Dollar Doldrums

on Robin Hood. Congratulations, Sarah, Thank you. I'm flattered. Mike, I'm so lucky to know that I have such a loyal hype man. So everyone who's listening, you have to take Mike's word, even though he hasn't read the story, um and go read it yourself. Thank you so much. It's fabulous. Even though you've only seen the title, We'll take it and run with it. But it is about

Robin Hood. If you haven't listened to last week's episode either, we spoke to Listen Saunders over at Schwab about the date Trader of Facts, so it's also a great episode to listen to if you haven't already, but this week on the show anyway, Mike, investors are coalescing around the idea that no matter who wins the election, there will be more stimulus down the road. But with all this government spending, will there be enough demand to meet all

the supply? And of course we will close out the episode with our tradition the craziest thing I saw in markets this week. And after all, if you saw something crazy, give us a call on the Bloomberg Podcast hotline at six four six three two four three four nine. Oh, and leave us a voicemail. Maybe we'll play it on the show with your crazy thing or any other feedback you have for the show. And sorry, let's introduce that guest.

Sort of a change of pace for us this week, because our guest is a real expert on fixed income currency markets, so we're gonna dive into things like inflation break evens and the yield curve and that sort of thing. But without any further ado from Wells Fargo Securities were very happy to have one of their macro strategists, Zachary Griffith's Zach, welcome to the show. Thanks for having me on.

Great guy, Great to see you. Again, you know, Zach, I wanted to get in all the things Sara mentioned, but I wanted to start off with something kind of in the weeds because it's a topic that really fascinates me, and that's the interest rate swap market. We had what they call the Big Bang last weekend where basically, and this is amazing to me, Sarah, I'm not sure how much you know about the swaps market. I know a

little bit, not much. I will completely be honest and admit that, right right, I I know a little bit. I happen to edit a long story on on the Big Bag. So now, of course I'm an expert. I can I can talk with with guys like Zach about it like huge market that I don't think a lot of our listeners really necessarily appreciate how it's important. Something like a hundred trillion dollars in notional value on interest rate swaps, something like eighty some trillion is through clearing.

How is and what happened last weekend is it's been part of this multi year switch to get away from lib war and other interest rate benchmarks and promote the secured overnight financing rate or so for um as sort of the replacement for library. So what they did is they they switched uh, interest rate benchmarks as far as the discounting rate of how you value these swaps from the effective federal funds rate to so forth. Now it sounds like a pretty simple thing to switch, but Bory

not really. I mean, you think of eighty some trillion and notional swaps out there. Having to change discount rates even a few basis points is going to cause massive sort of changes in valuations of these swaps, which is just what happened. And the clearinghouses had to sort of match up the winners and losers and sort of divert billions of dollars from people who swaps went up in value to those who went down, and they also issued tens of billions in swaps to compensate it for changes

in risk in this market. Really fascinating thing that happened now is that I know you had a note on this talking about sort of the potential ripple effects. A lot of people who got basis swaps as compensations, whether whether their banks or hedge funds don't really use basis swaps to hedge the way, uh, you know, the clearinghouses

view other counterparties using them. So the idea was that there were these auctions of I think was like twenty five billion worth of swaps at CME and UH a bunch more at lc H in London, and there was a lot of concern about sort of dislocations in the in the market after that. How did it all go down from your perspective, Was there any sort of market anomalies that you noticed, any sort of inkling that some hedge funds or banks might be feeling a little pain

because of the switch. Well, I have some heartbreaking news to start us out. That was actually my crazy thing in markets. I figured, just like last time. I mean, any time you can say hut of them funny trillion notional of anything occurred, that's pretty crazy, right, And that's just for l H. And so far it seems like the auctions went fairly well. And we had been concerned about some potential widening in the sofa fed funds basis, and you may have seen some of that, but overall

it's it's gone well. But it's really a huge step in the process towards shifting away from live or into sofa as the risk free rate and the benchmark rate in the US. So it's it's really an incredible thing that that went on over the weekend, and so far, I think it's going to be a process seeing how it all shakes out. But the initial indications are at the auction works fairly well and that the market has been stable in the wake of the huge move. So

we'll put you on the spot. You have about twenty minutes now, Zack, to come up with something new by the time we get to the end of the podcast. That kidding, Zach, wasn't a long time coming though. Were there signs that this is going to happen? Yeah, it was a long time coming, and you saw some reaction in markets as certain participants were setting up for the

big bang. So there's a chance that a lot of positioning around the big bang was was done and dusted before the weekend hit, and so I think that probably contributed to some of the relative stability around it. And overall, I think it's a it's a huge step towards the transition to SOFA and I think when any time that you have such a shift in these these clearing houses, which really see the majority of swaps that are done

go through, then that's that's really a landmark thing. And when we talked to certain clients, it does seem like there's still skepticism that this shift from live or is going to happen. And this was I think a big step in the right direction. And yes it was widely expected, but it's just another step towards this this process that we've been kind of banging on the drum that it's

very real and so of the regulators. So it's it's a big thing, and um, you know, there's there's only going to be more shifting in that direction going forward. There's that let's switch to sort of a more mundane fixed income topic, and that's the The backup in yields we've seen this week is getting interesting. I mean, we're still at very low rates in the US uh ten years, you know, eightiesome basis points, you know, thirty years, still

well below two. What do you make of it? Is it sort of part of this blue wave trade idea? Is it? You know, the economic recovery is starting to perk up. What do you make out of what's going on with rates this week? Yeah, it's tough to parse out what some of these moves are really directly attributable to I think part of it comes down to the

prospect of a blue wave, which equals more stimulus. The one thing that's been kind of fascinating to us over the past couple of weeks and maybe even a couple of months is how much the market has focused on headlines around fiscal stimulus, sort of expecting it to happen before the election. And we've been in the camp that that's a very unlikely outcome and has only gotten less likely as we are so close to the election now, and I think that's been a key driver of where

we've gotten to today. So when we think about the risks in the near term heading into the election, you have a week that contains the US election and f O m C meeting, a Treasury refunding announcement, and non farm payrolls. We think that I can't believe that's allowed. Neither can we. It's I feel like even two of those things is too much. And and we have four Tier one super Tier one events all in one week. But when we think about the risks too yields in

the near term, we think it's to the downside. And that's sort of a weighted average of these different outcomes that you can have with the election, with the fo MC meeting, with treasury re lending. And the thing that we think might not be reflected in yields right now is the possibility of a delayed election outcome or a contested election outcome where you have a big risk off move. The tenure yield shifts dramatically lower in that scenario, and

that will sort of be dynamic. As you know, I don't think it's anticipated that will have the results at the end of November three, just depending on how close the race is and how many mail in ballots you have. You're really dealing with an election that is unlike any others we've had in recent past, with all of the potential mail in voting. So we think that the risks are to the downside in the near term, but over the medium term, we do think that the story remains

extremely heavy heavy treasury issuance. And that's even without another fiscal package, which might become more likely once you have an election result in a better understanding of who's in the White House and in Congress, and you know that that only increases the risk of of higher yields from here. So short term you could see yields come down a bit depending on how things go with the election. Over the medium term, we think the directionally, it's yields higher

and curse steeper. I am going to go ahead and head yourselves a little bit and just say, we do record this podcast on a Thursday, so if by chance something happens with stimulus on Friday, we will have recorded this beforehand. I feel like I have to say that just in case. But that's important said, very important disclosure. But going forwards, if no matter what, we do get another stimulus package and and say we do have a blue wave, and that means trillions dollars more worth of

fiscal stimulus down the pipeline. I remember the last time we spoke earlier this year, we talked about the supply coming to the treasury market from that first round of stimulus, the Cares Act, and there were are a few concerns about supply or demand meeting that supply. If we got trillions and trillions dollars more worth of stimulus, what is that going to look like from US supply and demand standpoint. Yeah,

that's a great point, Sarah. And if you think back to March, April, even May all of that supply was handled through the bill market. Almost all of that supply is Treasury less frequently adjusts its coupon auction sizes as it wants it's auctions to be regular and known and not very volatile. They sort of handle any shifts in

issuance needs through the bill market. So that's I mean, the what they did back then as they introduced these cash management bills that they have been issuing on a regular basis since then, and they've driven up the cash balance to one point seven trillion I think it's at around now, and so the big difference going forward is of this additional stimulus will be able to be handled

with the cash balance. That's that's really so high if you think about it, treasuries own forecast for the cash balance for the end of this year is eight hundred billion dollars or nine billion dollars above that. Now now Treasury has baked into its forecast one trillion dollar fiscal

stimulus package, which has not materialized yet. So when we think about the next one to three trillion, a lot of that can be handled through the cash balance, and that sort of takes the edge off of the ultimate size of the new package because they can they have the cash to pay for a certain amount of that, and having that cash on hand, if they are to decide to ramp up unemployment insurance to the additional six billion per month again or right checks to certain US households,

they can do that with that supply of cash. And going forward, more of that supply is going to be turned out. And and you've really seen extreme increases in long term auctions at May and August, even higher than we had anticipated. But they've gone fairly well up to

this point. But we do think going forward you're gonna hit a point where some of these buyers that maybe are buying out of need and not of want, they just need the duration and they don't necessarily have to look at at the yields, which are still quite unattractive. As that starts to dry up and people can take a step back and perhaps reconsider, then, I think that's one of the contributing factors that that sends yields higher,

especially if you do get another fistical stimulus package. Well, Zack, you talked about buyers in the treasury market, which I think obviously the elephant in the room there is the FED, who I still believe. Correct me if I'm wrong. But the last figures I saw, they're still buying something like eighty billion a month in UH treasury treasury notes and bonds. I mean that seems like a lot to me. And you know, the motivation originally was to restore liquidity in

the treasury market. It's the liquidity still that bad that we need eighty billion of purchases a month from the Fed. Where is this kind of maybe a little bit of yield curve control in disguise in your opinion, Yeah, that's a great point. Market liquidity has largely been restored for several months now, and some of the discussion around asset purposes has shifted toward the FED needing to do more by way of accommodation, and that could involve either increasing

purposes overall or shifting them further out the curve. One thing that they changed in the policy statement recently is they explicitly recognize that these purchases are not simply for stabilization and restoring market liquidity. They are providing accommodation. So when we kind of balance some of the public speeches and some speculation around shifting purchases further out the curve with with the policy statement, it would suggest that they're

acknowledging what they're already doing is providing accommodation. So maybe that's an effort to buy them time to really understand what's going to happen on the fiscal side before they try to adjust their purchases, increase their purchases to become more accommodative, since they recognize now that they are already providing accommodation, and when we think about what's sort of missing from the equation on the fiscal side, the fiscal side of the equation is much more equipped to handle

the issues that we have now, whether that be writing checks, providing additional unemployment insurance. I don't think that you can replace the fiscal those fiscal policies with buying more treasuries. I mean, we have seen a backup and yields, but borrowing costs are low and increasing asset purchases from I don't see that really providing the type of relief that the U. S economy needs now as we continue to deal with partially shut down economies and people there are

still out of work. That's asset purchases are not really well equipped to handle that situation, which is why we think that any adjustment to the asset purchase program is

probably a little ways out at this point. So when we look up at this backup and yield that we've seen this past week and its components, something I've seen highlighted is that the backup and yields that we're seeing is actually due to arise in the term premium, so that being the premium that investor holds for holding a longer dated security instead of just rolling a shorter dated one. Not so much actually inflation expectations. I want to get

your take on this. Are you guys seeing the same breakdown? And if so, I mean I feel like that has a lot of implications for other trades if we're not

seeing a backup and yields for inflation or growth reasons. Yeah, that's an interesting point, and it's it's tough to to break all of this down because you have seen break evens come back quite a bit, especially in you know, looking at tenure break evens moving back towards a hundred seventy bass points, and when you think about how that compares to inflation fundamentals, it's actually in excess of what you're seeing or right around what you're seeing in core inflation.

So I think you are seeing some of the rising yields as as a result of rising inflation expectations, but with the economy as fragile and frail as it still is coming out of the largest shutdowns that we had back in in March and April, I think the the story remains that some of these or all of these factors are contributing at least somewhat, But the FED just saying that they are targeting average inflation is not enough to push up expectations materially until you start to see

some of of it in the hard numbers, which which we haven't seen yet. And if you think back to the latest CPI figure, almost all of the growth and core CPI was in used cars and trucks. So you have a situation where court prices aren't rising broadly, you have you're still having some of this funky data, and it's sort of hard to back out what that really

means for inflation going forward. But I think you know, part of part of the story is certainly an increase in expectations, and like a lot of these FED policies we saw back in March in April, just the announcement of them restored a lot of liquidity to the commercial paper markets, the corporate bond markets, and I think you get a little bit of that and in inflation expectations based on the new policy, But it remains to be seen if if the if the hard data will actually

back it up. It's like, let's shift gears a little bit and talk about currencies a little bit. You know. The other big trend we've seen in recent weeks and months is uh, some pretty noticeable weakening of the dollar versus other currencies. To me, what I find interesting is you tend to have these regimes where the dollar can be sort of appreciating for months or even years at the time and then depreciating for months and years at

the time. Obviously too early in this sort of phase of weakening too to say if we're a new regime or not. But but what's your take? Is this a sign of more to calm or can we expect a week er dollar, say going into one? I mean, is is this a new sort of regime for the dollar? In your opinion, we do expect to see sort of dollar weakness over the medium term. I guess, I would say,

and that's as global growth starts to come back. What you've noticed over the past six months or so is the US dollar really has been the number one safe haven currency. So in times where you have a risk off tone, that's that's positive for the dollar. And and when you have risk on, the dollar has fallen. And when you think about what's happened in equity markets over the past six months, you know, we're touching new highs, and while we're off recent highs, the the story has

been mostly risk on. Improved risk sentiment. You have corporate bond spreads hitting new tights and things have gotten a lot better, and that's really been a negative for the U. S. Dollar. You also have the backdrop of the FED still has all of these U. S. Dollar liquidity facilities in place. They're really not getting tapped anymore. I know the repo

facility has gone down to zero. I think central bank liquidity swaps has fallen a bunch as well, not quite down to zero, but I think you have a super combinative FED, and that's that's certainly not unique. To defend all these major global central banks are are very accommodative and considering new policies every day to try to combat

the fallout from the virus. But the one thing that's changed materially is if you look at the yield differential between treasuries and other major government bonds on currency unadjusted basis, that's collapsed the ton. So that's one of the things that we think had prior to all of this supported the dollar and is now more of a head and

for the dollar. And we expect that to be the case going forward, as we do expect yields to rise, but the differential between European government bonds and treasure yields is going to remain pretty low on a historical basis now is and it all connected the sort of you know, your old textbook catalysts for for the dollar, meaning the trade depsit and the and the budget depthsit the twin

deficits really kind of blowing out. Um, is that part of the story here or is it a matter of you know what government is really uh running a huge StarPlus now anyway? Is it? Is it? Or those catalysts not as important to say they would be in in a quote unquote normal, normal world where we're not dealing with all the drama we've dealt with this year. Yeah,

I think that's safe to say. And what we've really focused on for the U s Dollar in the near term is really just general risk sentiment and thinking about, you know, tying that into the election and what might happen in the next couple of weeks. We sort of see an outcome where if it's highly contested or a very close election, that would result in US dollar strength because that's really more of a risk off story and

would probably push people in into the dollar. But if you have a clear election outcome, big fiscal stimulus coming, more inflation coming, that's that's more of a dollar weakness risk on trend. And so those are those are really more of the things that we're focused on. It's almost more of a sentiment thing at this point rather than fundamental.

It's just because fundamental US have shifted so drastically with these budget deficits, and you have sovereign nations that have typically run surpluses like Germany, they're they're doing deficit spending now. So the game has really changed from that perspective, and as we think about what drives the dollar in the near term, it's going to be more about broader risk sentiment Along those lines, If you look at the dollar versus the offshore Chinese you on the past a hundred

day decline. I was running some calculations on the terminal the fastest decline since at least eleven, which is pretty amazing to me. And I've heard some describe that as betting on a Biden wins. So you see a stronger Chinese currency versus the US dollar, Do you buy that at all? That's an interesting perspective that I haven't delve too much into myself. But so is that from the perspective that a Biden presidency is easier on US China relations? Yeah,

I could see that. That's you know, I yeah, you know I I'm not a percent sure that that's you know, that we're going to have a complete reversal of the trade war that President Trump started back in nineteen But I think from the perspective of Biden being a little bit easier on China and that being positive for the currency does make some sense. But you know, how much of the process that Trump has put in place as

far as teriffs goes gets unwound quickly. I don't know that's going to be a very high priority as we have so much going on with the pandemic right now, and and President or Vice President Biden's policies of or seemed to be would be focused more on getting fistical stimulus done here first and just focusing on the public health situation much more than than perhaps immediately diving back some of the tariffs and thing is not that against it's that another note you guys had out that caught

my attention, and you were talking about the correlation between inflation break evens and the SMP five hundred the stock market, And for listeners who aren't familiar with break evens, it's basically just the bond markets sort of forecast for inflation over a certain number of years by comparing the yields on nominal treasuries to the yields on on inflation linked tips treasuries. Inflation expectations by this metric have been firming up,

sort of correlating with a higher stock market. You know, it kind of surprised me. You know, I took that note and I went back and looked, you know, how long has that correlation been positive? Been positive for a long time, not necessarily a one to one, super strong correlation but reliably positive for a long time. But I wonder how long does that correlation stay positive if inflation expectations really start to get up there, start getting above

two percent? Say um, I mean, we know the FED is willing to allow inflation to run a little bit hot, but I wonder, you know when and if could you see that correlation breaking down where UH inflation gets so hot that that people are worried about it, that it becomes sort of a risk off thing in the in the stock market. I don't think it's tomorrow or next week, but you know where where would you sort of start to look for that to happen. What kind of break

even UH inflation numbers? Would would you start to worry about that? If you would worry about it all, maybe I'm wrong and it's not something to worry about. Yeah, that's that's a great point, Mike. I certainly don't think tomorrow or any time soon is is possible or even remotely possible. But I think you will see a switch and trying to call out in the exact number on called the tenure break even is it's going to be difficult. But I think depending on where inflation expectations go relative

to realized inflation. I think letting it run north of two percent, maybe north of two and a half percent, is not going to be something that really concerns the FED. But as you as you get to that point, there's definitely gonna be speculation that now is when the FED is going to start removing accommodation, maybe increasing rates. And

we're talking way down the line. If if you look at the FEDS Summary of Economic Projections from September, they don't have PC inflation hitting two percent until three and at no point in their forecast horizon do they have it above two percent. So from the perspective of does higher inflation expectations result in shifting folk expectation for the FED to perhaps start tightening, I think that's a ways

down the road. And if you have inflation expectations running at two and a half three percent but you're not seeing it and realized inflation, the FED is probably gonna be somewhat slow to react as they have shifted the policy to this flexible average inflation targeting. But I think they've left themselves the ability to have some subjective aspect to that because we don't know over what time frame. There, the average inflation has to hit two percent, so I

think it will be definitely be a factor. But for the correlation to remain positive indefinitely is unlikely. But it should remain positive for the foreseeable future as right now. Our call, the Fed's call is not for inflation too to run super hot through um. If you do see inflation expectations go way north of that, that's definitely something that I think they'll take into account, but it's unlikely

to cause on its own a risk off shift anytime soon. Yeah, they seem to be intentionally vague on how high they'll let it go and for how long. I guess. I

guess there's you know, a good reason for that. You don't want to pay yourself in a corner or to some degree, And I think just the ft is isn't sure what the fiscal policy outlook is and what the economy is gonna look like, what the public health situation is gonna look like, So tying themselves too closely to any certain economic outcome seems like an unnecessary box to put themselves in. So, while it's a little bit frustrating

as a forecaster to have some of this vagueness. It's a bit more understandable in this time that we're in versus a more normal time, let's say, certainly not normal times. And I think that's a great place to leave it. Then to get into our crazy things. Oh nice segway, Sarah, very good, very good. Stand clear of the craziest things we saw in markets this week? All right? Well is that god a good one? I gotta admit that the big bang in the swaps markets pretty good one. It

I like it, all right, Sarah. You know what, Sara, I'll give you one and then we'll go to yours. And then I've got I feel like I'm stuck in the alternative asset class that the people are gonna be disappointed if I don't, if I don't go back to that, well, but I'll start with one from our colleague Katie Greifeld. I find these stories hilarious. It's about the NASDAC. One knew you were going to say that it's too q C. Do you Is that yours too? No, it's not mine,

but it's so good. So apparently, when when these e t s were set up in the q q Q was was created in nineteen nine as a unit investment trust. And when you created an e t F under that sort of rapper back then, you had to identify I guess their trustees. They call them people that who are are basically their lifespan dictates how long the trust will

be in business. So there were fifteen millennials who are named in the founding documents of the q q Q. And you know, my mind just goes in circles trying to figure out how any of this makes sense. But fifteen random millennials would determine how long the q q Q lasts their lifespan at least. Uh. They got rid of that this week and they changed it to it's gonna last until the I guess the last security it owns is liquidated or something like that. But what a bizarre sort of way to to base on et F.

I don't know, it's set. Lawyers must love stuff like this. I guess it's the only explanation I would have because it was technically a trust. Uh, it's really strange and kind of funny. Um Trillions, which is Bloomberg's et podcast with Eric bel Tunis and Joe Weber. They did a great episode on this with a couple of those millennials and some of them had no idea, but this is even going on, So it's a great listen. It's a bit funny and also, um just informational. Who knew. Yeah,

I remember reading about that and I wasn't. I'm not sure if it was that exact e t F for Unit Investment Trust, but it was just the kids or grandkids of people that were working on crazy that was all about the spy. I guess the SMP E t F. Yes, that's right, which I think it's only these really sort of first generation nine G s ETFs that that they

did this and then they figured out another. They found a smarter lawyer to figure out how to do it where you eat enough to involve millennials, if I you know, I'm surprised that just finding out fifteen millennials were determined the fate of these et f s, that we just didn't see a market crash right there. And then Sarah, maybe that's just my maybe that's just my gen x by so I don't know, you're just really worried about leaving leaving a fund in the hands of kids no longer,

that's what that's what that means old and Senile Mike. Now, but we had a we actually had someone right into us on Twitter with a really good one. So this comes from at g I Munich and they retweeted uh Sam Row who is managing at a river over at Yeahoo Finance. But basically what this was citing was a Bloomberg article and there is a quote in it that says cabbage prices are going nuts, and it says, I'll

read you the whole quote. It says cabbage prices are going nuts, said Jumie, a mother of two who usually loads up on the vegetable and fall to make our own kimchi. I had to rub my eyes to see the price tag again because it didn't make any sense. So any of you big cabbage eaters, I feel bad for you. Are you a big cabbage eater? I would not put myself in that category now, only only with the corned beef around. I'm surprised there. It must be

a seasonality to it. I'm gonna look that up. There's gonna be I can't imagine it's because of demand demand spike for cabbage. Hey, anything can happen this year, right, all right? So that's a good one from Twitter and Samurai was a good provider of crazy things. Good good to get get him a shout out, what are you up, Sarah? So I'm gonna do a little bit more self promotion. I didn't know you were going to help me out

off the top of the show with Robin Hood story. Um, but I wrote a story this week on intangible assets and just the growth of intangible assets, and I just thought a number within the story. So really it's it's difficult to measure these things. But there was a report by Ann and Potamon Institute, who was also uh kind of picked up by Carlaw Carlisle by Bank of America.

They took the SMP five hundreds market values, subtracted out its tangible book value, and came to this idea that of the SMP five hundreds of value is derived from intangible assets, which is just a crazy high number. And I know one of Bank of America's strategists. I was speaking to him about this because they cited this number, but he himself was still kind of casting some doubt on it, and I asked him, why are you casting down on this number? And he was like, it's just

too high. I mean, it's really hard to believe that this is true. Um, but it's just a fascinating topic, very interesting, important, and I just thought that number was pretty wild. That's a little concerning, I'd say, if I mean intangibles, depending on what goes into that, if those can be written down, that's uh goodwill right down. So I mean, how many times have we seen, you know,

aol Time Warner Goodwill write down of mammoth proportions. I would up shout out to our own Cameron Christ who has written about this this topic, I think a long time ago. So he had some good columns on that. If you have a terminal, check them out. All right, Sorry, I'm gonna conclude with some very tangible assets alternative alternative assets. And this is uh via the New York Post. So there's and you know what we're gonna you know what

we're gonna do. You know what's coming. We're gonna play priss al right, New York Post story about an auction of some famous movie memorabilia. And now I'm gonna tell you some of the items on auction and zach and and sorry, I want you guys to give me what do you think the highest priced item is? And and a price all right, and this is all based on

what the auction house expects to get. We don't know, you know, the auction hasn't happened yet, but all right, First one on the block, the mechanical head from the nineteen seventy nine movie Alien. Alright, that's one mechanical head from Alien two. The thigh high black boots worn by Julia Roberts in nineteen nineties Pretty Woman. Okay. Then we have Shanno Reeves complete neo costume from the two thousand

and three movie The Matrix Matrix reloaded. Here's one from My Day, Marty McFly's jacket from thee Back to the Future Part two movie I thought you were a vest I don't even know what jacket they're talking about. Um. And finally, the helmet worn by Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan, autographed by the entire cast. So we got the head from Alien, Julia Roberts boots, Shadow Reeves Matrix costume, Marty McFly's jacket or Saving Private Ryan's helmet. Zach, let's

start with you. What what's your highest bid? What's the highest priced item there for you? Zach's trying to figure out how to make derivatives. Off of all these. Yeah, the wheels are really turning. I guess I think the highest priced item would be the helmet from Saving Private Ryan. And I think the autographs factor into that. Okay, the amount, yeah, amount, I'm gonna go with a hundred grand, Okay, opened my poker face. So and I'm not gonna realizing that you're

doing really well. I can't, I can't really can't read you right now. I was gonna agree with Zach. I was gonna say the helmet, but because of the autographs, and if I had can I if I had to go into a second third, then I would go into Neo's Hoole Matrix costume. I'm thinking I also think the boots might be up there. I'm gonna say the alien head is last. Um goes some dollar figures here, a

dollar figures. How much do you pay for those boots? So, assuming they fit you, they're the right size, how much would I pay for those boots? Um? I mean, I'm sure someone would bid way more than I would for that. Personally, what would someone bid for those days? I'm gonna I'm gonna go with uh all right, all right, I woulna agree with both of you. That, I think, and we'll see what the auction turns out. I would have I would have assumed the saving Private Ryan helmet would be

the most it's got the autographs. They're only estimating thirteen and nineteen grand for that one. But I think if you think of this auction through the perspective of a sort of a tech or crypto millionaire, if you will, and then it comes easier. Canna Reeve's costume from the Matrix. They're saying fifty two to seventy eight thousand for that by high Julia Robert Broots only thirteen and nineteen thousand, and the alien mechanical head fifty two. Really yeah, wow,

I've put that at the bottom. Yeah. I feel like there's just such a fan base surrounding the matrix. Yeah. Yeah. The frame of reference I was using was the one from a couple of weeks ago, the notorious B I. G. Crown That was that was in the hundred thousand's right. I was, yeah, yeah, you're right, So that was kind of my That was my starting point. But I guess that you would prefer the helmet over over the crown. No, I want the crown personally. I just thought the helmet

would be valued a little higher. I would too, I would I would have guessed the helmet, but you know who knows what that's that's why we are not in the right right all right, well we will have to leave it there. But Zach Griffith, thank you so much for joining the show today. We really appreciate it. Thanks guys, God bless What Goes Up. We'll be back next week. Until then, you can find us on the Bloomberg Terminal, website,

an 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 Pontzack, Mike is that Reaganonymous, and you can also follow Bloomberg Podcasts at podcasts. Also, thank you to Charlie Pellett of Bloomberg 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.