Army of Day Traders

election day. It's hard to believe, but in the lead up there's been many narratives offered regarding what the market is pricing in a blue sweep, something else, and also advice offered on what investors should do in different outcomes should you listen to them. Our guestways in, and as always, we will close out the episode with our tradition the craziest thing I saw in markets this week, So I want to introduced a new tradition too, and that is an update on your puppy. I think I think we

need to know how the Golden Doodle is doing. You know, the last two nights she slept soundly through the entire night, So big props to her, but also very exciting for me because certainly, if I was going to give you an update I'd say the first three nights I was very sleep deprived and up every couple hours with a whining puppy. But she's doing great. She's getting acclimated um to the city, as acclimated as you can get after coming off of a farm in Pennsylvania. Well, well, good

news that you're well arrested. How many shoes has she destroyed? What's the tally? Surprisingly not many. She's still scared of shoes at this point in time. The little game we play is I put on my sneaker so she can't bite my toes and chase her around the apartment because it gets her to run um since she's scared of shoes if I have them on my feet. So no, no shoes eaten yet. That's a that's a success. That's pretty good. That's a good, good strategy you got there.

And speaking of strategy, see what I did there? I see what you did there. We're very happy to have one of the best there is. Uh. Her name is Lizzen Saunders. She's the chief investment strategist at Charles schwab Lisen And welcome back to the show. It's been a while. I don't think we've talked since all the craziness started it. How are you faring during lockdown? Faring fairly well? Thank you and thanks for having me again. I think you're right.

I think it was pre pandemic, right. How things have changed in the in less than a year. Indeed, so Listte, I was reading one of your recent commentaries, you know about uh, sort of the way to look at the market with the election coming up. It's funny, but you know, as journalists and strategists, I think we're both sort of forced to to fit the election into our world view,

whether we like it or not. But what really stuck out to me is a few lines you had about, you know, obviously the old standard boiler plate that past returns or no guarantee of future results, and and how in this election, particularly in this economic environment, history probably is not as much of a guide as it perhaps we would like it to be. Um. So I'm just curious how you're looking at the you know, the election.

Is there a danger of people sort of focusing too much on the horse race and what it means for markets? Is that is that something that you know you worry about clients a schwab sort of worrying a little too much about what's going to happen in November and less about the bigger sort of fundamentals and trends coming up

in the next year. I do worry about it a little bit, and and that's partly due to the fact that the most common version of an election related question I get as it relates to markets is should I get out now, go to cash, and then put my money back in after the election when and I'll hear, you know, the inevitable volatility dies down. And I would say this in any environment and not just specific to an election. Um, get in and get out are not

investing strategies. That's gambling on a moment in time. In this case, it would be gambling on some perceived election outcome, good or bad, and that's not investing. Investing should always be a process over time. And I think, well, it's human nature to say, if X happens, then why is going to happen and try to connect dots between a variable election, economic earnings, valuation, whatever it is, and what the market has been doing or is going to do.

And wouldn't it be lovely if life was as easy as that? And it isn't, so, uh, you know, there. There are certainly strategies that individuals might want to employ if they really feel like they want to limit any kind of downside. So there's hedging strategies that can be done. But the whole get out now and then get back

in that that's not a strategy. So stay invested. I'm curious what you think of some of these narratives that I alluded to that have been floating around that part of the reason that we have seen the market to return to resiliency is the fact that it is pricing in a blue sweep. What that means is we could see trillions of dollars worth of fiscal stimulus down the pipes that could then lead to a rotation to small

caps or value. Do you buy these narratives? I mean, like, like Mike said, as journalists also um sometimes as a strategist or investors will look at the market and try to assign a narrative or backfit a narrative to anything we are seeing. Is it possible to actually go ahead and say, sure, yeah, this is what the markets pricing in or is this just a market that happens to be rallying for any any which reason? And this is what people are deciding the narrative is considering how close

we are to an election. To your point, Sarah, it is impossible to quantify, particularly if you're actually talking about a narrative, and even if you believe in your heart that that is the underlying force behind what the market is doing, actually being precise about the impact it's having

and how much is priced in. But I don't think it's a stretch to say and call it a narrative, call it an actual infusion of liquidity, but that the liquidity slash, fiscal the monetary fiscal combination, stimulus relief, whatever term you want to use, I think has been a

powerful force um underpinning stocks. Not necessarily on any given day or week, but I think that has been an important story because in an environment, particularly when we were in the heart of the pandemic, the entire economy was shut down, we had the FED doing unprecedented things UH and Congress doing unprecedented things, particularly in both the concept

of size and scope. That money has to go somewhere, and in the absence of an economy that's humming along, that money either can just stay in the pockets of individuals or stay in the financial system or find its way into asset markets, and that is clearly what happened, and I think more recently, yeah, I think from a macro perspective, the idea of more on the fiscal side and potentially a larger sum of that in the event of a Biden win relative to the size of the

package currently being negotiated, could be an underpinning. But the reality is this market is largely being driven by a small handful of stocks being traded by, in many cases, really small investors. So that's not a narrative, that's the actual mechanics to some degree of what's happening. I'm not sure that cohort is necessarily focused on the big picture, um, you know, monetary fiscal they're just you know, chasing momentum stocks.

So it's a combination, you know. Listen, that's a great point about the sort of the return of the day trader and the and the small dollar trader. Um. You know, I would have to assume that the move to commission

free trading is somehow amplifying that. Uh that phenomenon does that make it sort of harder for you to sort of figure out where the market's going, what's going to happen next, You know, is that now that we're almost dominated, I think retail investors are I was looking at some numbers from Larry tab or are Bloomberg intelligence analysts who digs into market structure. It's one of the biggest cohorts

of investors and traders right now. I think retail mom and pop traders actually rival hedge funds for as far as how much volume is is attributed attributable to them in the market. You know, I worry is is that retail trader base sort of a fickle and hard to analyze investor base, And what does that mean going forward

in the market? Is it sort of a recipe for either I don't know, higher sort of a higher plateau evaluations were or could we expect sort of more volatility as a result of of you know, sort of smaller traders chasing the momentum or maybe perhaps even chasing it on the way down if they if they're so inclined

to to start shorting the market. Um is is that I know this is a twelve part question which is my my specialty, but but how does how does this sort of up and coming group of traders dominating volume affect the way the market operates and how you're how you're watching and sort of analyzing what's going on. I mean, the short answer is, we don't know, because this is a cohort of traders that are brand new, so we don't have a long history. Now they're they're part of

a larger cohort of course, retail investors. But this sort of what I've been calling newly minted day traders um largely trading via apps and more recently moving to a significant degree into the options market, into call short dated

call buying, naked call buying. And so we don't yet have any history of this cohort in terms of what any negative market action might do to that cohort, because most of the dominance of that cohort started in the late March early April time frame, and there were many ingredients to the recipe that of of this power of this small retail trader. You mentioned zero percent commissions, Um, we a chub might have had something perfectly so maybe just you know, maybe I seem to recall we said

something about that. And then of course for actional shares, and then the combination of pandemic related forces, people being home doing much more on their digital devices. Uh, no sports betting for quite some time, So I think it was just this tsunami of things that happened to really

bring out this new form of trader. Now, what we don't know again is if we get into any significant market corrective phase beyond just what we had for a short period in June and a short period of September, whether they get beholdened on the long side, which was what happened in September, or they get scared out of the market if the pain is more severe than what we experienced, or do they just shift gears and start doing the same thing on the putch side of the

options equation as they did on the call side. So we don't know. What I will say is the kind of speculative fraud we're seeing among that cohort is not matched by other measures of investor sentiment, either attitudinal or behavioral. So we don't have the same kind of speculative fervor whether it's in attitudinal surveys like AII or other measures that I think are tracking more what either older individual investors not traders are doing, or across the spectrum of institutions.

And in fact, it's never happened before, but very recently we've seen this huge increase in call buying um by small traders at the same time a huge increase in index put buying, and that tends to be done by the commercial hedgers and the big institutions. So we have this incredible divergence between what we used to think of

as the smart money and the dumb money. So far, to the extent you think of this cohort as the dumb money, they have been so dumb because they've been right, but they also haven't been tested to any significant degree. But I also think you know, Mike, you rightly cited these statistics around what percentage they represent in trading volume.

But there's feeder effects of that. So if you're if you're a small trader and you're buying a call option, the market maker selling that call option has to purchase the underlying security as a hedge, So that forces the market makers to buy the same stocks that underlie the

options that the small traders are doing. And then because a small subset of stocks represents such a large share of the overall index, it pushes the index up, and traditional institutions, who might be benchmarked against the SMP have no hope of beating the SMP unless they're in those names. So there is the circle in which we live. I've heard the last couple of weeks described as deja vu to August and September. Now to be seen if it

ends the same way. But something I find really interesting is that in the middle of the summer, I feel like we constantly heard this idea that the only reason that we saw these smaller retail traders really uh active in the markets was because they were bored. There were no sports on Those that were young weren't in school, uh college was out of session. Well, now we're in late October, there are plenty of sports to watch on TV.

Many have gone back to school. If that's the case, if you're a college aged kid, or at least you're taking classes virtually to some extent, and we hear these relations or comparisons to the dot com days. Is it possible, And I know it's dangerous to say it's different this time, but is it possible to say the difference now is that we do have this move to zero commissions, and it's very possible that this is a trend that's here to stay. This is a new cohort of the market

that isn't just going to disappear. Well, I hope it's a new cohort of the market. I hope we have finally enticed younger investors into the world of investing in the stock market, because I think pre pandemic they were

sort of written off as as dead. Never we're never going to entice younger investors into the market, maybe because of either they were burned through the financial crisis, or maybe they watched parents get burned through the financial crisis in Wall Street broadly was it's been sometimes painted with a very negative brush, so long term, I'm somewhat hopeful

that doesn't mean there aren't risks in the very near term. Now, I think even now that sports is back and sports betting is back, what we have to remember is that this has become Partly why this has become popular is because it's working so far and so um This sort of cohort feeds off itself. There's a lot of platforms that it exposed what there's are are doing. It's almost like the you know, pelotonification of trading or the gamification of trading. So the bells and the whistles and the

excitement of of doing well and making money. That um that I think is the It's a force in the near term. But if it eventually can morph into a true educated understanding of what it means to invest long term without significant carnage on the path from point A to point B, that would be great. UM. And I don't I don't view this as some bubble that's going to burst spectacularly and uh, these folks are going to be in a world of hurt. But there are some

risks associated with it. Is just a question again of whether we can sort of bridge this gap and that in that span there's appropriate education because more than just anecdotally, we know that some of these traders, particularly in the options market, UM, may not be as educate hated about what they're doing as what an ideal scenario would be. Yes, Sarah points out sports her back on TV. Except for

Sarah's Miami Heat, they got their season got canceled. It was a sad ending, but you know the fact that they made it to the finals. I'll take it. I'll take it well. I'll tell you, you know, speaking of that that sort of young aggressive cohort of investors, I will point out. I haven't had my shoes my shoes shined in a long time, so I don't have this sort of shoeshine guy anecdote. But my seventeen year old daughter just got a job and a couple of paychecks into it. She came up to me and said, I'm

I really want to get into the stock market. Do you know anything about the stock market? And of course I was like, not, not really though, but does your daughter know what you do? Clai? Now I clearly realized she has not been paying attention at all. And when I when I explained to her what I do, but

she did she mentioned Tesla. She do someone someone knew someone who made ten thousand dollars in Tesla and then someone else made enough money to buy buy a Tesla with what they've made on Tesla, So I do you know its? And it's getting to that sort of anecdotal level. I think, where you know? Again, who's I don't know anyone who gets their shoeshine anymore, but it's it's that

sort of unsophisticated. It's sort of to me. I hate to bring the parallel to the cryptocurrency craze and the bitcoin craze a few years ago, but it almost feels like that to me, is this sort of piling in, uh into the momentum um? But I wonder, you know, put aside the election, put aside sort of what retail traders do next, and you get back to the fundamentals and you look at an smp it, I don't know, was it twenty seven and change on a on a

trailing earnings basis. I know you're not gonna go to cash because the election is coming up, But does that sort of valuation, given all the unknowns with how the virus and the vaccine will progress, does that give you a pause at all to to sort of d risk um, you know, ahead of sort of how we see the economy shaping up next year. I think there may be reasons to de risk, especially if your portfolio is now grown potentially via lack of rebalancing, to a heavy emphasis

on those kind of hot momentum areas of the market. Um. But I wouldn't use valuation as certainly not a singular reason to do that, because valuation of any variety, whether it's trailing pe forward, pe Schiller's cyclically adjusted pe, Tobin's q FED model, price to book price to sales um terrible, terrible market timing tool um. There's there's no correlation between what valuation is at any point in time and what the market does say over the subsequent one year period

of time. Correlations go higher when you look out over many years, you know, call it ten year time periods. And the reason for that is we think of valuation, particularly in when you're talking about PE ratio, is having to quantifiable components. You know what the P is certainly on a trailing basis, you know what the E is on a forward basis. You know what the expectation is because it's published. So we therefore think of it as

this fundamental indicator because there's quantifiable components. The reality is that valuation is a sentiment indicator more than it is a fundamental indicator. There are times where investors are willing to pay nosebleed valuations and find ways to justify it, and there's times when investors don't even want to pay a single digit PE ratio, like in early two thousand and nine. So it's a reflection of sentiment more than

anything else. I think the valuation measure or measures that the cardon ardent bulls will use in this environment are equity risk premiums given that we've got short rates pinned at zero as far as the I can see, so the discount rate you're using to discount future earnings is basically zero, and on an equity risk premium relative to treasuries relative corporate bonds, stocks look relatively inexpensive. Mike, My sort of take on the other side of that is

totally agree the discount rate is pegged at zero. However, it's a discount rate discounting a future stream of earnings. We are at some point going to actually have to see that future stream of earnings. A ZIRP environment is not going to sustain the market at infinitum without an

eventual return in earnings. I just think that discount rate being pegged at zero is saying to investors that pay attention to this stuff, maybe you can lengthen your time horizon in terms of the weight until earnings moved back into positive territory supported by that low interest rate environment. So I get it um, But in broadly do I think there are risks in this market valuation and otherwise absolutely so. We do have to see that return in earnings,

and this week earning season did kick off. We're expected to see another decline this quarter of about another decline in the fourth quarter. However, when I look at numbers, I still see consensus analyst estimates looking for about one sixty two of earnings per share in the SMP, which is not far off where we were just last year in Do you think that it's possible people are still

too optimistic about one? I mean, if if you say that at some point we have to get those earnings, clearly they're pretty optimistic that we will, and and not too far away. Even in a normal environment, analysts when you're looking a year out tend to be too optimistic. Then as you get closer to the actual season for the quarter, they cut cut, cut, cut cut, ultimately setting the bar low enough such that the beat rate is

you know, typically in the UM. Unique in this environment, of course, is the lack of visibility, the fact that a record number of companies have withdrawn guidance, certainly in the second quarter. So what analysts have done, at least for this year is when you know, absent that more precise guidance from companies UM and absent even macro visibility. Given the unique circumstances as virus as they aired on the side of cutting estimates too much, so you had

a six percent beat rate for the second quarter. You're running out about a similar beat rate right now. Albeit were very early in in earning season at this point, and that may be the case for the fourth quarter as well. But I do think given what we know now about the economy and its trajectory, I think the numbers as they stand right now probably are a little bit high, but as they start to come down, it wouldn't be that abnormal relative to what we typically see

in history. Ells as you point out, with the equity risk premium on the discount rate being close to zero, I mean, it brings us back to that old boogeyman inflation, you know, and I I feel like it's got to be the main risk for the stock market is some surprise in inflation. But that said, it's it's kind of been a chicken little situation with inflation over the last decades.

People have worried about it forever, been warning that we're we're headed for some really big inflationary environment and we just don't see it. Year after year, any sort of you know, CPI or PC above that two percent, especially on the core basis. Is there any reason I believe

it's just different this time? Do you see, you know, any potential for an inflation shock given all the all the stimulus given to the economy, how low rates are, and if we do get sort of a real, real rapid recovery next year, is there any inflation risk in your mind? Well, I'll start with the with answering the question is at different this time, but but in particular, compare to the period coming out of the financial crisis,

the last time we had uh massive stimulus. Now, in that case, it was purely on the monetary side, very little if any on the on the fiscal side, and there was grave concern in the quite a few years um coming out of whether it was what the FED did with rates going to zero, but particularly the what turned into three rounds of quantitative easy, and everybody was concerned about inflation with the FED, you know, printing all this money that was going to inflation accident waiting to happen.

What was missing in that analysis is that the FED was pumping liquidity into the financial system during a period where the financial system, by necessity, was deleveraging. So the money that they fed pumped into the financial system stayed in the financial system. It didn't come out through the lending spigots, there was no demand for borrowing, didn't go into the economy and pick up what we call velocity. You you mathematically can't get an inflation problem when you

have no velocity. Now in this cycle, right now, we're still in that boat in the sense that we've had all of this monetary liquidity pumped into the system. They've even morph more to trying to pump it into the economy too, with some of the new tools that are using on the main street lending program. That on top of that, you've had massive fiscal relief. All combined, you're talking about GDP causing money supply growth and as measured by M two to go up by UM year every

year that was at the peak. However, at this point so far, the M to money velocity continues to sink like a stone. So not an inflation problem, but that may not be a permanent situation. Um eras not just the United States, but globally. Eras of monetary dominance when

they end tend to end in disinflation or deflation. And we saw that after the financial crisis, and after that kind of monetary period of of of extreme stimulus, eras of fiscal dominance tend to end in inflation, especially if the fiscal spending is being done through a debt taking on more debt directly or indirectly being financed by monetary authorities. So I do think there's a risk. I don't think it's imminent. Um. I think this the nature of this

crisis is more deflationary than inflationary. But I think there's two sanguine of view about inflation, kind of in the medium to longer term, and leaving aside the fiscal monetary stimulus triggers potentially for some inflation, you've also got this

secular move toward deglobalization and diversification of supply chains. If you're a believer like me that part of the reason why we had declining inflation for thirty years was because of globalization, it's hard not to see the opposite potentially happening. So I do worry that we went from unfounded fears of inflation in and that was sort of the narrative.

It wasn't true. Now I think the consensus is that inflation is dead and buried forever, and I can't help but wonder whether, um, you know the devil's advocate in he says, Okay, what could the conditions be that actually bring more inflation than what is currently built into expectations, and that would be a longer term risk for stocks. It's so one more question for you, Louzanne before we get to sharing our crazy things, which I know Mike is so excited about. But well, we'll we'll have to

wait to see what happens on the fiscal front. But there was a comment this week from San Francisco FED President Mary daily Um that really struck a chord, and I'll read it to you. She said, I'm not willing to trade millions of jobs for people who need a ladder rung up in order to keep the stock market from going up for a few who have those holdings.

And basically she was asked about whether or not the FED was creating a moral hazard by increasing asset prices, and she said the nature of this recovery is uneven, and we need to help people, not necessarily help the stock market. Although we may be inflating asset prices. What does that tell you about what the FED is willing

to do here. Um. Also in relation to the type of recovery that we are seeing, I think the FED understands the moral hazard aspect of this that inadvertently, not purposefully, what they've done has been much more to the benefit of asset prices and less to the benefit of the real economy, and that it's it's widened the divide in terms of the wealth gap, and that is part of the reason why not just daily, but but Powell, as as often as he's got a microphone or a camera

in front of him, is really pounding the table on the kneed for more on the fiscal side than on the monetary side. And I think they are The FED collectively is sending a very forceful message, not that they're out of tools, um, but that the tools or the efforts that are needed now to truly help small businesses in the more beleaguered industry reason individuals who are still out of work, has to be done on the fiscal side, not on the monetary side. And I think that that's

the appropriate message. Whether you know, whether there are adults in the room on both sides of the aisle that actually can get together and figure this out. Maybe it's a different story, alright, Mike. I think it's that time, all right, It's the time for the crazy things. Stand clear of the craziest things we saw in markets this week, and well this is exciting. We do have a call to the What Goes Up hotline. This is Sam Kidson. Let's hear what the craziest thing he saw in markets

this week. Was. The craziest thing I saw in markets this week is lumber futures. The lumber futures which trade on the SAMI are quoted in dollars per thousand board feet, and these started off the year around four hundred dollars per thousand board feet, and like all markets, you know, on April one, thanks to Day, it hit about two eight. Now it's trading around five hundred fifty kind of thing, so obviously up significantly from the beginning of the year

and from the low it reached in April. But the really crazy part is that on August it was actually quoted intra day over eight hundred dollars, So we're talking about three x or so where it traded in April and double where it started the year. So that's the craziest thing I've seen in markets this week. All right, well done, Sam, lumber futures. I don't think we've had lumber futures in the crazy things yet, and it really has been a wild year for lumber futures, so we

thank you for that. Sam. Sarah, can you beat the crazy week and year we've seen in lumber futures? What do you got? All right? So I wanted to highlight um q q Q this week the NAZAC one t F. My colleague Katie Greifold, who's been on the show before, UM, she wret a story about this. But I've just been watching flows day to day and three out of four of the fund's largest inflows have come within the last month, and they've been huge. They've been massive compared to what

we typically see day to day. That fourth one was in two thousand, and of course I'm not making a comparison UM to now in two thousand, that's just when the other one was. But in trying to ask investors or or strategists or traders why we're seeing this, you just get a variety of answers. UM. Some of them are saying, this actually might be due to what we're seeing in the options market, because we've seen some drastic

outflows to others. Just say that investors are simply just betting on big tech, considering that q Q is been as like one hundred ETF and has a very heavy tech waiting. Um. But I think it's really difficult to just look at these flows that we're seeing almost day to day now, um and and say they're not crazy. All right, I'll accept that no theories on that Q and on is involved in the q q Q. Are you going to bring that in here? I'm gonna throw that one out there, reach out. I'll tell her that

she should update her story with the Q and on theory. Yeah, that that's the beauty of the Q and on theories. They don't need to make any chance. You can just you can just shoe herman, All right, listen, can you beat the flows into the q q Q as a crazy thing this week? Does mine have to be market related? Nah? For you. We'll let it slide for a blue hand.

Not let it slide, thank you. M. The craziest story I saw this week was and I had not seen the pre story about an asteroid that was now in the Earth's orbit and heading towards us, and it was a fairly large one, and it was getting increasing attention. It actually turns out to be a portion of a rocket. That was a rocket that had a failed moon landing in nineteen sixty six, and it's been basically orbiting the Sun and somehow it left the Sun's orbit and now

is in the Earth's orbit. Um and and it's not an asteroid potentially crashing to Earth, but a what is that a fifty four year old piece of a rocket. That's amazing. I had not heard of that. That's really interesting. Sounds safe for us to have a year old rockets it lands in the middle of your roof. I'm not sure asteroid or you know, a portion of a rocket. Maybe the same, right, it doesn't matter. We talked about momentum and velocity. I'm sure that would have plenty. Yeah,

that's how we tie it to the market. Yeah, there you go. I thought it was going to be that asteroid with like a hundred gazillion dollars worth of gold and precious minerals stirred in it, which wouldn't be nice. It's just gonna fall on Earth and then it's going to make bitcoin more valuable. That's the theory. Well, that's a good one. I'm gonna have to look up that story and then I'm gonna I'm gonna like sleep in my closet under pillows or something, waiting for that thing

to land. But all right, well mine, as Sarah will tell you, I like the alternative asset space. The more alternative the better. So very fascinating auction from STIs in New York. And I'll preface this by saying I had to take Shakespeare at the University of Delaware because I was an English major. I think you were a business major. I no, I was political science and economics, so I

did not have to take Shakespeare. I would I would have preferred any calculus, trigonometry, stats, would throw anything at the other than Shakespeare. I did not do well. But this is courtesy of the National Post, a rare book from the year sixteen twenty three. It was the first book that brought together all of William Shakespeare's plays into one uh one edition sold at auction at Christie's. Sorry

you know what time it is? What's your bid? I was just about I was just kind of trying to rack my brain and think of a price, because I've been so unbelievably off. My guess is lately, Um, what am I going to say? I'll go with one. K, I'll take over, all right, listen, Yeah, you'll. She's good, she's doing the prices right thing. She'll She'll go one. I've been way over lately, so now I've been going way under. Well, I just took the way over. So I'm not going to give a number, but I think

it's way higher than that. I will tell you, based on my own experience with Shakespeare, I would have only bought this book if it came with the cliff notes he attached to it as well. Al Right, before I give you the answer, let's compare it to another alternative asset. A rare guitar used by the Beatles George Harrison and John Lennon sold at auction. This was a fretless guitar. I don't know if you guys know much about it,

but that's that's very rare. It was used on the White album on three tracks on the White Album, which, if you know the Beatles, that might influence your your bidding. Not not one of my favorites of theirs, but all right, Sarah, more or less than the Shakespeare than your Shakespeare. What are you going for it? I'd be tempting to say more, but I could also be toably wrong. Okay, that's no,

that's not an answer. That's okay. Spear went for more than the guitar, all right, nine point nine million for the Shakespeare book unidentified buyer. The Beatles guitar was only a hundred ninety pounds d quick. I was thinking more so due to recency. Uh, And I feel like even I feel like guitars are used as decorative aspects and that's where my head was going with this. But yeah,

the Shakespeare books not very decorative. But I don't know. Listen, would you dump a sixty forty portfolio to go, say, sixty stocks Shakespeare first Edition a little bit of Beatles? I'm a rock chick, but um I would invest if if Robert Plant decided he is willing to bring back led Zeppelin for a tour with Jason Bottom, I'd be willing to invest a boatload of money in that. So that's that's how I'll tie investing into rock bands, and you'd be in the first row. I'd pay up for

that show too. That would be a good one, I agree. So all right. I think that's all our time. Ohhh yeah, we got a Oh that's good. We got a crazy thing over Twitter. Let's hear it, Sarah. Yeah. So this one actually comes from Nick Carraway's Twitter handles at Carraway thirty four and he tweeted us a Wall Street Journal story with the headline um Santander bond surges as investors take a risky bet on debt redemption. And he said to us, if this doesn't qualify as the craziest thing contender,

I don't know what does. And it is certainly a great contender. The lead of the story reads investors are betting that Spanish lender Banco Santander won't be able to make interest payments on a risky form of debt in a string twist of events. Instead of shunning the investors are scooping it up. So just typically not the relation that you would see a good story, good story. I do wonder about this guy's name. Isn't Nick Carraway the guy from the Great Gatsby the character and the Great Gatsby?

I told you I was in English major, so no, uh, no Shakespeare, but Gatsby. Yeah, I'm not sure that's that guy's real name, but we appreciate the contribution to the Craziest things and as always, if you saw something crazy, tweet to us at at Podcasts, were at Sarah where myself and otherwise you can give us a call on the Bloomberg Podcast hotline at six four or six three to four three four nine, oh, and leave us a voicemail with your crazy thing and maybe we'll play it

on the show. I think we had a great round today. I think uh, we'll give Lizzie and the win with the rocket and ties into markets because of velocity and momentum. Yeah, well we'll stretch it. But it was so great to have you on the show. Lizzie and Saunders, thank you so much, my pleasure, thanks for having me. What goes up. We'll be back next week. Until then, you can find us on the Bloomberg Terminal, website and app or wherever

you get your podcasts. We'd love it if you took the time to rate and review the show on Apple podcast so more listeners can find us. And you can find us on Twitter, follow me at at Sarah Pantzack, Mike is that reaganonymous, and you can also follow Bloomberg podcasts at Podcasts. Also thank you to Charlie Pellett of Boomberg Radio and the voice of the New York City subway system. What Goes Up is produced by Jordan Gospore.

The head of Bloomberg Podcast is Francesco Levie. Thanks for listening, See you next time.