September 12, 2025 • 25 mins
Katie and Matt discuss the career advantages of losing a billion dollars, wounded lions, hedge fund comp structures and stock prices, Elon Musk’s comp structure, reasons for Tesla to invest in xAI, the New York City mayoral race, insider trading on prediction markets and Polymarket coming home.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News. Hello and welcome to
The Money Stuff Podcast. You're a weekly podcast where we
talk about stuff related to money. I'm Matt Levin and
I write The Money Stuff COLMN for Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
And I'm Katie Greifeld, a reporter for Bloomberg News and
an anchor for Bloomberg Television.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Katy, you know what my man career aspiration is, tell
me still lose a billion.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Dollars and come out better for it.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Well you can't not. Yeah, well it's not the best
possible career move. But up there, surprisingly I up there
on the list of career moves that you can make
is losing a billion dollars if you're a hedge fund
trader or bank trader, because like, there's just got to
be something special about you. If you use a billion dollars, well.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
You know what I always say, A wounded lion is
still a lion.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
So The Shank Kumar has a great story about how
hedgehund traders who lose money are in high demand and
hopping among multi strategy hedgehunds, and it does feature a
quote from a hedgehund re creator named Jason Kennedy who
says even a wounded lion is still a lion, and
the lion isn't mortally wounded, he will heal, and when
(01:20):
he's fully back, that lion is worth a lot more money.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
I do love it.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Like by the end of the metaphrase like also there's money,
He's like.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Wait, let me tie this back into what we're talking about.
That's an incredible quote. Sometimes you read an article and
you come across a passage that just makes you pause.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
That was this for me.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Yes, I would definitely rather be a wounded lion than
a beaten mule, which is a callback to our mailback episode.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
I'm the title of our episode.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Jason Kennedy has a very optimistic take on this, that
the lion will heal. Sometimes lions do get wounded and
then they just die or they're never the same.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
I grew up in sort of an efficient markets world.
I find it fascinating how quaint confident people are that
they can identify investing skill. Clearly, people believe it and
like they have good reason to believe it.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
Right.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
These are like large, successful firms that for many years
produce good returns, but just fascinating to me that you
can be like, Wow, this guy who lost a billion dollars,
he's great, he's so skilled. You know, we'll get him
on the on the downswing.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
And get him at a discount.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
Yeah, we'll get him at a discount and it'll be great, right, Yeah,
as opposed to like the regime has changed, or he
was lucky before or something, and now he's not a
winded line. He's just the guy who loses money.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
He's a gazelle.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
So there's a lot of recent examples of this happening, basically,
these battered former stars getting picked up, perhaps at a discount.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
I was struggling to find a success story. It felt
like this article.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Named a lot of bad examples or how this could
go wrong. I wonder if this ever works out.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
It's weird, like you probably don't hear about the ones
that work out, because like they're not going around bragging
about how they lost a lot of money at their
previous firms.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
They're back to just being lions.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
They're back to just being lions. But right, the other
thing is that this has always been a thing that happens, Like, yeah,
it is definitely there's been an uptick in it recently,
just because there's been such a talent war among the
big multi strategy hedge funds, and so there are all
these people on very large compensation packages that are moving
around between these firms. And if you run these firms,
(03:24):
the people you can pick off from your competitors are
often the people who have lost money. That's partly because
like they're out of favor or whatever. Some of them,
you know, potentially been fired, right because like traditionally these firms,
if you have a big draw down, you get fired.
Although the article mentions some of these people are stars
who like that doesn't happen to like they have a
big draw down and it's like, oh, it's okay, you
(03:44):
can stay here, but they get picked off anyway. The
other reason they're attractive is because they have to leave. Like,
if you lose money, even if you don't get fired,
you're now like below your high water mark, and so
you have to earn back all the money you lost
before you can get a big bonus again, you know,
more or less traditionally, and so if that's the case,
it's very tempting to quit and started a new firm
(04:06):
where your high water mark is resent back to zero.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
Yeah, you're not in the penalty box.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
Yeah, and you know, the article points out that it's
not great for investors, like particularly if you're in multiple firms,
like and people are just moving around to like reset
their high watermarks, Like you're not getting the benefit of
the high water mark.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
That's true to that point. There was a quote from
a woman who now is a performance coach. She used
to be the ex head of a Georgia bank unit
that linked investors with hedge funds, saying that after a
bad year, the pitch is simple, check clean, sight, chill
and let's be honest. Some of these deals are the
definition of an offer you can't refuse. So it makes
(04:43):
sense psychologically.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
Yeah, I wonder about chill, right, Like what are your
incentives at your new firm? On the one hand, you
want to prove that you still got.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
It, you're still lying.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
On the other hand, one thing the article points out is,
like you get one of these, you can't continually lose
a billion dollars. So if you lose a billion dollars,
it's like you did great. You like took a lot
of risk, You've learned from your mistakes, You move on,
You got a new firm, it's great, but you lose
it again that you're done, so like you haven't sentives
to be more conservative at your new firm.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Well to that point, we already have an example. There
is this man, his name is Rob Banham. He was
at point seventy two, then he moved to Citadel. He's
already been let go after making tens of millions of
dollars of more losses. So I guess he found his
second strike right.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Again, this is not would be classy, but it is
possible that you lost a lot of money because you're
really talented at losing money. Yeah, but no, I love
I love the like edgehun compensation structure of like like,
I think a lot of people would like to be
able to find a system where if you lose money,
(05:55):
that's your problem, right, Not so much in multi strategy funds,
but I've said about this before with single manager hedge funds,
where if they lose a lot of money for their
investors and they're below their high water mark, they will
shut down the fund and spend like six months doing
penance on a beach, and then they'll like start a
new fund with a new name, and the investors would
be like, what the hell, Yeah, you got to earn
(06:15):
back your high water work. And every so often people
will be like, I'm going to indenture myself for years
to my old investors and just earn back every penny
of my how outter remark and not take and right
like people do that, but not everyone does that. I
think limited partners would love to have some incentive structure,
some compstructure, some contract where they could make the losses
(06:38):
fully the hedgemand manager's problem. But it's hard to do.
It's hard to do. No one's quite cracked the good.
The only thing I stud point out is after I
wrote about this, I learned of a paper by Maury L.
Say If a Duke called hedge fund Incentives, risk taking
and asset prices. What I wrote about is like the
hedgehend managers like including a multi shred firms have like
incentives to optimize their b and their high water mark.
(07:01):
So what that means is like, if it's getting to
be the end of the year and you're up a lot,
you like chill because you don't want to lose all
the games you've made because those games provide your bonus. Right,
if you're down a little bit, you have a lot
of incentive to take big risks because if you're down
a little bit or flat, you don't get a big bonus.
But if you're up a lot, you got a big bonus.
(07:22):
And if you're down a lot, you don't do any
worse than if you're down a little bit, So you
might as well take big risks. And what else say
if he finds is that one that's true? And two
you can see it in asset prices where like basically
more hi beta, more volatile stocks go up when a
lot of hedgehunes are below their high water mark because
they're gambling on redemption. And so like you actually see
(07:43):
stock prices react to the year end of bonus structures
of hedgelong managers.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Man, so I'm gonna I'm going to borrow this paper
for when I'm on television at the end of the
year and things are going bananas. I'm just going to say, well,
I guess a lot of heat.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Yeah, anything that happens in the year, it's like probably
someone like optimizing their bonus.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
I use it all the time, month end, quarter ends. Well,
it looks like things are just weird today. I can't
explain this tick in this stock.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
But right, I think that, as we've said on this podcast,
the market is a conversation among four hedge funds. I'm like,
you know, if they need their.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
Bonus's, it is time to talk about Elon Musk.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
It's been what at least at.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
Least a week, at least a single.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Week, has it only been want to make anyway? Yeah,
Elon Musk is back in the news this week.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Yeah, well actually last Friday Friday. Yeah, you famously don't
publish on Fridays.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
It's does the crafting email for this?
Speaker 3 (08:57):
Yeah, it takes hours. So Elon Moss one trillion dollars.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
I really don't like this framing.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Everyone says this, everyone does.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Elon Musk is the CEO of Tesla and the techno
king of Tesla. There's also, controversially, let's say he's the
founder of Tesla.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
That is a controversial statement.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
He didn't found Tesla, but he's the founder of Tesla,
right for sure. For theoretical purposes, he's the founder of Tesla,
and so like many founder CEOs, he's a big shareholder
in Tesla and depends how you can because of like
the weird option stuff, but he owns like twelve to
twenty percent of Tesla.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
It's not enough.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
It's not enough, but it's a lot, right, And you
look at a lot of like these big tech companies
that are run by their more or less founders. They
don't get huge compensation packages, and they don't get huge
compensation packages because like it's just assumed that, like they
profit from the upside in the company by owning a
lot of the company. So like Jeff Bezos rand Amazon,
(09:54):
and you know, Mark Zuckerberg runs Meta, Like these people
don't get paid hundreds of billions of dollars. They just
own hundreds of billions of dollars of stock, and like
when they do good stuff, the stock goes up. And
so anyway, Elon Musk is not like that for reasons,
and he instead gets huge compensation packages. And the board
or Tessa's ass shareholders to vote on a new package
(10:17):
that targets growing Tesla from the day about a trillion
dollar company into a eight point five trillion dollar.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Company, which is two in videos, two.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
In videos, yeah, right, more two in videos now, yeah,
who knows what year, But if he succeeds in growing
Tesla to an eight point five trillion dollar company, they
will give him a trillion dollars worth of stock, which
is great, but like, also he will have a trillion
dollars worth of stock anyway, Like, he already owns a
lot of stock, and if he eight point five times
(10:46):
the company, then the stock will be worth a trillion dollars.
So like, it's not like they sat down and thought,
if we give elan musk at trillion dollars, he will
turn this into an eight point five trillion dollar company.
It's like, if we give another trillion dollars on top
of the trillion dollars he already get for that, then
I'll turn it into an eight point five trillion dollar company.
It's not a trillion dollar it's like whatever, it's if
(11:07):
he does this, he would have a trillion dollars anyway,
because he's a big shelter. This is all in the
shadow of like he had this comp package that Adella
reports strike down, and like the judge at the time wrote,
like the board did not analyze whether it was necessary
to give him all of this given that he's a
huge shareholder anyway, and like the comp set, the Zuckerbergs
(11:30):
of the world don't get, you know, trillion dollar Paybay
just they benefit from their share ownership. Once again, the
board does not think that Elon Musk gets much incentive
effect from the shares he already owns. Yeah, they're just
like he needs more shares, and it's like clearly not
true that he is being incentivized by a trillion dollars.
What's happening here is that Elon Musk wants to own
twenty five percent of the company, and so the board
(11:52):
is like, how do we get him twenty five percent
of the company, And they just give him twenty five
percent of the company. They'd be like, well, if we
don't give him twenty five percent of the company, you'd quit.
So here it is right, but that like looks really bad.
Even to a Texas court, that would look bad. So
what they're doing is they're saying, oh, we have like
these super ambitious performance calls, and if he meets these goals,
then we'll give them a trillion dollars. It's probably a
reasonable solution. But it's so like he's owned like twenty
(12:16):
five percent of Tesla, then he sold down like by
Twitter and stuff. It's very strange that he just he
thinks he deserves to perpetually own twenty five percent of
Tesla and the board is like, well you have to
give it to m.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Well, people have tried to stop him from what from
owning that much or I don't know, you think about
the twenty eighteen experience, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
Right, I think that. You know. Elan mess says, the
funniest thought comes the most likely, Like you could sue.
You could takes us to stop this. Everyone assumes you
would lose, but anyone really knows that's true. I am
really what if someone sued in one? Wouldn't that be funny?
Speaker 2 (12:51):
That wouldn't be funny. Maybe not the funniest thing though,
so it probably won't happen.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
He'd be so mad that I think it'd be pretty.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Funny, but whatever, Okay, I am curious to see what
happens over the next decade. Obviously, because eight point five
trillion dollars, I mean, the first you think about the
incentive structure that was put in place the first time around.
That was very ambitious as well.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
And he did it when he got his twenty eighteen package,
Like the idea of making Tesla a trillion dollar company,
which is not exactly the target, but like yeah, which
he did would have seemed kind of absurd, and then
he did it in fairly short order. Yeah, I don't know,
a decade, a long time.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
One of the things that you mentioned in your column
is that Elon Musk the world's richest man that briefly
became not true this that's right, Larry Elson briefly became.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
The world's richest man.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
Now they're I don't know, I think like a billion
dollars separates them at this exact moment. But you think
about the future, I think the exact think one.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
Or both of them is like watching the chart as
the lens crossed.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
I would like to think that both of them are.
But in any case, obviously Oracle had insane earnings and
had an insane outlook.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
And uh like flatish earnings on insane look.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
But yeah, well that's it's mostly out.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
Yeah, and you think about the billings growth and whatever
and where the future is going to go. It really
just underscored why Elon wants to turn Tesla into an
AI company, because, Okay, maybe evs still are the future.
They don't feel as immediately the future as AI is
right now.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Oh yeah, right, I mean you can point to your billings,
your like potential future sales as a DA company to your.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Three hundred billion dollars worth of contracts that you signed
with open Ai.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
It's you know, it's sort of worth that much in
market cup, right. That's why Elon Musk is turning his
focus to AI, and it's also why Tesla needs to
pay up to keep him, right, because there are more
obvious AI players like his AI company. Also in the
Tesla proxy, yeah, there's a shareholder proposal to invest in Xai.
(14:50):
And it's funny because like there's some business rationale for
Tesla to invest in XI companies put the chat out
on the dashboard.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
Which they've done I think talk to your car.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Yeah, But so like there's some business case. There's a
there's a very big, like Elon Musk personal business case,
which is that Tesla is not the most obvious AI company, right,
it's not going to capture the public imagination the way
like Oracle is. But then like Xai, which is a
more obvious AI play, plays are very expensive and it
needs money, and Tesla has money, so like it does
(15:24):
make sense for Elon Musk to like merge them or
like take some Tesla money and give a TEXTI or whatever.
But even in the current situation. Even in Texas, it
doesn't seem a little hard for Tesla to just decide
on the CEO's whim to invest billions or dollars in
the CEO's other company. But if the cherlders.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Asked for it, yeah, that's true.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
And then it's funny because like someone tweeted about it
and Elon Musk was like, it's not up to me.
The shareolders have to ask far and so like some
chrelder duly like went and proposed exactly and then like
you know, the shareholders overwhelming the button favor and then
the word are like that did they give surely what
they want? Well, we're going to give Elan his money,
and then someone will negotiate it. It's not how one
(16:08):
normally runs a company, but it's like it's happening.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
It's runs a company, all right, Eric Adams, thank you
to Front of the Show Bill Ackman, the actual Bill Ackman,
(16:34):
for teeing us up for this too delating conversation.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Friend of the Show by Lackman went on Twitter to
try to persuade Eric Adams to drop out of the
New York City mayoral race, which is a for our purposes.
Let's say three way race between Zori Mundanni.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
Who's you know, fan favorite.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
Odd lots cast, betting market favorite, polling favorite, Zora Mundannie,
and then there's Andrew who's heard of him Bill Ackman
favorite yep. And then there's Area Adams is the current
mayor and seems to have no shot. But so like
a prediction market, the polymarket has zorround at like eighty percent,
odds Cuomo like eighteen percent, and then like you know,
(17:17):
Adams like one or two percent or something like that.
And so Bill Ackman went on Twitter to be like,
Arian Adams drop out, because I'm Donnie, seems to have
a plurality, and so like if everyone else drops out,
then like maybe a Cuomo consolidate's enough support to win.
So if Aria Adams drops out, that like really materially
improves Cuomo's chances. And so Acman went on Twitter to
(17:38):
be like, er Adams drop out. But he also said,
and to fund your future, you could place a large
bet on Andrew Cuomo and then announce your withdrawal from
the race. There is no insider trading on polymarket.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
What a crazy thing to say. I mean, God, plus,
he's not even wrong.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
He's wrong in the sense that he says you could
place a large bet on uncoma. I don't think that's true. Like,
I don't think the liquidity in these markets is enough
for like, Like one thing we know about Eric Adams
is that he enjoys like playing trips. Yes, I don't
think you could make a ton of money betting on
anentercroma some liquidity. But like, as a general proposition, is
(18:19):
this a thing that will become popular in politics, which
is betting against yourself and then dropping out of the race.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
Yeah, I would like to see that world that future actualized.
I think it would be funny and it would provide
a lot of fodder for this podcast.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
Oh yeah, oh yeah, right, I mean, because like traditionally
you're not you're not supposed to pay people to drop
out of political races. Seems a little it seems a
little bribby. But then like the prediction markets are sort
of like a distributed way for dropping out of your race.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
And I mean trading, and Bi Lackman didn't say I
will be on the other side of this trade, so
that was good, right.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
I Mean, one thing I wrote about this is that
there's not a ton of liquidity. Eric Adams couldn't make
a ton of money by doing this unless someone where
to step in and be on the other side of
the trade, which again he didn't offer, but like would
have been you know, it would be the logical next step.
But then the other question is is he right about
there being no insider trading and nobody really knows.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
Yeah, it's like don't know until you try.
Speaker 1 (19:21):
Or for years afterwards. So, by the way, another independent
reason that Eric Adams couldn't do that is because no
one believes it's still illegal to trade on Pollymarket if
you're a US person, Like poly Market is not available
in the US.
Speaker 3 (19:35):
No one ever talks about that ever.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
Talks about like they used to chuckle about it, like
you can't you know, like Probly marks like advertising all
over New York and everyone's like, oh, you can't trade
on Pollymarket in the US. But like everyone did. If
you go to their website now they're like, Polymarket is
coming home. The website actually has a little eagle, so good. No,
it's like it's just like, you know, it looks like
(19:59):
it looks like a Trump Sun designed it. But anyway,
Polymarket is coming home. Polymarket will soon be available for
US traders the website right, but it's not now right,
so you can't do it, but so right now, Like
if you want to trade prediction markets in the US,
you can trade on CALCI. What should talk about all
the time because you can predict sporting events on calshy,
and CALSHI has insider trading rules, quite strict insider trading rules,
(20:20):
so you can't trade if you have material on public
information or if you can influence the outcome of the event.
Polymarkets rules are less clear, and I imagine that when
polymarket is available in the US, it will look more
like real commodities exchanges, which don't say you can't trade
(20:41):
on material on public information, because that's not how commodities
markets work. I quoted Carolyn fam who's the acting Commissioner
at the CFTC. You talked about the special characteristics of
the derivative markets, where end users necessarily trade on the
basis of their own proprietary information in order to hedge
their risks. You're an oil company trading oil futures. You
(21:02):
know something about oil production that other people don't know,
and you're totally allowed to trade it. So in US
regulated commodities markets, you're not allowed to trade with misappropriated information.
So if you work at an oil company and you
trade for your personal account based on the oil companies
production plans, that's probably insider trading. That's probably not allowed
(21:23):
because you're misappropriating that information. You have some duty to
keep that confidential, right, But like the oil company itself
can trade commodities, And if you like, read that through
to election markets, which are not commodities, none of this
makes any sense in election markets, but you know they
are treated as commodities. If you read it through to
election markets, then it's like, well, if Eric Adams is
campaign manager place an insider bet, that would be bad
(21:46):
to be misappropriation for sure, eric Adoms does it himself.
Maybe it's fun. So I really don't know. I really
don't know what the sort of like future rules around
insider trading prediction markets will be, because like there are
a lot of people, include like Calshi and the people
who got Calshi to be a regulated US Torovators exchange,
there are a lot of people who are like, that's
(22:07):
icky and unfair, and we do not want to have
the trouble that would come with allowing insider trading, right,
but there are a lot of people who are, like,
the whole point of prediction markets is insider trading. The
whole point of prediction markets is to get accurate predictions
by like incentivizing insiders to bet on stuff they know.
Like that's like when economists set up prediction markets, right,
that's the whole point. Yeah, And so Kelshi has spent
(22:29):
years trying to become a regulated exchange, and like wanted
to appeal to conservative regulators. We don't live at a
time where people are that conservative insider trading anymore. So
I think I don't really know what's gonna happen.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
You could build a case that Eric Adams did listen
to Bill Ackman, which I find tickling about this story.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
He hasn't dropped out yet, right, he.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
Hasn't dropped out yet.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
But this is Thursday, und Yes, on September fifth, Eric
Adams had a press conference I believe that was Friday.
He said that he's staying in New York City's mayoral race.
He also said that Andrew Cuomo is a snake and
a liar. That's a direct quote. So on Friday of
last week, he was very committed to staying In September
(23:13):
six is when we got the Bill Lackman tweet, which
was awesome. And then today, on Thursday, the eleventh of September,
Bloomberg News reported that New York City Mayor Eric Adams
did tell a group of civic and business leaders that
he's conducting his own polling to decide the future of
his re election campaign. This is according to people who
attended the meeting. So he's at least thinking about it.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
He's still making money. Like that's like, I just love
the tell the political matter. Billman would like him drop
out the financial matter, believans like you can make a
lot of money by dropping in. I don't think it's true,
but it would be funny if it was true.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
Maybe he's thinking about it. Who knows, I'm not.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
You know you're buying enter Cromo contracts.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
I'm certainly not. I don't know if we can man
step away from the mic first.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
No, as I said, I don't think there's a lot
of money to be made at it, and there's a
lot of unpleasantness, right, But maybe it's like the market
is discounting this right, Like, yeah, the market is aware
of Bill.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
Ackrans streets like that's true.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
Is like three percent?
Speaker 3 (24:14):
Right?
Speaker 1 (24:14):
I wonder if Coma's chances would go have that much
if Adams chopped out, But I don't know.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
We'll say I was going to say, we've still got
a long way to go, but there's not that much
longer time marchers still on.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
All right, Well we've collectively sighed, So I think I
think that's the end.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
That's the final side. Yeah, And that was the Money
Stuff Podcast.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
I'm Matt Levine and I'm Katie Greifeld.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
You can find my work by subscribing to the Money
Stuff newsletter on Bloomberg dot com.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
And you can find me on Bloomberg TV every day
on the Clothes between three and five pm Eastern.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
We'd love to hear from you. You can send an
email to your money Pop at Bloomberg dot net, ask
us a question and we might answer it on the air.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
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.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
The Money Stuff Podcast is produced by Anna Maserakas and
Roses Honda.
Speaker 3 (25:09):
Our theme music was composed by Blake Maples.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
Amy Keen is our executive producer.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
And Sage Bauman is Bloomberg's head of podcasts.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
Thanks for listening to the Money Stuff podcast. We'll be
back next to week with more stuff
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News. Hello and welcome to
The Money Stuff Podcast. You're a weekly podcast where we
talk about stuff related to money. I'm Matt Levin and
I write The Money Stuff COLMN for Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
And I'm Katie Greifeld, a reporter for Bloomberg News and
an anchor for Bloomberg Television.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Katy, you know what my man career aspiration is, tell
me still lose a billion.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Dollars and come out better for it.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Well you can't not. Yeah, well it's not the best
possible career move. But up there, surprisingly I up there
on the list of career moves that you can make
is losing a billion dollars if you're a hedge fund
trader or bank trader, because like, there's just got to
be something special about you. If you use a billion dollars, well.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
You know what I always say, A wounded lion is
still a lion.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
So The Shank Kumar has a great story about how
hedgehund traders who lose money are in high demand and
hopping among multi strategy hedgehunds, and it does feature a
quote from a hedgehund re creator named Jason Kennedy who
says even a wounded lion is still a lion, and
the lion isn't mortally wounded, he will heal, and when
(01:20):
he's fully back, that lion is worth a lot more money.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
I do love it.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Like by the end of the metaphrase like also there's money,
He's like.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Wait, let me tie this back into what we're talking about.
That's an incredible quote. Sometimes you read an article and
you come across a passage that just makes you pause.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
That was this for me.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Yes, I would definitely rather be a wounded lion than
a beaten mule, which is a callback to our mailback episode.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
I'm the title of our episode.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Jason Kennedy has a very optimistic take on this, that
the lion will heal. Sometimes lions do get wounded and
then they just die or they're never the same.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
I grew up in sort of an efficient markets world.
I find it fascinating how quaint confident people are that
they can identify investing skill. Clearly, people believe it and
like they have good reason to believe it.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
Right.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
These are like large, successful firms that for many years
produce good returns, but just fascinating to me that you
can be like, Wow, this guy who lost a billion dollars,
he's great, he's so skilled. You know, we'll get him
on the on the downswing.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
And get him at a discount.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
Yeah, we'll get him at a discount and it'll be great, right, Yeah,
as opposed to like the regime has changed, or he
was lucky before or something, and now he's not a
winded line. He's just the guy who loses money.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
He's a gazelle.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
So there's a lot of recent examples of this happening, basically,
these battered former stars getting picked up, perhaps at a discount.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
I was struggling to find a success story. It felt
like this article.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Named a lot of bad examples or how this could
go wrong. I wonder if this ever works out.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
It's weird, like you probably don't hear about the ones
that work out, because like they're not going around bragging
about how they lost a lot of money at their
previous firms.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
They're back to just being lions.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
They're back to just being lions. But right, the other
thing is that this has always been a thing that happens, Like, yeah,
it is definitely there's been an uptick in it recently,
just because there's been such a talent war among the
big multi strategy hedge funds, and so there are all
these people on very large compensation packages that are moving
around between these firms. And if you run these firms,
(03:24):
the people you can pick off from your competitors are
often the people who have lost money. That's partly because
like they're out of favor or whatever. Some of them,
you know, potentially been fired, right because like traditionally these firms,
if you have a big draw down, you get fired.
Although the article mentions some of these people are stars
who like that doesn't happen to like they have a
big draw down and it's like, oh, it's okay, you
(03:44):
can stay here, but they get picked off anyway. The
other reason they're attractive is because they have to leave. Like,
if you lose money, even if you don't get fired,
you're now like below your high water mark, and so
you have to earn back all the money you lost
before you can get a big bonus again, you know,
more or less traditionally, and so if that's the case,
it's very tempting to quit and started a new firm
(04:06):
where your high water mark is resent back to zero.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
Yeah, you're not in the penalty box.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
Yeah, and you know, the article points out that it's
not great for investors, like particularly if you're in multiple firms,
like and people are just moving around to like reset
their high watermarks, Like you're not getting the benefit of
the high water mark.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
That's true to that point. There was a quote from
a woman who now is a performance coach. She used
to be the ex head of a Georgia bank unit
that linked investors with hedge funds, saying that after a
bad year, the pitch is simple, check clean, sight, chill
and let's be honest. Some of these deals are the
definition of an offer you can't refuse. So it makes
(04:43):
sense psychologically.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
Yeah, I wonder about chill, right, Like what are your
incentives at your new firm? On the one hand, you
want to prove that you still got.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
It, you're still lying.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
On the other hand, one thing the article points out is,
like you get one of these, you can't continually lose
a billion dollars. So if you lose a billion dollars,
it's like you did great. You like took a lot
of risk, You've learned from your mistakes, You move on,
You got a new firm, it's great, but you lose
it again that you're done, so like you haven't sentives
to be more conservative at your new firm.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Well to that point, we already have an example. There
is this man, his name is Rob Banham. He was
at point seventy two, then he moved to Citadel. He's
already been let go after making tens of millions of
dollars of more losses. So I guess he found his
second strike right.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Again, this is not would be classy, but it is
possible that you lost a lot of money because you're
really talented at losing money. Yeah, but no, I love
I love the like edgehun compensation structure of like like,
I think a lot of people would like to be
able to find a system where if you lose money,
(05:55):
that's your problem, right, Not so much in multi strategy funds,
but I've said about this before with single manager hedge funds,
where if they lose a lot of money for their
investors and they're below their high water mark, they will
shut down the fund and spend like six months doing
penance on a beach, and then they'll like start a
new fund with a new name, and the investors would
be like, what the hell, Yeah, you got to earn
(06:15):
back your high water work. And every so often people
will be like, I'm going to indenture myself for years
to my old investors and just earn back every penny
of my how outter remark and not take and right
like people do that, but not everyone does that. I
think limited partners would love to have some incentive structure,
some compstructure, some contract where they could make the losses
(06:38):
fully the hedgemand manager's problem. But it's hard to do.
It's hard to do. No one's quite cracked the good.
The only thing I stud point out is after I
wrote about this, I learned of a paper by Maury L.
Say If a Duke called hedge fund Incentives, risk taking
and asset prices. What I wrote about is like the
hedgehend managers like including a multi shred firms have like
incentives to optimize their b and their high water mark.
(07:01):
So what that means is like, if it's getting to
be the end of the year and you're up a lot,
you like chill because you don't want to lose all
the games you've made because those games provide your bonus. Right,
if you're down a little bit, you have a lot
of incentive to take big risks because if you're down
a little bit or flat, you don't get a big bonus.
But if you're up a lot, you got a big bonus.
(07:22):
And if you're down a lot, you don't do any
worse than if you're down a little bit, So you
might as well take big risks. And what else say
if he finds is that one that's true? And two
you can see it in asset prices where like basically
more hi beta, more volatile stocks go up when a
lot of hedgehunes are below their high water mark because
they're gambling on redemption. And so like you actually see
(07:43):
stock prices react to the year end of bonus structures
of hedgelong managers.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Man, so I'm gonna I'm going to borrow this paper
for when I'm on television at the end of the
year and things are going bananas. I'm just going to say, well,
I guess a lot of heat.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Yeah, anything that happens in the year, it's like probably
someone like optimizing their bonus.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
I use it all the time, month end, quarter ends. Well,
it looks like things are just weird today. I can't
explain this tick in this stock.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
But right, I think that, as we've said on this podcast,
the market is a conversation among four hedge funds. I'm like,
you know, if they need their.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
Bonus's, it is time to talk about Elon Musk.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
It's been what at least at.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
Least a week, at least a single.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Week, has it only been want to make anyway? Yeah,
Elon Musk is back in the news this week.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Yeah, well actually last Friday Friday. Yeah, you famously don't
publish on Fridays.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
It's does the crafting email for this?
Speaker 3 (08:57):
Yeah, it takes hours. So Elon Moss one trillion dollars.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
I really don't like this framing.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Everyone says this, everyone does.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Elon Musk is the CEO of Tesla and the techno
king of Tesla. There's also, controversially, let's say he's the
founder of Tesla.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
That is a controversial statement.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
He didn't found Tesla, but he's the founder of Tesla,
right for sure. For theoretical purposes, he's the founder of Tesla,
and so like many founder CEOs, he's a big shareholder
in Tesla and depends how you can because of like
the weird option stuff, but he owns like twelve to
twenty percent of Tesla.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
It's not enough.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
It's not enough, but it's a lot, right, And you
look at a lot of like these big tech companies
that are run by their more or less founders. They
don't get huge compensation packages, and they don't get huge
compensation packages because like it's just assumed that, like they
profit from the upside in the company by owning a
lot of the company. So like Jeff Bezos rand Amazon,
(09:54):
and you know, Mark Zuckerberg runs Meta, Like these people
don't get paid hundreds of billions of dollars. They just
own hundreds of billions of dollars of stock, and like
when they do good stuff, the stock goes up. And
so anyway, Elon Musk is not like that for reasons,
and he instead gets huge compensation packages. And the board
or Tessa's ass shareholders to vote on a new package
(10:17):
that targets growing Tesla from the day about a trillion
dollar company into a eight point five trillion dollar.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Company, which is two in videos, two.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
In videos, yeah, right, more two in videos now, yeah,
who knows what year, But if he succeeds in growing
Tesla to an eight point five trillion dollar company, they
will give him a trillion dollars worth of stock, which
is great, but like, also he will have a trillion
dollars worth of stock anyway, Like, he already owns a
lot of stock, and if he eight point five times
(10:46):
the company, then the stock will be worth a trillion dollars.
So like, it's not like they sat down and thought,
if we give elan musk at trillion dollars, he will
turn this into an eight point five trillion dollar company.
It's like, if we give another trillion dollars on top
of the trillion dollars he already get for that, then
I'll turn it into an eight point five trillion dollar company.
It's not a trillion dollar it's like whatever, it's if
(11:07):
he does this, he would have a trillion dollars anyway,
because he's a big shelter. This is all in the
shadow of like he had this comp package that Adella
reports strike down, and like the judge at the time wrote,
like the board did not analyze whether it was necessary
to give him all of this given that he's a
huge shareholder anyway, and like the comp set, the Zuckerbergs
(11:30):
of the world don't get, you know, trillion dollar Paybay
just they benefit from their share ownership. Once again, the
board does not think that Elon Musk gets much incentive
effect from the shares he already owns. Yeah, they're just
like he needs more shares, and it's like clearly not
true that he is being incentivized by a trillion dollars.
What's happening here is that Elon Musk wants to own
twenty five percent of the company, and so the board
(11:52):
is like, how do we get him twenty five percent
of the company, And they just give him twenty five
percent of the company. They'd be like, well, if we
don't give him twenty five percent of the company, you'd quit.
So here it is right, but that like looks really bad.
Even to a Texas court, that would look bad. So
what they're doing is they're saying, oh, we have like
these super ambitious performance calls, and if he meets these goals,
then we'll give them a trillion dollars. It's probably a
reasonable solution. But it's so like he's owned like twenty
(12:16):
five percent of Tesla, then he sold down like by
Twitter and stuff. It's very strange that he just he
thinks he deserves to perpetually own twenty five percent of
Tesla and the board is like, well you have to
give it to m.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Well, people have tried to stop him from what from
owning that much or I don't know, you think about
the twenty eighteen experience, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
Right, I think that. You know. Elan mess says, the
funniest thought comes the most likely, Like you could sue.
You could takes us to stop this. Everyone assumes you
would lose, but anyone really knows that's true. I am
really what if someone sued in one? Wouldn't that be funny?
Speaker 2 (12:51):
That wouldn't be funny. Maybe not the funniest thing though,
so it probably won't happen.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
He'd be so mad that I think it'd be pretty.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Funny, but whatever, Okay, I am curious to see what
happens over the next decade. Obviously, because eight point five
trillion dollars, I mean, the first you think about the
incentive structure that was put in place the first time around.
That was very ambitious as well.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
And he did it when he got his twenty eighteen package,
Like the idea of making Tesla a trillion dollar company,
which is not exactly the target, but like yeah, which
he did would have seemed kind of absurd, and then
he did it in fairly short order. Yeah, I don't know,
a decade, a long time.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
One of the things that you mentioned in your column
is that Elon Musk the world's richest man that briefly
became not true this that's right, Larry Elson briefly became.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
The world's richest man.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
Now they're I don't know, I think like a billion
dollars separates them at this exact moment. But you think
about the future, I think the exact think one.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
Or both of them is like watching the chart as
the lens crossed.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
I would like to think that both of them are.
But in any case, obviously Oracle had insane earnings and
had an insane outlook.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
And uh like flatish earnings on insane look.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
But yeah, well that's it's mostly out.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
Yeah, and you think about the billings growth and whatever
and where the future is going to go. It really
just underscored why Elon wants to turn Tesla into an
AI company, because, Okay, maybe evs still are the future.
They don't feel as immediately the future as AI is
right now.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Oh yeah, right, I mean you can point to your billings,
your like potential future sales as a DA company to your.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Three hundred billion dollars worth of contracts that you signed
with open Ai.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
It's you know, it's sort of worth that much in
market cup, right. That's why Elon Musk is turning his
focus to AI, and it's also why Tesla needs to
pay up to keep him, right, because there are more
obvious AI players like his AI company. Also in the
Tesla proxy, yeah, there's a shareholder proposal to invest in Xai.
(14:50):
And it's funny because like there's some business rationale for
Tesla to invest in XI companies put the chat out
on the dashboard.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
Which they've done I think talk to your car.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Yeah, But so like there's some business case. There's a
there's a very big, like Elon Musk personal business case,
which is that Tesla is not the most obvious AI company, right,
it's not going to capture the public imagination the way
like Oracle is. But then like Xai, which is a
more obvious AI play, plays are very expensive and it
needs money, and Tesla has money, so like it does
(15:24):
make sense for Elon Musk to like merge them or
like take some Tesla money and give a TEXTI or whatever.
But even in the current situation. Even in Texas, it
doesn't seem a little hard for Tesla to just decide
on the CEO's whim to invest billions or dollars in
the CEO's other company. But if the cherlders.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Asked for it, yeah, that's true.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
And then it's funny because like someone tweeted about it
and Elon Musk was like, it's not up to me.
The shareolders have to ask far and so like some
chrelder duly like went and proposed exactly and then like
you know, the shareholders overwhelming the button favor and then
the word are like that did they give surely what
they want? Well, we're going to give Elan his money,
and then someone will negotiate it. It's not how one
(16:08):
normally runs a company, but it's like it's happening.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
It's runs a company, all right, Eric Adams, thank you
to Front of the Show Bill Ackman, the actual Bill Ackman,
(16:34):
for teeing us up for this too delating conversation.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Friend of the Show by Lackman went on Twitter to
try to persuade Eric Adams to drop out of the
New York City mayoral race, which is a for our purposes.
Let's say three way race between Zori Mundanni.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
Who's you know, fan favorite.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
Odd lots cast, betting market favorite, polling favorite, Zora Mundannie,
and then there's Andrew who's heard of him Bill Ackman
favorite yep. And then there's Area Adams is the current
mayor and seems to have no shot. But so like
a prediction market, the polymarket has zorround at like eighty percent,
odds Cuomo like eighteen percent, and then like you know,
(17:17):
Adams like one or two percent or something like that.
And so Bill Ackman went on Twitter to be like,
Arian Adams drop out, because I'm Donnie, seems to have
a plurality, and so like if everyone else drops out,
then like maybe a Cuomo consolidate's enough support to win.
So if Aria Adams drops out, that like really materially
improves Cuomo's chances. And so Acman went on Twitter to
(17:38):
be like, er Adams drop out. But he also said,
and to fund your future, you could place a large
bet on Andrew Cuomo and then announce your withdrawal from
the race. There is no insider trading on polymarket.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
What a crazy thing to say. I mean, God, plus,
he's not even wrong.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
He's wrong in the sense that he says you could
place a large bet on uncoma. I don't think that's true. Like,
I don't think the liquidity in these markets is enough
for like, Like one thing we know about Eric Adams
is that he enjoys like playing trips. Yes, I don't
think you could make a ton of money betting on
anentercroma some liquidity. But like, as a general proposition, is
(18:19):
this a thing that will become popular in politics, which
is betting against yourself and then dropping out of the race.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
Yeah, I would like to see that world that future actualized.
I think it would be funny and it would provide
a lot of fodder for this podcast.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
Oh yeah, oh yeah, right, I mean, because like traditionally
you're not you're not supposed to pay people to drop
out of political races. Seems a little it seems a
little bribby. But then like the prediction markets are sort
of like a distributed way for dropping out of your race.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
And I mean trading, and Bi Lackman didn't say I
will be on the other side of this trade, so
that was good, right.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
I Mean, one thing I wrote about this is that
there's not a ton of liquidity. Eric Adams couldn't make
a ton of money by doing this unless someone where
to step in and be on the other side of
the trade, which again he didn't offer, but like would
have been you know, it would be the logical next step.
But then the other question is is he right about
there being no insider trading and nobody really knows.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
Yeah, it's like don't know until you try.
Speaker 1 (19:21):
Or for years afterwards. So, by the way, another independent
reason that Eric Adams couldn't do that is because no
one believes it's still illegal to trade on Pollymarket if
you're a US person, Like poly Market is not available
in the US.
Speaker 3 (19:35):
No one ever talks about that ever.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
Talks about like they used to chuckle about it, like
you can't you know, like Probly marks like advertising all
over New York and everyone's like, oh, you can't trade
on Pollymarket in the US. But like everyone did. If
you go to their website now they're like, Polymarket is
coming home. The website actually has a little eagle, so good. No,
it's like it's just like, you know, it looks like
(19:59):
it looks like a Trump Sun designed it. But anyway,
Polymarket is coming home. Polymarket will soon be available for
US traders the website right, but it's not now right,
so you can't do it, but so right now, Like
if you want to trade prediction markets in the US,
you can trade on CALCI. What should talk about all
the time because you can predict sporting events on calshy,
and CALSHI has insider trading rules, quite strict insider trading rules,
(20:20):
so you can't trade if you have material on public
information or if you can influence the outcome of the event.
Polymarkets rules are less clear, and I imagine that when
polymarket is available in the US, it will look more
like real commodities exchanges, which don't say you can't trade
(20:41):
on material on public information, because that's not how commodities
markets work. I quoted Carolyn fam who's the acting Commissioner
at the CFTC. You talked about the special characteristics of
the derivative markets, where end users necessarily trade on the
basis of their own proprietary information in order to hedge
their risks. You're an oil company trading oil futures. You
(21:02):
know something about oil production that other people don't know,
and you're totally allowed to trade it. So in US
regulated commodities markets, you're not allowed to trade with misappropriated information.
So if you work at an oil company and you
trade for your personal account based on the oil companies
production plans, that's probably insider trading. That's probably not allowed
(21:23):
because you're misappropriating that information. You have some duty to
keep that confidential, right, But like the oil company itself
can trade commodities, And if you like, read that through
to election markets, which are not commodities, none of this
makes any sense in election markets, but you know they
are treated as commodities. If you read it through to
election markets, then it's like, well, if Eric Adams is
campaign manager place an insider bet, that would be bad
(21:46):
to be misappropriation for sure, eric Adoms does it himself.
Maybe it's fun. So I really don't know. I really
don't know what the sort of like future rules around
insider trading prediction markets will be, because like there are
a lot of people, include like Calshi and the people
who got Calshi to be a regulated US Torovators exchange,
there are a lot of people who are like, that's
(22:07):
icky and unfair, and we do not want to have
the trouble that would come with allowing insider trading, right,
but there are a lot of people who are, like,
the whole point of prediction markets is insider trading. The
whole point of prediction markets is to get accurate predictions
by like incentivizing insiders to bet on stuff they know.
Like that's like when economists set up prediction markets, right,
that's the whole point. Yeah, And so Kelshi has spent
(22:29):
years trying to become a regulated exchange, and like wanted
to appeal to conservative regulators. We don't live at a
time where people are that conservative insider trading anymore. So
I think I don't really know what's gonna happen.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
You could build a case that Eric Adams did listen
to Bill Ackman, which I find tickling about this story.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
He hasn't dropped out yet, right, he.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
Hasn't dropped out yet.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
But this is Thursday, und Yes, on September fifth, Eric
Adams had a press conference I believe that was Friday.
He said that he's staying in New York City's mayoral race.
He also said that Andrew Cuomo is a snake and
a liar. That's a direct quote. So on Friday of
last week, he was very committed to staying In September
(23:13):
six is when we got the Bill Lackman tweet, which
was awesome. And then today, on Thursday, the eleventh of September,
Bloomberg News reported that New York City Mayor Eric Adams
did tell a group of civic and business leaders that
he's conducting his own polling to decide the future of
his re election campaign. This is according to people who
attended the meeting. So he's at least thinking about it.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
He's still making money. Like that's like, I just love
the tell the political matter. Billman would like him drop
out the financial matter, believans like you can make a
lot of money by dropping in. I don't think it's true,
but it would be funny if it was true.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
Maybe he's thinking about it. Who knows, I'm not.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
You know you're buying enter Cromo contracts.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
I'm certainly not. I don't know if we can man
step away from the mic first.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
No, as I said, I don't think there's a lot
of money to be made at it, and there's a
lot of unpleasantness, right, But maybe it's like the market
is discounting this right, Like, yeah, the market is aware
of Bill.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
Ackrans streets like that's true.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
Is like three percent?
Speaker 3 (24:14):
Right?
Speaker 1 (24:14):
I wonder if Coma's chances would go have that much
if Adams chopped out, But I don't know.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
We'll say I was going to say, we've still got
a long way to go, but there's not that much
longer time marchers still on.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
All right, Well we've collectively sighed, So I think I
think that's the end.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
That's the final side. Yeah, And that was the Money
Stuff Podcast.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
I'm Matt Levine and I'm Katie Greifeld.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
You can find my work by subscribing to the Money
Stuff newsletter on Bloomberg dot com.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
And you can find me on Bloomberg TV every day
on the Clothes between three and five pm Eastern.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
We'd love to hear from you. You can send an
email to your money Pop at Bloomberg dot net, ask
us a question and we might answer it on the air.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
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.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
The Money Stuff Podcast is produced by Anna Maserakas and
Roses Honda.
Speaker 3 (25:09):
Our theme music was composed by Blake Maples.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
Amy Keen is our executive producer.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
And Sage Bauman is Bloomberg's head of podcasts.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
Thanks for listening to the Money Stuff podcast. We'll be
back next to week with more stuff
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.