is they're talking about
getting into building out a wealth management farmware. Instead of just being self directed, they have some sort of advisory business. And that's probably not like opening branches with people, but it's like, yeah, you know, some sort of robo advising, some sort of automated you know, AI driven advising where if you are not a person who wants to watch the markets all day and be on Reddit and like sort of you know, do your own investing, but you
want someone to help you do your retirement planning. If robin Hood can offer that, Like, that's just a ton of assets that you know, have to be tied to some sort of advice.
Yeah. They basically want to be like the one stop shop, don't they.
Which is like but you know, with like Fidelity and all these people like to have some roots and being self directed discount brokrages, but they're all like, you know, trying to help people, you know, give people advice on their retirement accounts.
I should have looked into it. But don't they have a credit card as well?
Or do you have a credit card?
Yeah, that's like good, yeah card Goldman have some painful news about that this week. It seems hard to just create a credit card.
I don't know if you have money market funds, Like
it's like a synergy there. I have to assume that when robin had started, but you started from nothing, Like there's so much opportunity in like showing people confetti when they do trades, right, Like the pool of money that you can extract by like helping people do fun trades on their phone is enormous, right, And it is enormous, but it's like, you know, it's a tiny fraction of the pool of money from people like saving for retirement, right, and so like, when you get big enough, you're like
the way to go to the next level of is to get people's retirement money and not just their fund
trading money. Now, I will say the other thing about the barecase of people graduating from meme stocks to retirement funds is that Robinhood so far makes a lot of its money on trading pad for order flow, right, And two Sili's facts about that are one, if you are just buying ets for retirement, you're not trading that often, right, So Robinhood is getting less money from your buy and hold investing than they are from your frantic day trading.
And then two where they get most of their money from payment to order flow is options in crypto, Like frantically trading stocks less good for them financially than frantically trading options and crypto and buying and holding stocks even worse than frantically trading stocks. So there is like a margin compression as they go to the to the higher dollar you know, retirement funds, but hopefully you make it up on volume.
Yeah, another bare case that you could put in there, and this falls more into the psychology category is we might have moved passed this for Robinhood. But I was wondering, you know, when we were watching the fantastic fall of all these meme stocks and just so much money was being destroyed of retail dollars, whether instead of graduating into index funds, et cetera, whether or not people would just
get totally disenchanted and leave the market all together. But it seems like that hasn't been too bad for robin Hood.
Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I think a lot of people interpret memestocks as themselves a phenomenon of disenchantment, right, where like people feel like they can't get ahead, and so they put their money into gambles rather than like investing it sensibly in index funds or whatever. Yeah, And I don't know what comes after disenchantment with that, right, Like I I think some people are like, I'm going
to stop gambling and start saving responsibly. Some people are like, we're disenchanted before, and now they're extra disenchanted, right, I don't know.
I feel like it has sort of played out with crypto, Like I think that so many people lost money on crypto. I'm talking about just like day traders lost money on crypto because this time around with bitcoin got pretty close to seventy thousand sometime in the past few weeks. It just feels like Bitcoin at seventy thousand this time around is a lot different than before, like the FTX collapse, when I think that did disenchant a lot of the retail community.
I agree, although then I want you to tell me why bitkind is back in tewenty thousand.
I the podcast just ends.
No, I agree, But like this is my cryptos skepticism coming out. Like go ahead, if you've got into crypto for gambling and you got disenchanted and you stopped being in crypto, like that's all like totally consistent, right, because
it's like should beat this out. But it's essentially a gambling product, right, Like not all you know, like stayble goo whatever, right, but like you know, like the stuff that you see on like coin market cap is essentially a gambling product, whereas like if you got into the stock market for gambling, like that's a tiny, tiny fraction of like why people are in the stock market of what you can do this. It's mostly you're just like
you're investing in like the growing productive capacity of the world. Right, Like that's what the stock market is, right, it is like companies and like you have economic growth, so the companies make more money and like that accrues to their shareholders. Right. So, like, if you get into the stock market for gambling purposes and there's a thing you can stay for that isn't gambling purposes with cryptos, I'm not so sure that's true. There are people in crypto are building good products blah
blah blah blah. Right, but if you're like buying the tokens, you know, like there's a lot. Yeah, it's like hard to invest in those.
Things anyway, that's that's in it for the tech.
But no, I mean, like, right, I agree, if you get into memes stacks and you lose all your money and you get disenchanted and you like decide that investing in capitalism is bad, then like that is probably bad for your net worth. The popular perception of memes tax is like they got into memestacks because they thought investing in capitalism was bad. So like you know, yeah, the disenchantment will maybe point them in the in a better direction. Cut all of this.
No, this is good, I will say, I mean we're talking about Robin Hood's ambitions to become this one stop shop and you know, grow up a little bit. It is for context good to point out that Charles Schwab Fidelity they have ten trillion and fourteen trillion in total assets respectively. Robin Hood is clocking it at one hundred and forty three point six billion dollars in assets as of the end of the second quarter. So it's a long hill to climb.
It's an intriguing strategy of like being the like salient fun brokerage and then trying to pivot from there to being like the next Schwab. Like, I don't know, it strikes me is like a reasonable thing to do and like kind of cool.
Yeah, I don't know, but yeah, you're right if I was a CEO, Like by.
The way, you're like, yeah, they have a long way to go, Like yeah, they have like one hundred times upsided assets. Like that sounds like a pretty good position to you.
I wonder if it's an easier pivot to make to like be the fun investment firm and then try to become the mature one versus like, you know.
Much easier. Can you imagine Fidelity be likeah, we've got confetti.
Right, hey, fellow kids. Right, Yeah, it's.
So much easier. It's so much here because also like age moves in a direction, right, Like if you if you're like a twenty three year old, then you start on robin and then you become like a thirty three year old and you're still on robin hood. Yeah, I'm gonna save for retirement, right, whereas like Fidelity is like average you know, account holder is older.
Like they're not gonna.
They're not gonna be like maybe they have like a midlife crisis and get into memes like gambling, but like you know, it's a better move to start to hook them young and then sort of grow up a lot.
So true. Yeah, it's like me with tail Or, Swift ESG, Naughty ESG, wisdom Tree. I'm not wrapping, uh, but wisdom Tree was fined four million dollars for miss marketing. They're ESG. Do you have a selection of them in the world.
A lot of people are worried about greenwashing, right, Like there's this idea that people market ESG products funds or market their companies of the s year or whatever, and like they don't really mean it and they're doing bad stuff. They're like you know, secretly doing coal or whatever.
They might have a point, so what they have a point, sure.
But like two, I think most people get mad about that, would like someone to police that according to their own
beliefs about ESG. Right, So, like you know, people get mad at like black Rock for having ESG funds that like sometimes vote for the directors of call companies or whatever, right, and like people like, oh, they shouldn't do that, And you know, it's like it turns out there's no like single accepted standard for what is ESG or like what an ESG fund should do, and so different issues of ESG funds have different opinions and they do different things, And if you have like a strict view, then you'll
be mad at like ESG issuers who have less strict views. And there's like nothing you can do about it. I mean, you can like put your money at a different fund, but like the SEC is not going to say to a big ESG fund what you were doing is not ESG because like the SEC doesn't like have a substance
of definition of what ESG is. Yeah, and you can imagine that changing, but like not really in like the current state of American politics and SEC rulemaking, it's just going to be ESG is like this sort of like somewhat like voluntarily defined concept. But what the SEC can do is look at every ESU firm's definition of ESG and see if they're following it. And it turns out
a lot of them aren't. And the reason they're not, by the way, is like SG ETFs where like they you know, it's like fairly low expense ratio and like they don't have a huge staff of people, you know, investigating everything. They buy data from data vendors, and like sometimes they mess it up and then they don't do ESG things, but they don't do what they said. So
Wisdom tre you got in trouble. I had this ESG ETFs and it described them in fairly strict terms, you know, instead of some of them like they don't invest in companies that have any involvement in fossil fuels or tobacco, like regardless of how much revenue they get from if they have any involvement, they are screened out. And the way they did that is like they went to some data vendors and they bought lists of companies that do things right, and like the lists were not quite right
for the thing they described. So they bought lists of companies that were involved in tobacco. Lots of like big stores carry cigarettes, right, and like the cigarettes make up you know, one percent of revenue or whatever, like they are on the shelves, And the data vendor would only flag a company of retailer if more than ten percent of its revenue came from cigarettes, and so like most retailers,
that's not the case. And so they weren't flagged. And so the SEC looked and Wisdom true was investing in some of these in some retailers that like you know, sold some cigarettes, and they said in their materials they didn't invest in companies that sold cigarettes, and I was like, you did not do the thing you said you were going to do because of like a data error. Right, they said, we wouldn't invest in fossil fuels, and so they bought the list of the data vendor that's like
listed companies in the energy sector. And then like it turns out they're investing in like railroads that transported coal. So they got in trouble for that. So that's like the level of policing of greenwashing that the SEC could do is like if you say something and you don't do that due to like laziness or like buying the wrong data set, then you'll get in trouble.
Yeah. I do like that. The defense is probably like, well, it's just a little bit of cigarettes. You know, if I have one cigarette a month, it's not that bad.
Right, I mean like, I mean like they've been missed in tobacco companies like Drugstars. That's old cigarettes.
Yeah. I also think it's interesting, And this was a point raised by my colleague wil Donna Hirich that you know, wisdom Tree was fined here four million dollars not necessarily the third party data provider.
Well, I'm my impression is that the data provider actually, for the most part, accurately described data.
Like the ETF description and prospectives didn't match up with the data that they would buy.
They were they weren't like buying an index. They were like, we're excluding companies that do this. And then the way they excluded companies that did that is like going to a data provider and saying what companies do this, So it was like it was like the data provider's name was on the ETF.
Yeah, that's interesting.
The tobacco stuff. I'm actually I'm not sure if they got it right. But like for in general, the data providers accurately described what was going on. Yeah, and Wisdom Tree just bought their own data.
I've never smoked a cigarette. Just so everyone is clear, it is interesting. This kind of tracks with what we were talking about.
I swear this podcast is basically for Katie's parents.
I've never spoked his cigarette. I swear to God, I believe. Anyway, moving swiftly along, this is similar to what we were talking about a couple of weeks ago. You were saying that the SEC won't define ESG. It really is the same for all principles based.
We talked about the Biblical we were talking about JWWJD, what.
John do and how they were Bible washing. I think about that all the time. Yes, it's a great phrase, but yeah, principles based investing it's hard to define, but it seems easy to run a foulve of doing what you said right.
No, I mean like in the general case, like you can't define principles best investing because you could have any set up principles you want. It's just the SEC is going to check up on your principles. One gets the sense that the SEC as an institution sort of likes some sort of ESG principles and would like investors to invest in things that are environmentally and socially and governance minded. Right.
That's why the SEC has proposed rules back climate change disclosure, not just because it thinks the disclosure is interesting, but because it thinks in might like to invest in greener companies and avoid maybe browner companies. I get the ounce I could be wrong that the SEC is less interested in biblically based investing, and the SEC doesn't think that investors should try to avoid companies that contribute to like gar Right's charities.
Right, speculation, Yeah, one might think that speculation.
But the SEC, like doesn't get to choose, right. The SEC just looks at your list of principles and says, did you buy the right data? Is that to adhere to your list of principles? And sometimes with both ESG and with biblically based investing in the answers now and then the SEC finds you. It's like a non substance. It's just like going around checking the boxes. It's not like interested in the substance of the things.
I will say, it's been kind of fun to watch. There is this like big demand for ESG, or at least you know, a lot of these fund companies would tell you that there was all this fantastic demand, but I think that they just wanted to launch products because now you have a lot of ESG funds that have been closing. That's the case in the US.
It was a lot of demand, and I don't know, I think it was all backlash.
Backlash, back, a huge backla, backlash, backlash. Maybe there was demands.
Backlash, demands with rhymes of black rocks them.
I don't know. I think that a lot of fun companies launched a lot of VSG products because it was in vogue, and then the demands maybe wasn't there to the way that maybe some of those fun companies thought there would be.
Yeah, it was in vogue among fun companies, and I think there was a sense that like you're getting ahead of the giant wave of demand that was coming, and that wave was not quite coming out.
I have a parallel to make sure well, first of all, you're seeing hundreds and hundreds of VSG funds shutter now both in the US and in Europe. It's sort of similar to how all of these automakers were like, we are going to phase out internal combustion engines and pivot to EV's, and a lot of these legacy automakers have had to take a lot of losses because the EV demand isn't really there, And of course when it comes to that, it's probably a combination of range anxiety, the
charging infrastructure in the United States isn't quite there. Evs are more expensive for now the normal cars, But you could draw a lot of parallels to the ESG fund space.
I think that like ESG investing is so interesting because part of the thesis for ESG investing is we're gonna avoid fossil fuels because in the future there will be such public backlash against fossil fuels that it will be impossible for fossil fuel companies to be profitable. There will be regulation stopping them, will be you know, carbon taxes, there'll be something that makes it uneconomical to run a
fossil fuel company. And to have that investing thesis, you have to have this like view of the future of public opinion that's like really quite stark, right, Yeah, you see the same thing here. If you're an automaker and you're talking to like your shareholders, who are investment firms
that are launching a lot of es CHIEF funds. There's this like widespread view of like the consumer demand for clean energy and you know avoiding fossil fuels is going to be so strong in the future that like you'll need to have a robust ev business or like you'll need to have a lot of ESG funds and like you know eviens for that was kind of it was like a little bit wishful thinking about ESG investors, and it turns out that the rejections about like future consumer demand or not. Right.
There's so much more to say, Matt, But I actually literally have to go get the oil on my car change right now. It's not electric. That was a choice I made because I don't know where I would charge it.
There you go, and that was the Money Stuff Podcast.
I'm Matt Levian 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 and and special thanks this week to cal Brooks.
Our theme music was composed by Blake Maples.
Brandon Francis Newnham 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.
Thanks for listening to The Money Stuff Podcast. If you never want to miss a story, become a bloomberg dot com subscriber today. Check out our special intro offer right now at bloomberg dot com Slash Podcast Offer, or click the link in our show notes. You'll also unlock deep reporting data and analysis from reporters around the world.